A question I have been struggling with: What is the cumulative effect of low-income countries absorbing foreign tech under political pressure? If the World Bank or another actor has limited money to achieve various development goals, then making recipient countries more receptive to US and EU technologies and social practices may be a cost-effective way to go. (Obviously, I am sacrificing nuance in favor of simplicity here.) But is this really the kind of world we want to live in? Do we want to live in a world where everyone is made to live more alike just because particular strong markets in particular contexts have favored some technologies over others? The World Bank actively tries to make low-income countries more able to "absorb" (to use their language) those favored technologies. Is there an ethical or cultural problem here?
In defense of OLPC, Nicholas Negroponte (in a conversation with Charlie Rose) argued by analogy: Because people around the world have accepted the internet, they ought to accept the XO. But why did people accept the internet? Was it because they really wanted to, or because it was implicitly demanded of them? I would love to read your thoughts on responsible technology diffusion, or whatever else you have been thinking about.

Something on futures literacy and public education?

A rehash of some stuff from the 21st century ideas blog, for those who missed Superstruct?

Don't worry about it; maintaining a blog can be a grind.