Results: Cell Phones, 2.0/Laptops, 0.0

Posted Sat, 12/15/2007 - 06:47 by Aaron Barlow
When I visited Senegal last April, seeing West Africa for the first time in more than a decade, I was struck by two things. First, even in an area of the world where gum wrappers had once been saved and turned to other uses, the plastic bag was now both ubiquitous and worthless. There’s no value in stockpiling them for future use: they cover the roadsides. This sad fact made me despair for the future of humanity (and I’m not kidding). Second, cell phones were everywhere. Once again (as they had from bicycles to cassette players), Africans had seen a technology that they wanted—and weren’t letting poverty stand in the way of attaining it.

In an article recently republished by ePluribus Media, Bronwyn Hughes and I argue that the only way development assisted from the outside ever works is when the outsiders follow the lead of the locals. We wrote:

For a long time many people saw the developing world as an empty pit, pouring in skills, goods, and money to fill it. More and more, this pit appears bottomless, basic human conditions within it only worsening. Project benefits are not lasting. Little seems sustainable.
We shouldn’t have put that in the past tense, though those involved in on-the-ground development today do understand this (for the most part). The problem is that too many people sitting far away still believe they can solve the problems of the developing world through their superior thought, technology, and money.

In my recent book, Blogging America: The New Public Sphere, I write about Nicholas Negroponte’s No Laptop Left Behind project (well… let’s be fair: he calls it One Laptop Per Child) and about why it is no solution for the developing world. I quote Binyavanga Wainaina, writing in Bidoun, who says that the message of artifacts like Negroponte’s laptop to Africans is “you are fucked.” Negroponte fell into the classic trap of thinking he could find a solution for the problems of someone else—without consulting that someone else.

The embrasure of the cell phone by Africans is a leapfrogging of the laptop, anyway. They have seen the future much more clearly than Negroponte, and have made the right choice. Writing in today’s The New York Times, Tim O’Reilly points out what he (and I, and millions of Africans, among others) has known for some time:

In the future, the cellphone and similar wireless devices, not the personal computer, will be the primary interface to the cloud of information services that we now call the Internet.
Not only that, but it will be the primary technological device for the classroom (see my diary and presentation on the subject) quite soon, replacing the PC even there. The “smart” classroom, along with personal devices, makes for flexible possibility far beyond anything a room filled with PCs can offer. And this is true for Africa as much as for Atlanta.

Like the phone companies that O’Reilly writes about in his piece today, schools have to open their minds to a more expansive view of the cell phone and its possibilities. Instead of banning them completely, as the New York City public schools do, ways need to be found for bringing in the cell phone in a non-disruptive manner. We college professors need to do the same thing.

Thursday, I walked into my last class of the semester for one of my Composition I sections—my new iPod Touch in hand (I’m too cheap to pay the monthly fees for the full iPhone). One of my students stared at it and marveled:

“I never saw someone so elderly with something like that.”

I told him he’d better shut up, if he expected to pass the course.

Comments

I have some disagreement.

by luciansk - 12/15/2007 - 09:11
There are two options, the cellphone and the laptop. Which creates more jobs, more opportunity? I'd say the laptop. If I want to hire a team of African programmers to write software for me, how am I supposed to do this if they are all playing on their cellphones? Until telecommuting through a cellphone is possible, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the cellphone can compare to the laptop. Whether or not the one laptop per child project makes sense or not is another debate. I'm skeptical about that project, but not because the idea is bad, only because I think it's being done in a way which just isn't going to work. I think for the developing countries, technology is the only answer possible. How are we going to hire them if they aren't online? Hopefully you address these questions in your future posts.

Google, Anyone?

by Aaron Barlow - 12/15/2007 - 18:46
Cell phone technology is moving towards open source applications... but there is no reason cell phones need to be the vehicles for writing programs. Still, it is likely that people will be able to write code on their phones soon. Anyway, programming is a small part of what computers are used for, and will certainly be a smaller part of the next generations of phones do. My point is that the laptop will soon be seen as having extremely limited utility. The desktop PC will remain with us, probably at the heart of an extremely flexible platform for work and entertainment. But it will not be needed for education--and anyone who learns to use the cell phones of the future will find it simple to switch to the larger, more powerful stations. Negroponte is presenting a limited device for education. I see the evolving cell phone as a more flexible and useful device for the same purpose. Certainly, learning to use a cell phone will not keep anyone from learning to use other computing devices. In fact, as cell phones progress, it will only help.

Missed

by rba - 12/15/2007 - 09:12
something here. While I agree that imposing "solutions" from without is ineffective and sometimes harmful, I think you've aimed at the wrong target. Calling the device Negroponte, et. al., developed a "laptop" is about the same as calling the iPhone a "telephone". I suggest you might want to take a look at how the devices will actually be used by reviewing the specs, paying particular attention to the built-in mesh capabilities. Note too that while everyone in this country simply plugs in a charger, the kids using those "primitive" devices have no such requirement. [See: Potenco, Freeplay Foundation, and FreeplayEnergy]. In very real terms the devices exemplify the best in truly applied and appropriate technology.
1982: In a French government-sponsored pilot project, Papert and Negroponte distribute Apple II microcomputers to school children in a suburb of Dakar, Senegal. The experience confirms one of Papert's central assumptions: children in remote, rural, and poor regions of the world take to computers as easily and naturally as children anywhere. These results will be validated in subsequent deployments in several countries, including Pakistan, Thailand, and Colombia. [Vision - Timeline]
They've consulted with, researched, and coordinated with "someone else" for over twenty years. And now they are delivering. Can't say I've seen the same level of commitment from O'Reilly. aybe it's because the OLPC project has no need for "how-to" books. And that's because the unit can be programmed by the children who use them.

I think I understand what you are saying.

by luciansk - 12/15/2007 - 09:23
And what I'm saying is, how exactly do we expect people to do any type of serious work on a cellphone? The main reason for poverty in the developing world is energy inefficiency. If we efficiently use energy, it will allow for the development of communications technologies which would allow any individual to hire anyone anywhere at anytime. In general, the revolution has to take place in telecommuting software and communications technology. A cellphone is good and all, but how is a child going to learn to write code and program his or her cellphone? If you just give a child a laptop and internet access, they can learn C, they can learn C#, they can download a free OS like Linux, read all the source code, and learn to code themselves. Then they can go on to write open source software, get recognized for their programming skill, and be hired by people like us who want to start tech companies and who need hundreds of coders. Every child in the third world is a potential programmer, designer, webmaster, blogger, artist, etc. The technology would allow the people with money to find and hire them, making the market much more efficient and solving the poverty crisis in the process. And some of us are fair and wouldn't rip people off in developing countries, which means people in developing countries would be able to get rich and then pay taxes which could be used to build schools etc. At least thats how I see it. I could be wrong, I've never been there, but I don't see why we shouldn't at least attempt to bring as much technology as we can to the developing world and then let them learn to code and customize it. In fact, if we could just drop a box with a CPU in it and open source software, along with manuals and kits, I think even something as small as that would have a huge impact.

Careful!

by Aaron Barlow - 12/15/2007 - 18:55
You write, "The main reason for poverty in the developing world is energy inefficiency." This is patently untrue. Energy inefficiency compounds the problems of poverty, but did not cause it. Take a look at Walter Rodney's How the West Underdeveloped Africa. It's a Marxist approach but, once you get over the gobble-de-gook, it makes a good point about how the West siphoned off the valuable. Your last point was parodied as far back as 1962 by Philip K. Dick (I quote his passage in my book). It assumes that the people you are trying to help are like you. You are assuming, also, that the purpose of a computer is to teach people to write code. No. The computer is a tool for learning of many sorts. What you are saying is that the only reason to have a car is to get under the hood. You forget that it takes people places.

You Might Want to Read...

by Aaron Barlow - 12/15/2007 - 18:37
...the article in Bidoun linked in my diary. You'll learn something. For, I see from your comment, you know little about third-world development. "Consulting with, researching, and coordinating" of the sort you are suggesting as "good" generally do not allow for the people from the developing countries to take the lead--and lead they must, if any development project is going to work. Here's a suggestion: read Biko by Donald Woods. Steve Biko, the anti-apartheid activist, made quite clear why he wanted black-only organizations: the whites, used to leadership roles, took them in "mixed" organizations. The same happens in projects like Negroponte's... the impetus comes from the money and the power, not from the people. As to your suggestion that Negroponte's device is not a laptop, well, having seen its commercial manifestation, I think your claim is simplistic semantic nonsense.

You

by rba - 12/16/2007 - 14:02
assume much, especially given the first sentence of my comment: While I agree that imposing "solutions" from without is ineffective and sometimes harmful . . . As to your last sentence, no, not semantics. Specifications from the manufacturer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.