Your post sounds like liberal do-gooderism: Hippies buying hybrid cars; a family raising squash in their backyard; a call for stoicism.I'd like present a synthesis of my several replies to his comments (with a few additions) as the foundation for a discussion of what an Integral Environmentalism might look like. As I mentioned in the comments of the previous post, I am not second tier, so I don't presume to have second-tier answers. I try to think as integrally as I am capable, but being centered pretty much in the pluralistic, sensitive self stage, I am limited.
So, without further blather, here is my basic stance on environmentalism:
So, that is my argument as much as I have one (all of which was formulated last night in response to my critic -- so I am thankful for his prodding, since I may not have articulated anything on this topic otherwise). I don't pretend that this is an integral approach. But I would like to have a discussion of what an integral model for environmentalism might look like. How do we move beyond the sensitive-self stage that I and so many others who care about the future of the planet seem to be stuck in?Einstein once said that we can never solve a problem with the same consciousness that created the problem -- with that truism in mind, inventing our way out of global warming will never work.
Certainly we need an integral solution, and if I had one, I'd be shouting it the world.
We need to employ Spiral thinking for sure, since it will be countries that are lowest on the spiral who will be contributing the most to the crisis in the coming years (third world countries are exempt from the Kyoto protocals, which is the reason Bush once gave for not signing on -- though we know he had other motives as well).
Spiral Dynamics is clear on a couple of points: first and foremost, if you want to change people, you must change the conditions in which they live. For example, if we really want to help Islamo-fascists in the Middle East to evolve, get them some I-Pods and some computers, and we'll see a higher level of thinking that access to the world can provide. The second point is that we cannot impose on lower memes the values of higher memes--it never works. This holds true in the US as well.
If we want conservatives (and I think [my critic] is talking mostly about the scientific-rational meme, although conservatives fall along the entire Spiral), to embrace the environment, we must find a way to help them feel that their way of life is at stake if they do not. Al Gore's film cuts across political values in that regard, if the viewer is willing to listen to the facts.
The problem is that there are a lot of people like Michael Crichton who argue that global warming is a load of crap perpetuated by the liberal, pluralistic meme (cultural version of the sensitive self). All the sceintists in the world can shout him down, and most do, but he and a handful of others provide enough cover for egocentric, self-seeking people who do not want to believe it's happening that they can choose to ignore it -- unfortunately, these people tend to be politicians and business leaders.
As much as it sucks, right now the best solution is to create a grassroots movement that spans the Spiral, from environmental Christians, to rational-scientific self-seekers with only their own interests at heart, to sensitive-self, pluralistic tree huggers, and the handful of integral thinking folks out there who feel that the chaotic flexflow is managable.
We can vote with our dollars, too, choosing to support energy companies that are forward thinking (BP rather than Exxon), buy cars that are good on fuel use, and a million other choices -- check out the BuyBlue web site I posted about. This even goes as far as choosing not to shop at Walmart, or giving up soda because of the environmental impact created by making soda.
Yeah, that sounds like a liberal, sensitive-self approach, but it doesn't require anyone to believe that all views are relative, it does not reject hierarchies of value (in fact, it embraces them), and it does not need to change lower memes to match anyone's values -- what it does is place responsibility for change with each of us. And that's where it needs to begin.
And if I were standing on a narrow liberal ledge [as my critic clams], I'd be arguing that we pass new laws to enforce environmental protection, or that we tax the hell out of polluters -- both of which are not bad ideas. Certainly we need some intervention by government to regulate industry. Clinton had improved things in this area, Bush has undone all of that.Perhaps, rather than punishments, what is needed is economic incentives for green, environmentally safe industry. This would certainly motivate the rational, self-interest folks running businesses to think about switching over to environmentally friendly technology.
But what I am really arguing for is personal responsibility, one of the hallmarks of the conservative agenda. Rather than blaming everyone else for my problems, or for the problems in this nation or on this planet -- which is surely part of the equation, since I can't have done it all on my own -- I contend that it is up to you and me and everyone else to take personal responsibility for the world in which we live.
Philosophically speaking, liberalism places responsibility in government and the social structures, while conservatism places responsibility with individuals. Wilber argues this distinction and I agree with it (as does the Oxford Companion to Philosophy).
The middle way is to inspire everyone to take responsibility for the planet, from grassroots people who want to do their part to big business and government leaders who have the most power to effect change. Part of being a responsible citizen is leaving a smaller environmental footprint, voting for politicians who will work for that agenda, and supporting businesses who will as well.
I look forward to hearing what all of you have to say.
Technorati Tags: Integral Environmentalism, Conservative, Liberal, Spiral Dynamics, Ken Wilber, Environment, Conservation, BuyBlue, Memes
Your words in bold; mine in italics ....
ReplyDeleteEinstein once said that we can never solve a problem with the same consciousness that created the problem -- with that truism in mind, inventing our way out of global warming will never work.
Don't give Albert too much credit. He nodded an OK on the Manhattan Project; added nothing to physics for the last forty years of his life; and had unkempt hair. But you seem to be saying here that inventive thinking caused global warming. I don't think so. Profligate waste or a lack of sensitive care, I would suppose, caused global warming. I would maintain that inventive thinking is likely to help us with our problem. It did help with the hole in the ozone, if I am not mistaken.
We need to employ Spiral thinking for sure, since it will be countries that are lowest on the spiral who will be contributing the most to the crisis in the coming years (third world countries are exempt from the Kyoto protocals, which is the reason Bush once gave for not signing on -- though we know he had other motives as well).
The good news here is that China, for example, demands that its cars of the future be less poluting that what America is requiring. BUT the world will get nowhere if prosperous America doesn't take the lead and require a less impactful environmental footprint than other nations. This is something America can do on its own, but Kyoto or no Kyoto, the conservatives are going to need to be in on the effort. If the issue is framed solely in liberalspeak then disaster is likely, IMHO.
... we cannot impose on lower memes the values of higher memes--it never works. This holds true in the US as well.
As much as it sucks, right now the best solution is to create a grassroots movement that spans the Spiral, from environmental Christians, to rational-scientific self-seekers with only their own interests at heart, to sensitive-self, pluralistic tree huggers, and the handful of integral thinking folks out there who feel that the chaotic flexflow is managable.
I agree. This is important.
We can vote with our dollars, too, choosing to support energy companies that are forward thinking (BP rather than Exxon), buy cars that are good on fuel use, and a million other choices -- check out the BuyBlue web site I posted about. This even goes as far as choosing not to shop at Walmart, or giving up soda because of the environmental impact created by making soda.
Yeah, that sounds like a liberal, sensitive-self approach, but it doesn't require anyone to believe that all views are relative, it does not reject hierarchies of value (in fact, it embraces them), and it does not need to change lower memes to match anyone's values -- what it does is place responsibility for change with each of us. And that's where it needs to begin.
It's a long argument, and only tangential to this topic, but for conservatives investing in the stock market or buying goods is not a grand social statement. [Indeed, conservatives love it when liberals sell good-performing companies and buy dog companies that write their quarterly statements in liberalspeak.]
Inevitably, the issue is going to get hung up with the pox of liberal do-gooderism This is highly unfortunate, IMHO, even though I am myself simpathetic and on-board with all of this and will be growing squash in my backyard.
Please understand, my objection is that the effort would be aided if there is less posing for moral superiority and do-gooder oneupsmanship.
In World War II, America was united in its effort to combat the Nazis. This kind of all-together-now sensibility is what's needed to combat an environmental disaster. It is perhaps rather necessary to villify polluting and hype the disaster -- as Gore has done -- to get conservatives more on board. However, we are going to need more conservative leaders crying out and giving the lectures.
And if I were standing on a narrow liberal ledge [as my critic clams], I'd be arguing that we pass new laws to enforce environmental protection, or that we tax the hell out of polluters -- both of which are not bad ideas. Certainly we need some intervention by government to regulate industry. Clinton had improved things in this area, Bush has undone all of that.
Perhaps, rather than punishments, what is needed is economic incentives for green, environmentally safe industry. This would certainly motivate the rational, self-interest folks running businesses to think about switching over to environmentally friendly technology.
I think varients on what you say here are absolutely necessary and that there is nothing liberal-ledge about it! BUT some conservative ideas might work and should be integrated into the effort. Conservatives like the idea of a market in polution quotas. If that could be adequately enforced, it might be a good idea, allowing the economy to suffer less than it might otherwise.
But what I am really arguing for is personal responsibility, one of the hallmarks of the conservative agenda ... I contend that it is up to you and me and everyone else to take personal responsibility for the world in which we live.
Currentday conservatives aren't Goldwater conservatives. Today's conservatives don't generally see the world as something any one person can take responsibility for. I mean, give me a break. Big budget deficits; lessening polution standards; protecting the interests of Big Oil. These are the hallmarks of today's conservatives, no?
Philosophically speaking, liberalism places responsibility in government and the social structures, while conservatism places responsibility with individuals. Wilber argues this distinction and I agree with it (as does the Oxford Companion to Philosophy).
Yeah. Well. There was a time when Republicans were for freeing the slaves and Democrats supported the culture of plantations in Georgia. Things change. What we call 'conservatives' today aren't really conservatives. I mean, what are today's conservatives trying to conserve, exactly, other than old-timey values like reverence for the flag and exclusively man&woman marriages?
The middle way is to inspire everyone to take responsibility for the planet, from grassroots people who want to do their part to big business and government leaders who have the most power to effect change ...
Frankly, I don't recall that Buddha took a position on Global Warming.
To get everybody to 'buy in,' I just think that we must avoid romantic ideas about the issue and offer practical solutions.
Global Warming needs to be evaluated objectively, but if it is as Gore portrayed it, we must get people onboard with the idea that it is the Nazism of our time.
I think that people will be roused to do everything and accept big government and UN programs. People will accept as their patriotic duty making their personal lives more energy efficient. AND, Industry will have incentives to invent ways to be less polluting and provide products that are more efficient.
We need to employ Spiral thinking for sure, since it will be countries that are lowest on the spiral who will be contributing the most to the crisis in the coming years
ReplyDelete...implying that the USA is amongst the lowest on the spiral?
anonymous,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that will be true, but it wasn't what I meant. Third World countries will exceed the US in CO2 production in the next decade, but yes, the US will still be the world leader in CO2 production until China catches up with us in a few years.
Tom,
I think that people will be roused to do everything and accept big government and UN programs. People will accept as their patriotic duty making their personal lives more energy efficient. AND, Industry will have incentives to invent ways to be less polluting and provide products that are more efficient.
I hope you are right.
Peace,
Bill