As children, the majority of us who are 20 years or more in age right now, imbibed most of our school learning though traditional methods and means. Our teachers wrote on black / white / green boards and with that came sheaves of handwritten notes, printed notes and loads of books.
This model of education served us quite well and we are absolutely at ease with computers which we use for our work. This is also a model which is the most cost effective one for developing countries and wastes the least number of resources.
The logic the ‘$100 Laptop program’ or ‘The One Laptop per Child association’ (OLPC) follows is completely contrary to this. They feel that for every child — learning can only be complete through computers. And since a portable computers is a Laptop, by extension through a Laptop only. Therefore, they set out on a mission to manufacture a laptop which would cost $100 in all.
They are a non-profit organization and are funded by several major IT companies in the US and as famously declared by Nicolas Negroponte, the chairman, ‘’It’s an education project, not a laptop project.’’
The laptops that they produced were never sold for $100. They are sold for around $188 each. There were many hiccups along the way. The organization did not receive as many orders for the cheap laptops as originally projected and many who did place orders never received their laptops.
Now in a bid to attract more buyers for the green and white ‘’XO’’ as these laptops are called, the OLPC has teamed up with the monolithic Microsoft so that these computers can be loaded with the Windows operating system and so push up the cost of the laptop by $18 to $20 more.
Its an uneasy technological marriage to say the least and seems to dilute many of the key features of the original ‘’XO’’. It is a move aimed at attracting more buyers who are familiar with the MS label and so feel safer with the Windows OS and also to take advantage of Microsoft’s crushing hold on the world of computing. It’s like David making peace with Goliath and going out for a ride on his shoulders.
The focus here does not seem to be learning at all, but to sell as many laptops as possible. How does that fit in with the ideals once espoused by this ‘’non-profit’’ organization?
Providing some sanity in this discussion is John Wood, founder of ‘Room to Read’, as mentioned above he says that scalability and affordability should be emphasized over high-tech solutions. That a library for example, is more cost effective and has a wider reach and will educate more children than the number of laptops which cost as much.

** ( Image: Wikipedia)

**(All quotes have been taken from the website of the makers of the R4)

The world has suddenly been taken unawares by a food crisis. On a local level we are all witness to rising inflation levels where food prices have shot up. Family budgets are being stretched and in certain parts of the world there are food riots taking place.

One of the most basic necessities of life is food. There has always been speculation that one day the earth will run out of food. That the growth in population will outstrip the maximum capability that earth has, to produce food. That is a possibility some day in the future, but today is not that day.

There are many causes to the current crisis being faced. Some are man-made and some are natural:

The rain fall was not adequate last year and so less food was produced in many parts of the world. There is widespread hoarding of food, which spins the price cycle even further. There is enormous wastage of food as well all around the world, especially in the more prosperous parts where there was food a-plenty a short time ago. Entangled with all these factors is also the Bio-Fuel phenomenon.

Valuable resources of land and edible crops e.g: maize are being diverted to produce Bio-fuels. This has fuelled the food crisis further. Solutions to this crisis are being tossed around, there are debates. However these debates are largely esoteric in nature. Little of a practical nature is being done to make sure that conditions on the ground improve.

There are human lives at stake here. Policies and also human behavior has to change rapidly to be able to contain the crisis.

First, the entire Bio-fuel strategy has to be re-thought. Bio-fuels have to be devised, not the edible parts but from plant waste material or the by-products or the inedible parts. In this way the farmer will be able to realize that much more profit. We need technology that focuses on reusing and recycling resources.

As agricultural land is increasingly being diverted either for industrial purposes or for bio-fuel, there have to be studies on this and there should be data that lets us know exactly how much arable land is necessary for sustainability.

Where there is arable land sometimes, farmers cannot farm their lands due to the prohibitive costs of fertilizer. In these cases they should be encouraged to switch to organic farming or natural farming, where something as cheap and easily available cow-dung can be used as excellent fertilizer.

This would be better for the farmer, better for the land, for the aquifers and also for the end consumer of the products if harmful chemical fertilizers and pesticides were not used in food. New healthy ways of farming that actually hark back to age old natural techniques have to be introduced to back ward areas. This is the only way to ensure that plenty of healthy food is produced in a sustainable eco-friendly way for years to come.

Food is the base on which existence rests. It’s time we all looked at the basis of food production more seriously. to safe guard our future.