$100 per child
Let me see if I understand this one.
Some guy in some think tank somewhere thinks that his reason for being is to design, manufacture and sell (to someone) and give away a $100 laptop for every child in undeveloped countries.
Because that’s what they need. More than clean water or adequate food. More than a malaria vaccine. More than AIDS medicine for their last surviving adult caregiver. They need a laptop. So they can access the internet and “learn.”
You know, I’m all about education. I think that America is going to pay big time in a few years for the decades of underfunding we’ve done to our own children. But before my kids are ready to learn, before they CAN learn, they have to have some other basic needs met first.
The story on the national news (I have forgotten which network. It doesn’t matter.) showed a video a girl in Uruguay made of a cow giving birth. And posted on the Internet. Fabulous. I’m sure she feels self actualized now that she has been able to post to YouTube. Will she also take the opportunity to take video of her siblings starving through the winter or suffering from a preventable childhood disease? I’m sure they’ll feel much better knowing they can keep informed of up-t0-the-minute status of Brittany’s underwear or any of the other useless crap that’s on the Internet (including but not limited to this blog.)
What really frosts me is the amount of air-time this gets under the dubious assumption that it’s “news.” It’s not news. It’s a commercial. Thousands (maybe millions!) of people clicked over to the network or googled the project after seeing the piece. Probably hundreds (maybe thousands!) decided to pony up the $400 to “get one/ give one” under the delusion that they were doing something good.
What if those hundreds (maybe thousands!) of people had surfed over and given $400 to World Hunger Appeal, or UNICEF?
What would the world look like if, instead of sending plastic minimized computers to every child, we made sure they had food, water and a malaria shot? I bet that could be done for $100. I know it could be done for $400.
Oh, I know. Some smarty pants will say something like, “$100 won’t feed them for more than a year (if that!)” and you’re right. But how long do you think they’ll get to use your fancy plastic toy if they aren’t fed?
“It’s for the children” says the head of the project. Bullsh*t. It’s for your pocketbook. At least if you’re going to continue to exploit children you could have the common decency to admit you’re doing it to make a buck.
And that is just my off the top of my head rant after seeing the one network story. Check this guy out. He’s got the numbers and logic to back up what a bone-headed project this is from a business perspective.
— — —
A year ago (or longer) on This Journey…
— — —
A year ago (or longer) on This Journey…
— — —
A year ago (or longer) on This Journey…
September 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
How bizarre. A lot of people don’t even have the electricity to use a computer.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
that sounds like the smart thing France did when they sent hundreds of tons of rice to feed Somalia. Instead of buying the rice produced by the country they depreciated the goods in the country and killed the local economy. The rice stayed in warehouses and went bad.
But it makes us feel better to give for free because we think we can buy our way into paradise. We need to know what the people need before we give. But such a market research would cost money so no one does the job correctly…