That's a false dilemma. It's like this argument: "Why is the government spending money on scientific research? Its most important job is to ensure people's s

That's a false dilemma. It's like this argument: "Why is the government spending money on scientific research? Its most important job is to ensure people's safety, and dollars are scarce! Therefore, the government should put all its efforts into preventing murders, drunk driving, etc., and there should be none left for luxuries like science." That's a false dilemma because, depending on the situation, it's possible that money spent on scientific research will improve people's welfare more than if that same money was spent on law enforcement. For example, scientific research generates advances in forensics, criminal psychology, and sociology, which can make law enforcement more effective, and also in medicine, energy, and other areas that can improve human life in fundamental ways. You're right that we're causing a lot of problems in the third world. For example, farm subsidies make it impossible for African farmers (who can produce some crops much more cheaply) to compete with American ones. So African farmers are locked out of the market and stay poor. It seems that ending farm subsidies is much more important than giving computers to kids. But do you realize how expensive it would be to end farm subsidies? There's an entrenched industry that will fight you every step of the way. It might be a better use of our time and effort to get computers into the hands of poor children. It's far cheaper, and it'll help those kids learn about the outside world, communicate more widely, and learn technical skills that enable a few of them to create huge amounts of wealth in the future.