The Boston Review’s recent forum on the question of Can Technology End Poverty? was excellent, mainly because it enabled us to see who actually has some decent cards to play and who’s bluffing. The shortcoming of these pro-con discussions is that they reduce complicated debates to shouting matches, but we all need a good shout sometimes.
There’s no question that technology has played a critical role in reducing poverty throughout history, in the form of tools that have made it possible for people to raise themselves out of poverty. We might even go so far as to say that only technology makes it possible to reduce poverty, if we recognise that “technology” describes much more than ICT.
Writing is a technology, the wheel is a technology, free markets are a technology, elections are a technology, and all have played a role in the project of human development. While technology is critical to alleviating poverty, however, it’s proven almost impossible to predict whether or how a particular technology will do so.
Arguing the pros and cons of a particular technology will never resolve whether or not that technology will help to end poverty; the real discussion is about whether the philosophy that guides the implementation can deliver on its promises to begin with, and the OLPC project is a good example of this.
While most public discussion, driven by media coverage, focuses on the low-cost open-source laptop the project has developed, the real technology behind OLPC is the constructivist philosophy that lies behind it and the real discussion is whether this approach will generate the learning outcomes that children in developing countries require.
The question of whether cheap laptops will deliver those outcomes is important – but secondary. The same is true of any technology: don’t be distracted by the shiny packaging, but instead look carefully at the philosophical underpinnings of the product and (especially) the provider of the technology. If the match isn’t good with your needs at the outset, it will never meet those needs.
Related posts:
So, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. How does one realistically, and reasonably objectively, assess the likelihood that constructivism will deliver the learning outcomes the developing world needs.
That seems like a path to just further philosophizing on the learning outcomes required.
My personal bias is strongly against constructivism in developing economies where I believe basic skills like literacy and numeracy and vocational skills are probably the learning outcomes with highest value (though one could argue the traditional method of vocational training–apprenticeship–can be constructivist). But I can easily anticipate Negroponte et. al. arguing that such a belief is in part what keeps developing countries at the bottom of the pyramid.
Pingback: Top 50 Volunteer/Activism Blogs - L I V A