RSS Feed The Lab

1:29 pm | 0 recommendations | 7 comments

Ethics: A Bad Day For American Altruism

| posted by Chris Dannen

This week, the One Laptop Per Child project, whose mission is to provide basic PCs for students in developing countries, announced a sad incentive for donations: if you donate $400 to the project, they'll send one laptop overseas to a nation like Cambodia or Rwanda, and they'll send one laptop to you.

If you haven't heard about the "XO" laptops, as they're called, you can read about their features in detail here or check out what they look like here. They were designed by creative maven Yves Béhar to be ultra-durable, energy efficient, and refreshingly basic; with tiny 7.5-inch screens, diminutive memory, and wireless functionality, they boast the ability to link to each other and allow kids to participate in network activities. Indeed, this is their biggest selling point, besides their ability to function on hand-cranked power in off-the-grid regions. All this sounds great for third-world kids who otherwise would never have the experience of using a computer. The question is: why do I need one?

I don't. No one in North America does. We don't need hand-cranked laptops; power is thankfully ubiquitous. There's more processing power inside an iPhone than in this thing; even our most out-dated school computers are light-years ahead in technological terms. Not to mention that their intended use is as network terminals, so even giving your solitary XO laptop to your kid isn't too useful. So why is this donate-one, get-one incentive a viable proposition? Because the computers are cutesy, and because Americans might want to play with one.

If you think about what that means for the state of our national generosity, it's pretty disappointing. What we're talking about isn't a token gift -- "thanks for donating" -- it's a blatant waste of the very resource that it's trying to democratize. I don't entirely blame this on the project directors (as they wouldn't have offered the incentive if it wasn't going to benefit the project), but it's tempting to do so. More importantly, though, it's a little shameful to think that some donators might not be content to give money unless they can muck around with the little device first, and cavalierly let it rust in a closet after 15 minutes.

Regretfully, I am ambivalent about hoping this campaign will spark a ton of new donations; while it would send more computers overseas, it would also mean that Americans are committed to being wasteful even in their attempts to be altruistic. I'd rather think that anyone amenable to the idea of donating has already, or would despite the incentive.

Comment

Recent Comments | 7 Total

September 24, 2007 at 8:17pm

Chris Dannen

Right, Luke. There is no discount, but discounts aren't quite the point. These aren't usually available for retail purchase, they're just for donation purposes. This offer allows potential donators to get an XO laptop just to play with it.

Unfortunately, the people who will be receiving them in the US (that is, people who donate) are not the same people who need the computers (that is, the underprivileged). And while it would be nice to imagine that all who receive one domestically will give it to a school, most probably won't get around to it, or the school won't want them (they're really only useful when there are lots of them).

Hopefully, the XO's that do go out to American consumers will be put to good use, as in the orphanage example you make, but it seems unlikely.

September 24, 2007 at 9:52pm

Luke Gedeon

I mentioned the price because the article made it sound almost as if greedy Americans forced OLPC to offer a major incentive to get people to give. The way it stands you can still give as many laptops as you want to and get nothing in return, but you can also choose to buy one for yourself or for a child who needs it.

If it cost OLPC anything to sell the laptops then that would reduce the value of the donation and there might be room for criticism, but this is actually a creative way to increase giving.

I do not see any reason to criticize OLPC or greedy Americans for this method of selling the machines. Doing this probably even helps them produce at a higher volume further reducing cost.

September 24, 2007 at 10:46pm

Eric Gruber

From my experience, I believe that OLPC is actually to blame for the shortfall.

After seeing a segment on 60 Minutes about OLPC a few months ago, I went to their web site to donate. But guess what? There wasn't any way to donate. I wonder how many others did the same thing?

When I e-mailed the foundation, I got a lengthy form letter from them with a bunch of FAQs. In fact, I just pulled up that old e-mail (from June), and found that they did mention in the e-mail that I could make a donation by mailing OLPC with my donation. Sadly, this information was at the bottom of the e-mail and I didn't even see it until now.

I now see on laptop.org they have a way for people to donate using Google Checkout. But their failure to capitalize on HUGE media exposure when 60 Minutes aired their piece was a big mistake.

Apparently they hadn't heard of PayPal or Google Checkout when that segment aired, and now the moment is gone. They missed out on a huge opportunity to gather some donations, all because they didn't have anything available for those willing to donate online.

September 25, 2007 at 12:47am

Meg H.

I couldn't find any bios on Chris Dannen, but I find it hard to believe anyone is this naive about how charities work in the US. Buy our sierra club backpack, get a pen for advertising on NPR, that kind of thing. Sure the scale here is a little bigger, but its all about being able to show off how charitable you are. LOL.

American's don't seem to mind dropping that much money for an iphone & when the battery on that iphone stops working, it will just sit in the closet.

And Fast Company, how about some bios on your blog authors eh?

September 25, 2007 at 11:31am

Daniel

There should also be some consideration made to further exposure for the program. Having touched and played with the computer is also more of a conversation piece than the simple act of donation. Also, the computers are very distinctive and people in the US who have one may be asked about them and talk about the program with others. It may be that the word of mouth value for this program is higher than for the kind of program suggested by Chris Dannen.

That this post is tagged "ethics" makes me wonder how ethical it is to write a hit-piece about charitable organizations.

September 25, 2007 at 2:36pm

Barbara

One could always donate one's laptop after playing with it "after 15 minutes".

If the author is truly concerned about the ethics of overconsumption/overpurchasing then there are many other areas to be addressed as well, and one would have thought addressed first.

For instance, how about a story about obsolescence being designed into products?

September 26, 2007 at 6:35am

Jamie

I think you miss the point entirely. The OLPC plan of selling only to governments was simply not getting laptops in kids' hands fast enough. I applaud the OLPC leadership for their willingness to think of new strategies to speed up rollout, while at the same time greatly increasing the possible pool of amateur developers for XO software and curriculum!

Comment