Capital - In his best-selling book, Thomas Friedman argues that The World is Flat, suggesting that a "convergence of technology and events have allowed India, China, and many other countries to become part of the global supply chain for services and manufacturing, creating an explosion of wealth in the middle classes of the world's two biggest nations and giving them a huge new stake in the success of globalization."

It wouldn't be very original for me to deconstruct Friedman's thesis [PDF] of support for laissez faire capitalism, as others have already done so well. I will say, however, that his pronouncement seems premature; though it appears the world is getting a bit flatter, and perhaps someday the world will be pretty much flat, we've still got a long way to go.

That said, we can't ignore the remarkably robust economic growth occurring in parts of the world that were mostly left behind for the last two centuries. More countries, more companies, and more people are getting access to capital than ever before. And we should note that this is not simply a zero-sum redistribution of wealth, but a result of overall growth in the size of the world economy.

Knowledge - This is a combination of access to education and access to the Internet. As whole countries are lifted out of poverty and as a large middle class is created, we find vastly more people around the world gaining access to knowledge. College educations are at their highest level ever, both in real numbers and as a percentage of the whole. China, for one, is turning out engineering and science PhD's in numbers never seen anywhere before. Broadband Internet penetration is higher in many developing nations than in established countries like the U.S., and peripheral access to global knowledge streams via mobile phone technology is growing at an exponential pace in the former "Third World."

What does this knowledge boom mean for future forecasters? Will an expanding, globally-aware, educated middle class be prepared to wield its newfound strength in the promotion of more equality and opportunity for all? We can hope so, but until the results are seen it's hard to be certain.

Regulation - So far, we've reviewed two significant developments that supporters of economic globalization likely would celebrate. But from the perspective of a "responsible civilization" that not only allows equal opportunity but also provides equal justice and supports fairness for all, is there need for some kind of global regulatory apparatus?

This is the question that often sends critics of CRN's work into a frenzy, since we have proposed a "tentative outline for the international administration" of molecular manufacturing. But, they cry, isn't that tantamount to world government? Maybe it is, and maybe it will prove to be necessary, given the twin risks of collapsing interdependence and access to systems for producing devastating weapons of mass destruction.

However, there could be a third way. Just as we've looked for a middle ground between the poles of relinquishment and resignation, perhaps we can find a form of effective regulation that is not "top-down" but that also is not essentially non-existent.

Consider a form of people-powered regulation as demonstrated at Wikipedia. Could it be that the growth and democratization of capital and the increase and democratization of knowledge will combine to enable the emergence of democratized global regulation that really works? Imagine a peer-based, values-driven system of rules, penalties, and incentives; it may not be likely, with all the inertia of big governments and big corporations going against it, but it's also not out of the question.

Violence - Of course, the wild card in all of this is a fourth trend we've often pointed to before: the democratization of violence. As wealth and knowledge increase, they combine to allow greater access to means of extreme violence. Aggressive projection of power is more available to more people than ever before.

Can this trend be contained, perhaps by a concerted imposition of people-powered regulation, or will it be so insidious and damaging that traditional top-down enforcement -- which historically is fraught with potential for abuse -- appears to be the only workable solution? Or, as an optimist might maintain, will the trends we've noted above toward political freedom, economic growth, educational attainment, and improved standards of living serve to blunt the desire for violence such that it eventually dwindles to insignificance?

You may say I'm a dreamer, and on most days I'd agree. But today for some reason I've got a glimmer of hope and optimism. What's your outlook?