The future of WHF

The bad news is that I lost momentum over time and wrote very little near the end of the 60 days. It's hard to maintain yet another blog while juggling everything else including my original blog.

The good news is that I received some very positive feedback and enjoyed writing outside the box sorts of posts. Readers encouraged me to continue writing.

Where does that leave Western Hemisphere Futures?

I have to suspend this blog for now. I have too much going on over the next few weeks to pretend I can continue at the rate that I'd like to. That said, I hope to relaunch at some point in the future. 

I created a Western Hemisphere Futures Page on Google+. The goal is to talk about future issues like those discussed on this blog and share articles. It may take off or it may sit in silence. Part of that depends on me and part of it depends on the community of those interested in the topic.

Thanks to everyone for reading over the last 60 days and for all the feedback.

Abundance vs Scarcity

Much of what's been written on this blog over the past 60 days has dealt with two visions of the future. In one, there is abundance with new sources of energy, food and clean water. In the other, there is scarcity creating competition for a dwindling supply of resources. 

The abundance vs scarcity question is a fairly common issue when looking at future scenarios and many others have written on it. What I would like to stress is that the hemisphere shouldn't view either vision as being imposed on it by some outside force. It should be investing in science, technology and education to try to build that future of abundance. It should be looking at government policies and private sector investments that can help eliminate problems of scarcity. We should plan for the worse of the two scenarios. I wouldn't want to avoid planning for potential scarcity in the future. But we should be working and investing to build the better of the two, because if we have a choice, it's certainly the better future to live in.

Nanotech diplomacy

The building blocks for cooperation between the US and Latin America on nanotechnology are being put in place.

From the US-Brazil meeting fact sheets:

Representatives from the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation; Brazilian National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology; and the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative met on March 30, 2012, to discuss national strategies, research programs, and shared access to user facilities. Significant opportunities for collaboration, including undergraduate and graduate student exchanges, were identified between the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers and the Brazilian Nanotechnology Centers. The two countries have launched workshops on Converging Technologies, with the first held in São Paulo in October 2011 and a second to be held in Arlington, Virginia, in June 2012. 

Also, the recent North American leaders meeting promised "aligning principles of our regulatory approaches to nanomaterials."

The US appears to be positioning itself on this issue before most people even notice the discussion is occurring.

Water sanitation innovation

WashPost:

Last year, Ugarte’s team partnered with Alfredo Zolezzi, Chief Innovation Officer of Chile Advanced Innovation Center, to test a revolutionary pint-sized Plasma Water Sanitation System that his company was developing. This can purify 35 liters of water in five minutes using only the power required to light a 100 watt bulb. If the system can be mass produced for less than $100, as Zolezzi believes, and the output passes the lab tests to which it is being subjected, it has the potential to provide clean, safe water to billions in the developing world. 

There are several projects similar to this being tested right now around the world. Once cheap enough, they have the potential to be a game changing technology to help improve the health of people around the hemisphere.

Teachers need to adapt to computers

The Economist reports on the apparent failure of One Laptop Per Child in Peru, not the first media outlet to notice the problem. In spite of a large investment in laptops, children's test scores have not improved, nor have other measures like attendance and participation.

The article says that Peru has failed to invest in educating teachers and improving curriculum to best utilize the new technologies. It makes some sense.

I don't believe children have not gotten any benefits from the new laptops. There must be some advantages to kids having these new tools and learning how to use them. But if the basic reading and math scores are not improving, there is only so far they can go.

Decentralize access to robots

This very cool project from MIT will allow for customized robots to be designed and printed within a matter of hours. With designs and raw materials, Latin American citizens (and governments, companies, NGOs, criminals) will have access to robotics technology without the need for large local factories or importation of finished products.

Build some batteries

Well over a majority of the world's known lithium reserves are in South America, centered in Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. If the future of batteries is lithium, then those countries are sitting on a big pile of money. If the future of batteries goes in another direction, then few are going to invest in the process of extracting it and it's going to get a low price.

Understanding the lithium extraction can be a difficult and expensive process, it's still disappointing that none of these countries has decided to build the battery technology on their own. Waiting for outside firms to enter the market simply continues the cycle of dependency that exists in much of the region. This is a rare opportunity to build an industry in the region that uses local resources to manufacture a well developed product to world markets.

Bolivia has tried to find a middle route, insisting that any outside firm investing in local lithium must build a battery plant in the country and transfer the technological knowledge. It's a reasonable condition, but it's still waiting on someone else to help.

Take the risk, spend government R&D funds, build some batteries, create the domestic industry now rather than wait on some other country or corporation to come create it and profit from it. Outside firms should be allowed to invest in the industry, but waiting on them to do so shows a lack of initiative.

Let's be honest, the first batteries are likely to be bad. It's unlikely Chile or Argentina or Bolivia is going to match current technology in their first attempt. It's going to take years of developing the science and technology skills to bring the batteries to a level that they can be exported. However, it will be a worthwhile process to create the skills in the country. The risk is that the country will lose financially if they cannot pull it off. The potential gains are quite high if they do manage it.