On the other hand, I have the feeling that the OLPC has some limitations that will keep in the hands of children and out of the hands of corrupt officials, where a normal laptop would make an excellent gift to a supporter.

2. Hoagy -

Ok, I’ll bite. From now on, the ex-First World is the Pollution-Free World and the ex-Third World is the Smoggy world.

Oh, that doesn’t work? The whole world is suffering fairly uniformly from the effects of pollution, including global climate? My mistake.

Economics is still the best way to divide up the world. In this case, First and Third World are still meaningful (if not academically ideal), especially in the context of a newspaper article where scientifically precise terminology is less important than basic communication.

Also, Hoagy: you raise an excellent point. Whenever I use the term I find myself despairing, just a little. After all, so many people in the “third world” are just as badly off now as they were fifty years ago. I’d be curious to know what you think will be “more germane to the 21st century than economics,” however. Most of the substitutes I can think of (i.e. “developing world”) have something to do with economics, and the imbalance of wealth is still the prime distinguishing feature between the post-industrial nations and the rest.

“…primary school children in the third world.”

It used to be that the “first world” was the Western, capitalist countries, the “second world” was the Communist, planned economy countries and the “third world” was the “developing” countries (everyone else). This was not a very useful concept fifty years ago but, now that there is no longer a “second world,” how can a “third world” continue to exist?

Perhaps there is be a better, more up-to-date, way to refer to most of the world’s people as a group. Perhaps this new term could be based on something more germane to the 21st century than economics… say, for example, ecological issues. Suggestions?