IntegralJournal

The Two Progressive Camps

It is my observation that those who are concerned about the health of the planet fall into two camps: the tribalists and the non-profiteers.  Neither is the answer to the planetary predicament.  (If you were not aware that there was a predicament, please do a Google search of "Limits to Growth" at this site.)

The Tribalists

There is much talk online about how we ought to revert to living tribally.  Those who are attracted to the concept should read The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution.  Tribalism is regressive.  We've been there and done it -- still doing it -- and it doesn't lead to quality of life.

The Non-Profiteers

The other camp believes that having more non-profits will save the planet.  One example is the proliferation of Microfinance.  Those who get a warm and fuzzy feeling about micro lending need to be aware that the average loan rate for a group like Kiva.org is approximately 24%.  The original definition of usury was charging interest period.  Credit is the root cause of our predicament -- not the solution.

What to Do?

First of all, we have to acknowledge that the following is true:

There is as yet no civilized society,
But only a society in the process of becoming civilized.
There is as yet no civilized nation,
But only nations in the process of becoming civilized.
From this standpoint,
We can now speak of a collective task of humankind.
The task of humanity is to build a genuine civilization.

— Felix Adler (1851-1933)

We have to come up with something that has not been tried.  Tribalism has been tried and it failed miserably.  Non-profiteering is being tried on a massive scale and has not shifted our destructive course in any macro measurable way.

I've probably bogged readers down in the detail that I've provided at this site in the past.  The details are not important.  The important thing is to establish an institution that provides capital for quality environments -- whether single family homes or larger, comprehensive campuses -- around the world.  Those who provide the capital will not earn interest.  The concept of money earning interest discounts the future.  Instead, our new breed of capitalists will have access to the assets at the lesser of cost or market.

We have made things far too complicated.  It's time for a change.

The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size.

--Oliver Wendell Holmes  

Mindful Capital Club Presentation

Presentation and Background Information

From the back cover:

Those who are mindful are beginning to realize that only an entirely new operating system can prevent the collapse of civilization. However, to date, no one has presented such a system. This presentation outlines a system that has the potential to serve as a viable replacement for the current paradigm.

Trying to Understand the Real Source of Our Woes

First of all, an article that cuts to the chase with respect to population.

A recent comment of mine at chrismartenson.com:

I'd like to recommend a book entitled The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics  by Christopher Lasch.  It is a comprehensive review of Liberalism that makes one realize that Stephen Moore (Club for Growth) and anyone else who believes in unlimited growth are liberals.  Stephen Moore wants to promote growth without big government and those such as Barack Obama and his "team" are willing to use big government to keep growth going.  Both, however, are pro-growth.  There are very few people who have contemplated what it would mean to have a steady state economy.

It is important that we understand why we are where we are today.  This book changed my perspective on liberals and caused me to realize that our entire system is based on an idea of progress that is not sustainable.  Ironically, the problems with progress were foreseen over two hundred years ago by individuals who are best defined as republicans (small r, almost all Republicans today are liberals as defined by Lasch).

There are ways that we can avoid growing ourselves into oblivion and enhancing our quality of life at the same time.  Most of us these days seem to have a bunker mentality.  How can I keep my assets?  Gold?  Silver?  More ammunition?  Investing in foreign currencies and companies?  We should focus instead on how to transition our society to a steady state.  (Please note that I believe that the changes have to be far more comprehensive than the transition town plans that are making the rounds.  I believe that the foundation of our society has to be a new type of university that is present throughout our lives much like religion and the nuclear family is today.)

I just read a report that compared the collapse projections by the team that wrote Limits to Growth with what has actually occurred since 1972.  In almost every category, their projections were dead on. (Pun intended.)

For those who don't have the time to read The True and Only Heaven, I can recommend The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul as an alternative way to understand why we are in the mess we are in today.

We have to get away from these online back and forth discussions and delve deeper into the cause of our predicament.

Finally, this presentation on organic agriculture is worth viewing.  Organic food will be the cornerstone of any society that is centered around quality of life.

Creating A Loom (Draft)

Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
Of facts…they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric.

--Edna St. Vincent Millay
(As quoted in A Bridge to the 18th Century)

I am currently reviewing a book by Amartya Sen entitled Development As Freedom.  According to the publisher: "This is a landmark work that shows how in individual human freedom -- the exclusive possession, Sen shows, of no particular nation, region or historical, intellectual or religious tradition -- lies the capacity for political participation, economic development and social progress."  In my opinion, this process of individual human freedom -- it is rare here in the U.S. -- has to be supercharged and a "loom" must be developed to integrate existing wisdom.  Developmentally, as a society, we are not even to the stage that the founders of the U.S. were in the 1700's. (Wilber, 2000)

We have to create a new loom/institution that enables us to live in a way that provides quality and reverses the destructive course of humanity.

What would the physical infrastructure look like?  While the physical structure of a village may be fine, no one has ever claimed that a village is innovative and encourages personal development.  Quite the contrary, many find village life stifling.  When I think about village, gossip springs to mind.  We need to inject a new element into the village.  That new element is the university.  Another way to look at it is to talk about injecting the university into the village.  Most individuals leave the university and their personal development stops.  They enter into structures that have boundaries: religion, family, and   work/corporations -- just for starters.  (It should be mentioned that the corporate infiltration of universities has served to impose boundaries in that institution as well.)   

Any new institution -- or re-tooled institution -- must be interdisciplinary.

There are many ideas out there that have merit.  However, they do not address the personal development that is necessary in order to lift the world up and reverse the current, widespread destruction that is occurring.

Guiding premises and goals:

• All life is important
• Reduce suffering/Eliminate empty bedrooms (there are more empty bedrooms each night in the U.S. than there are homeless individuals)
• Development is only possible though dropping the desire to acquire
• Draw from the wisdom of all religions and traditions
• Flexible
• Flow
• Adaptable
• Create an environment that can provide a way for bright, young people to envision a fulfilling life without producing offspring
• Institutions must encourage and facilitate lifelong development

Physical infrastructure might physically resemble the villages envisioned here.  The creator of the site wisely counsels us that cars need to be banished to the periphery.

Operational structure would resemble a university.   Trustees who serve without pay.  Researchers/fellows who work a baseline of 20 hours per week in hands-on productive activities.  Gardening, Cooking, etc.  Home Economics in the sense that this is work that is done anyway by someone in the household.  What we are doing is incorporating all the elements of living into one institution that is far more comprehensive than the cobbled up mess that we currently pay homage to.

Improving local sources of food is key to thriving in the coming decades.  (See this Richard Heinberg transcript for an explanation of the importance of local and labor-intensive agriculture.)  However, if someone is working on an important project, other fellows who recognize the value of their work may step in and "cover" for them in their labor obligations.  Fellows will be free to come and go at the end of the "quarter."

Capital will come from patrons who deposit money in an institution account that is drawn down as they use the services.  First class accommodations in a university village.

A change is long overdue.

Good Point

A Carolyn Baker excerpt:

One may argue that neither a chimp nor an elephant could design a computer, but I ask: What is more consequential, the ability to design a computer or the ability to protect, sustain, and nurture the planet on which one resides? Of what value is the computer if none of us is here to use it?

The Eleventh Hour

I watched The 11th Hour last night.  Just one of several environmental movies recently produced.  It is easy to watch the impassioned interviewees -- David Suzuki is an especially talented communicator -- and come away thinking that maybe the tide has turned.  However, once you vacate the theatre, take a look around.  We have some major work to do.

In the movie, James Woolsey speaks glowingly about automakers (during WWII) making the rapid shift from making cars to making tanks, planes, and all the trappings of war.  He believes that the government will play a major role in the shift that is necessary to prevent further deterioration of our environment.  Highly unlikely.  However, there is no doubt that a rapid shift must take place.

We have to ask ourselves why we didn't take action earlier.  What is it about our dominant institutions that did not permit them to take a leadership role?  The answer is quite straight forward.

Religion is mostly about faith and dogma and doctrine.  None of these are conducive to the change that is necessary to reverse our destructive ways.  Religion is also about hypocrisy.  Our local faith-based university has the CEO of one of the largest mortgage lenders on its board.  He has personally benefited -- to the tune of hundreds of millions -- by his company making loans to people who likely can't repay them.  Those who are least able to pay, pay the most.  The original policy manual for this faith-based entity did not even permit the charging of interest.

Corporations are mostly focused on profit and are generally hierarchical.  Both are mighty distractions when it comes to making the rapid changes that are necessary to reversing our course.  The so-called free market has shifted prodigious amounts of wealth from the bottom and middle of society to those at the top.

Universities might seem a likely source of wisdom.  However, they have been re-tooled since the start of the industrial age to train specialists, rather than to educate or enlighten.

And of course government is simply the hand maiden of these institutions -- regardless of which party is in power.

A system that is influenced by any of these institutions is literally and figuratively bankrupt.

At the movie's website, I was struck by the label of "Consume Less, Live More."  For years, I have been dwelling on this paradox of our current predicament.  With few exceptions, why would we want what we currently have?  I long for the days when people did not walk around in a daze talking on their cell phones -- and for the days when our horizons weren't marred with the tens of thousands of cell towers necessary for us to walk around in a daze.

So, how do we use technology wisely and create a world that is sustainable?  We have to dwell on the Live More side of the equation.

Over time, I have asked myself what it would take to Live More.  My answer is no debt, no insurance, no job, no commuting, no possessions other than a few clothes, no cell phones or other distractions, no noise other than the sound of productive building and the sound of nature, no lights to dim a starlit night, no streets, fresh vegetables, and an environment that is high quality.  And the company of those who share my concept of Living More.

We can make it happen.

Closing the Collapse Gap

I found the link to this lucid analysis at Jim Kunstler's website.  Highly recommended.  If you read it and think that it is amusing, alarming, or both, come back to integraljournal and take a look at the concept that has evolved here over the past few years.  It beats the hell out of wasting our time with the run-of-the-mill carbon offset schemes.