Dear Marc,
I loved many of your quotes (we both stole them from the same authors :-) ), e.g. "The future is where we are going to spend the rest of our lives." You even included ideas that I had to cut (e.g. explain why negative predictions are so popular) because I was busy specifying Three Crucial Technologies in my essay.
> "we need a worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative."
I agree with you 100% that education is vitally important, and the future has always been in the hands of educators. Unfortunately, other than a few subgroups (some Asian and European immigrants to the United States, especially Ashkenazi Jews), people don't value education as much as is good for them. And as I wrote elsewhere, there are some problems with education.
First, education does not always convey correct ideas. Many Nazis learned their eugenics at University of California, Berkeley. Even worse, it is often difficult to determine which novel ideas will lead to disaster.
Second, some people do not want to be educated at all; others just are not interested in being educated in virtues or wisdom, or future studies --i.e anything that may require them to make a change in the way they live (because change is painful, plus change is a reminder of impending death). Future Studies has been taught at universities for decades, and on-line courses are available (e.g. http://www.csudh.edu/global_options/introfs.html).
Third, learning about complex knowledge is often difficult. It's so much easier to zone out in front of the TV, or play video games on the Xbox, or watch YouTube videos.
We need help to solve these three problems. Hopefully the Descriptive Logics of the Semantic Web will help with the first problem somewhat (and some systems are available now), but we need to take the next step, if it is possible--we need smart AI that we can trust to help with our weak willpower. In any case, we need to diversify off this planet--we simply can't afford to put all our eggs into one basket.
> "We also need to foster a balanced and constructive attitude toward the future: we must counter the arguments of the fatalistic pessimists who exaggerate the problems we face, but also of the techno-optimists who believe that future technologies will save us no matter how careless we are."
How can we balance the two correctly? This is much more difficult than it looks. For example, Steve Jobs was humorously reputed to carry around a portable reality distortion generator. It is very important to understand reality as it is (i.e. have your feet on the ground), but I wager that it is even more important to have visions of what can be (ie. have your head in the clouds). If you can connect the two (as Jobs did), then you can make a difference. Your thirteen item in Table 1 addressed the issue, but you didn't really solve the problem. Just to take one example (with huge consequences), how can we tell if Eric Drexler's view of nanotechnology is accurate? There are many intelligent people on both sides of the issue. Similarly with the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence.
What do you teach in such situations? As you pointed out, we should teach the debate (if you ask me, Drexler and his associates adequately answered all of Smalley's criticism). But that still doesn't tell us what to do in public policy.
Your description of the "deficit of meaning" is *wonderful* and vitally important. Dr. O'Neill stumbled on the idea of Space Colonies while trying to answer that question, and I ask it of all my students whenever I teach.
I loved your quote from Einstein: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious: it is the source of all true art and science." But I think that it means that we need more than just 21st century skills like critical thinking and Internet collaboration; it means having the correct 21st century attitude--realistic optimism and a willingness to work smart to make it happen.
-Tee