This is a great post.
I was just at a dinner discussion of philanthropy last night where people spent a lot of time theorizing about why people give. My contribution to the discussion was to offer the word "normative"--meaning that people are largely driven by their generational zeitgeist, not in the sense of following the herd in a sheeplike way (though there's some of that, certainly) but in the sense of breathing the same air and metabolizing it (in social terms) in the same way. Nathaniel's point here, as I read it, is that this zeitgeist has shifted in a very positive way, and in that shift is important information about 'why people give'--certainly about why the most important people give, meaning young people whose giving life will presumably extend over years and increased affluence.
This perspective suggests specific strategies. One such might be to worry less about widgets and tech solutions and worry more about human networks. I would argue that the people in these networks will come up with all the widgets and tech solutions needed; the key task, I think, is to inspire, support and celebrate the early adoptors, the one who are providing the 'life hack' counterpoint to schlepping coffee and wrangling Excel.
For those who find this topic of interest, I heartily recommend the book, The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe, a really excellent generational theory of history.
http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-William-Strauss/dp/0767900464