Hi Satish and all, On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 21:01 -0500, Satish Jha wrote: > I do not where we are headed with such questioning and debate.. > I believe if we are trying to cook rice, let us not talk about lentils.. > > The issue here is making computing more affordable for the poor.. > If someone wants to raise a question about whether computing in general does > any good without a perspective is agreed on what do we do with it.. may be > its too late in the day to take that view..
Well, I wasn't aware that in this forum ICT is considered an absolute good whose value must not be questioned. Is that the case? We also must know what we wish to achieve before we design a technology to help us achieve it. To start with a de facto technology and then try to find uses for it, is surely putting the cart before the horse. And to spend $500 million on something that isn't even known and proven to solve a well-specified problem seems foolhardy. Where are the pilot projects, the field studies, the field trials? And there is no sense in trying to train everyone in the developing world in the use of ICTs. Not everyone in the developed world uses them. Certainly not everyone in the developing world will need to. Although ideally, given infinite resources, it would undoubtedly be nice to give everyone equal levels of training worldwide, I like to think that I live in the real world and know (and learn) how to make best use of the scarce resources available. If it cost $500 million to give a calculator to every child on Earth, and $500 million to give them all clean water or basic nutrition or medicine, where does one start? How does one make difficult choices like that? Are there models for things like economic improvement, poverty reduction, quality of life improvement, reduced healthcare costs, etc? I ask this NOT because I want to rubbish ICT for development. Far from it, it's my day job and I love it. But I want to know at what point in the Maslow hierarchy of needs ICTs enter the picture, and what kind of ICTs those are. This is so that we who have chosen ICT4D can better focus our efforts on those communities and locations where it is most likely to do good, rather than advocating pipedreams like one calculator per child. > Much like twenty years ago trying to look at the policy issue about > supplying water to a population where someone found data that the > water quality will lead to a likely incidence of cancer at the rate of > two for a population of million over a decade and someone said let us > give them Perrier.. And that settled the matter.. I'm NOT saying that we should not give them computers because it will harm them. I disagree with those who say we should not do this because of the increased risk of RSI, or myopia, or waste from the computers - these are just engineering challenges which need to be solved. BUT I say that that we should not give them computers IF we could give them something else that would help them more, for the same cost. > In case anyone would like all the questions answered before they take the > first step, good luck to them.. But then they should not speak on behalf of > others.. Did I speak on behalf of others? When and where? If so then I am sorry and I take it back. > Computeracy has for whatever reasons become as important as literacy > has been and if we need to discuss that, thats another conversation.. If you have evidence to back up that assertion then I would be delighted to discuss it. > Simputer is not even really a product from the definition of a product... What is your definition? Mine is that I can go to a shop, give somebody some money, and I will get a working device in return in reasonable time (no more than a week). That appears to be true of the Simputer, but not of the $100 laptop. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Paraphrasing Twain-- it may look like a product, feel like a product but > don't be fooled.. it may even become a product.. But not just as yet.. Surely you jest? Twain was talking about the $100 laptop, not the Simputer. > I am amazed at the theology of Simputer.. What theology? > I have never said one thing against Simputer save that India does not > know how to create a product just as yet.. But, in other emails you wrote: > Simputer has sold less than 10,000 in 5 years and most of its is > pushed on to the government. > > Ordinary people do not buy it, cannot buy it. > > And if it were that good in reality as it sounds on power point > presentation, won;t the world have lapped it up by now. > > There are cheaper, better, more convenient options available or must > be available to the people for them not to try simputer.. > > If there is one idea that is embraced with passion without facts > backing it up, it is simputer. > > It is not really what market will accept as a product, its a great > contribution.. Like something you romance with.. > > I see nothing else that got so hyped in the past few years for what it > has to offer. > > Simputer is one of the most hyped contraptions anywhere Are these all compliments to the Simputer? > No matter where the money comes from, from the perspective of investible > funds, it has the same effect.. The effect on the invested is the same, but not the opportunity cost, because funds have different purposes so different projects lose out. > As long as a government officer does not decide on where funds must > go, there is some hope that the risks may not exceed market risks.. But many projects are trying to get government officers to decide on where the peoples' money is to be invested; and who else has $100 million to spend on laptops for children? > As long as any idea is backed by the global market, its risks are > understandable.. I would rather have ten experiments trying to create > a $100 laptop and let there be competition Exactly, and I agree that such endeavours should be done in the free market. Otherwise they are not self-sustaining and unlikely to be sustainable, and much more likely to fail dramatically, or simply become inefficient and waste large quantities of money. But this is not what MIT is proposing, as far as I can tell. Approach a government and get their buy-in for $100 million, and there won't be any competition. The government has too much momentum to change course, they have inked a contract with you, and how can private industry in the country compete with the free laptops? > To create it for 500 million usd is chicken feed when we want to plan > for computeracy of 4 billion people.. But it will only pay for, at most, the green laptopery of 5 million. By my calculations, it's quite an expensive way (per person) to achieve ICT literacy. > The world income is close to $100 billion per day.. It can plan to > spend $3 billion a day most of which is spent by the rich economies.. It could.......... but it won't. Witness the G8 summit in Gleneagles this year. > Half a billion for a year for the poor economies does not even > show up as a bubble.. I guess someone is ready to bite me for this one.. But > can we have a sense of proportions please??? Sorry, I'm all out of stock, but you could try those nice folks at MIT. > I want to know which of the projects of ICT4D has produced an ROI comparable > to average market returns?? Please do list them. and on another thread.. Yes, I would like to know as well. And also which ICT4D project has had ANY ROI at all. Grameen Phone is the only possible candidate I can think of. My opinions are of course my own and nothing to do with my employers. Cheers, Chris. -- (aidworld) chris wilson | chief engineer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
