Connective Soul

“Connectivity is like good health; once you are healthy, you can pursue education.” (Quadir, I. & Negroponte. (2009). Phone vs. Laptop. Innovations, 4 (1), 25-31). 

This is the mindset behind one-to-one computing supporters (as expressed by Quadir of Grameenphone).  The priority of developing countries, in their opinion, should be to pursue one hundred percent connectedness for their populations.  They seem to believe that connectivity should come even before health, because it—in one sense—provides a new type of national health.

            This logic continues to be perpetuated in developing countries in Africa and South America, including Rwanda.  In Rwanda, one in five children die before the age of five from malnutrition, malaria, or HIV/AIDS.  Yet Rwanda spent 20 million dollars to order over one hundred thousand laptops from Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child Program.  The question remains whether or not this is a responsible spending philosophy (especially when almost 70% of the government’s budget comes from international aid).  But the fact is, that many countries are buying laptops for their children before they can feed their populations.  This shows better than anything that healthy internet connections are seen as just as important as actual health. 

Why do these countries feel this way?  The primary sentiment seems to be that these countries are currently disadvantaged by their lack of technology.  Spending on mosquito nets to prevent malaria and food to temporarily spell hunger may be short term gains, but only a drastic technological overhaul of the economy will lead to prolonged growth.  This goes back to the old adage, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish ; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”

Or the new adage: give a man a computer
and he will be so busy on Facebook that he will forget he needs to eat.

The idea of the promise of connectivity for educating and developing the population can be seen outside of just one-to-one computing initiatives.  For example, MIT Scientists have been working on creating and distributing low-cost FabFI (wifi) nodes in Afghanistan, to allow for cheap and widespread internet connections for the people in certain Afghani cities.  This project is supplementing the OLPC programs that have already come about in Afghanistan.  Cheap computers alone are not enough to promote connectivity.  The computers need readily available points of connection, and MIT along with its grant from the National Science Foundation are helping to do this.

The country of India is taking its own route to increase the ease and decrease the cost of connectivity.  The Indian government  recently came out with a $35 dollar tablet.  This product was developed after the Indian government and bureaucracy decided to forego the One Laptop Per Child plan.  Instead of paying over 100 dollars per computer, India found a way to make computing possible even cheaper.  In this way striving for connectivity has led to technological advances, and perhaps growth in new industries in India.  However, these tablets are primarily being marketed to college students, leaving behind the poor people who often have the most to gain from increased connectivity and one-to-one computing.

India's $35 tablet threatens to turn the tides of the Angry Birds market.

One Laptop Per Child and $35 tablets share one primary quality.  They serve as good publicity.  All three of these stories can serve as examples to the public that their government has their best interest in mind.  But what is popular politically does not always lead to what is best practically for a population.  Less glamorous investments need to be made to insure that implementation of ICTs is not just a “drive-by” technique as some have accused Negroponte of following.  In fact, this story (linked at word "drive-by") shows that the intensity of computer use in schools with OLPC diminishes as implementation difficulties arise over time.  The FabFi program is a good example of technology, not only being introduced, but made viable and practical for the long term.  More programs like this, which promote cost effective research and development (as opposed to just cost effective hardware introduction) should allow for technology to best be implemented in order to support other necessary development programs (such as health care).  We must remember that connective health can supplement “real health” but if one out of five youths are dying before they ever start school and get their first laptop, does it really matter?