[geeks] OLPCs for sale...

[Dan Sikorski]

der Mouse wrote:
>>> [OLPC is] yet another form of "our way is Teh Best, so we'll export
>>> it to the world willy-nilly to Help those Poor Downtrodden
>>> Improverished".
>>>       
>> So, in that case do you think it's best to leave them alone and not
>> try to help at all?
>>     
>
> If you can't do it in any better than this bull-in-a-china-shop-y way,
> yes, I think it would be better to stay hands-off.
>
> I have mixed feelings about *all* foreign aid for these reasons.  I
> come down in favour of it in some cases (like MSF, which I actually go
> so far as to donate to), but I can't help seeing OLPC as well over into
> "better not done than done this way" territory.
>   
I guess i put it into a category of "not sure if this will work, but 
let's take a stab at it, and see what happens".
>> [...], but [OLPC] addresses an area that nobody else is addressing.
>>     
>
> True.  But I think it is an area that does not need addressing; if you
> had said "need" instead of "area" I would have reacted with something
> like "I sure don't see the need".
>   
And I chose that wording intentionally.  I can see OLPC being a "next 
step" to helping move things forward after the base needs (food, water, 
shelter, disease control, etc.) have been addressed.  Obviously if it 
was a "first step" it would be a "wrong step".
>> Additionally, it is likely not taking anything away from the efforts
>> to help with food, shelter, and clean water.
>>     
>
> Mmm.  You have a point.  I'm not sure you're right, but I'm not sure
> you're wrong, either.
>
>   
That's pretty much where I think the whole OLPC initiative is, although 
I'm being a little more optimistic and saying that it could be right, 
and likely isn't going to make matters any worse.
> I'm not sure it's doing them any favour to be forcefeeding them Our Way
> like this, even if it doesn't harm other efforts.  (Mmm, maybe
> "forcefeeding" is a bit strong....)  I'm not such a fan of Our Way as
> to think it's necessarily right for other peoples.  (Yes, we are
> successful, but that's for our own definition of "success", and it's
> one that a number of smart and wise people disagree with[%].  And even
> that aside, we have no way of telling whether we're "successful"
> because of things like this or in spite of them.)
>   
Well, once again, I'm being optimistic here, but I think this is more of 
an attempt to bring technology that has enabled a lot of progress in our 
country to developing countries to help encourage progress of their 
own.  We're not going in there and pushing our religion or government on 
them, just giving them tools to help encourage development.  In a couple 
of years, we will know if it was successful, or if it fell flat on it's 
face.

    -Dan