I think programs like OLPC, etc. are great, in the right context, but the poorest schools in rural Africa aren’t the right context.

I am very, very much for education and I think getting kids into computers is great. I think education is the No. 1 way to get out of poverty, but computers at this stage? Not so much. As a computer-loving geek, that’s somewhat hard to admit, and I can see how people get caught up on the idea, but the fact is, you have to prioritize.

There are many basic needs that need to be met first. Once those needs are met and the schools have the means and the willingness, then you can give them a computer.

Is it an extremely valuable resource? Yes, definitely. Does it make for better educational opportunities? Yes, BUT the quality of a child’s education is far more greatly improved by doing things like making sure they have access to healthy food, clean water, and medical care, in a safe, loving environment.

We have evidence for that ourselves, when kids in OVAAT communities score above national averages.

Now, if you can give them an XO laptop in addition to putting food in their bellies, by all means. that’s certainly the ideal scenario. I love putting technology in the hands of children. If you have to pick one or the other, though, the choice seems obvious, particularly when you factor in the reality that computers simply aren’t going to have the same kind of impact in Africa that they’ve had here. The majority of computer users are content consumers, not content creators. Much of Africa is skipping the computer entirely and going straight to a mobile consumption model.

I can’t imagine these would be anything other than copper UIDs, given the costs, and while they are generally save, a lot of women have a harder time tolerating them.

Who is going to deal with the infections, the perforations, the ectopic pregnancies, the other complications, and even if all goes well, who is going to be around to safely remove them when it’s time to have them replaced?

While it may lessen the number of pregnancies, it doesn’t do anything to stop the transmission of HIV between sexual partners.

I’m not entirely certain of the facts on it, but I believe that with proper management, the chances of an HIV positive mother spreading the virus to her unborn child can be greatly minimized. It seems to me this education and medical treatment is where efforts should be concentrated in this regard.

If you start passing out IUDs like candy, you have fewer babies. If you instead work with HIV positive women to educate them and to help minimize the spread of the disease to their children, you end up with 1. fewer babies, as more women will abstain/use safe sex practices, and 2. a higher percentage of healthy babies.

Moreover, it sets a very scary, Orwellian-type precedent that just makes me feel uncomfortable.

No mother wants to spread HIV to her child. Given the option and education, any sane person would make the right decision there, without dangling a financial carrot in front of their nose. $40 is just a way to rush things along and not have to take the time and effort to do outreach and teaching. It makes life easier for the directors of the program, but it will entice women to jump into it unprepared and unaware of the risks.