I was anxious to hear the integral view of global warming in the Integral Naked presentation of Fast, Furious, and Moving at the Speed of Thought. Part 2 between Ken Wilber and Stuart Davis.  Unfortunately, Stu’s question seemed to go largely unanswered by Ken. If anything, Ken seems to concur with Crichton that the jury is still out on anthropogenic climate change.  

(Speaking of climate change, what does II’s  Integral Ecology branch founder Sean Hargens have to say?  Anyone know?)

Instead of a clear position, we hear that Green’s are so biased by their (overly) compassionate embrace of Gaia, that they will unintentionally distort scientific research to conform to their pre-conceived beliefs of the reality of global warming and stop collecting adequate data once these preconceptions are (seemingly) confirmed.  Also, the secret anthropocentrism locked in the outwardly world-centric stance of Greens, is seen as some kind of contradiction that closes the argument once and for all about the reality of climate change.  That seems an unwarranted leap in logic.  This is as if to say that the self-avowed world-centric Green perspective hides a pernicious seed of anthropocentrism (a la Boomeritus and the Mean Green Meme), everything they have to say about objective science is completely wrong.  I see the potential for bias here, but there is plenty of bias on the other side of the debate to go around.  Frankly A LOT more bias. (see note #2 below)

Before I go any further, I thought world-centric transcends and includes, thereby concern for Gaia includes concern for mankind and our ongoing survival. No?  It seems a red herring to argue this human vs. world-centric stance here.  I think we can agree that indeed, it won’t be sweet Gaia that collapses due to global warming, but we human beings?  Gaia will simply shake us off like a bad habit and keep on keeping on. Can we also take as a given, that all we integral, second-tier folks and our progeny want to continue to survive more than another 100 years?  If not, then I say fire up those SUV’s and drive down to the Evangelical Dominionist’s crusade, who through Lording over this land, this gluttonous over-indulgence in this Garden of Earthly Delights, will hasten the prophesized Rapture after all.  And they call themselves Conservatives ;-)  Anyway, I digress…

Ken’s observations may be true re: Green’s blind spots, but it doesn’t address the point of the now (nearly) unanimous consensus of the reality of global warming, nor an adequate integral response to it. (see Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Global Response to Climate Change here http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf) . 

I would imagine that a truly integral response to global warming would include the best thinking of Green (i.e. protect Gaia with world-centric policies promoting sustainable development practice), Orange (i.e. embrace the power of the market to promote green building,  alternative energy development and independence, as both an environmental and national security issue—see Pentagon paper referenced below in note #4) Blue  (i.e. enforce global laws requiring waste reduction, energy efficiency and  sustainable development practices put forward by the Green’s) and Red (i.e. drop the hammer on those renegades who don’t follow the laws put forward by the Blue’s).  Instead, I only hear that Integral is decidedly not Green.  It reminds me of Democrats running from anything that might appear soft, for fear of being dubbed a liberal.  Ewww…yuck!

I would suggest that people follow the science.  There will always be outliers in a field of researchers studying anything.  In the interest of not appearing biased, or liberal or whatever, these outliers have been given equal time by many people reporting on this supposed debate.  I think this promotes the misinterpretation that there is a genuine disagreement where there really is not.

Ken Wilber, as a preeminent Einstein of Consciousness, has brilliantly done just that with regards to the study of both internal and external realms of human experience. (I love you Ken!) Michael Crichton is a trained medical doctor and should know this basic tenant of scientific research.  Unfortunately, it seems he has chosen to rely on his self-described contrarian nature to spin a yarn of science fiction in State of Fear, that cherry-picks pieces of research that shed doubt on global warming but is at odds with the consensus of scientists on the issue.  This is the same guy who had half of America reading Jurassic Park believing that mosquito larvae held in amber liquid could reconstitute dinosaurs today, mind you.  I want to have a transporter like in Star Trek too, but we’re just not there yet.

I’m no expert in climate science and I hope my so-called alarmist take on the science is wrong. I really do hope I’m wrong, but I’d rather error on the side of action sooner vs. later, given the stakes at hand.  It just seems that we are all screwed unless we end our addiction to oil and take responsibility for our role in affecting climate in our interconnected world.  Whether oil ends and we have to REALLY embrace alternatives (and it might be nuclear if wind, solar, bio-mass etc. aren’t viable to meet all our needs as Ken alludes to) or we simply all burn up or drown, we need to take action.

NOTES: Some more pieces of information on climate change:

1. See here for a recap of Senator James Inhofe(R-Okalahoma), a guy who believes global warming is a hoax and Crichton, a science-fiction writer, who was invited to advise the Senate committee on the Environment and Public Works on science facts. Does that seem rather fishy to anyone else?? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188 
2. Follow the money: Big oil pays for pseudo-science to interject doubt into climate change debate.  You think Greens have a bias?  Check this out and notice the specific contributions that Exxon makes to 40 different supposedly non-partisan think-tanks. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
3. There is much evidence within and without the GW Bush administration of climate change research being distorted and suppressed. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html
4. Despite the distortion and suppression of much climate change research, in Feb. 2004 the British paper the Guardian reveals a secret report from the Pentagon itself that says climate change may destroy us. The following quote comes from that article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

 
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

I thought that his comment on Green shooting themselves in the foot wan't because they were predisposed to a stance, but because they couldn't form a stance.  They have a lot of data, but because there is nothing in history to compare it to, there are many conflicting models out there, so the Green scientists cannot make a stand and assert one, but have to take all into account, and thus avoid making any conclusions.  Sounds like the Democratic Party. lol

---

myspace.com/zentaimusic

have u checked out michael speaking with ken on state of fear ??

http://in.integralinstitute.org/contributor.aspx?id=31

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the comments.  I agree that postmodernism's predilection to endless processing, dysfunctional "groupthink", fear of ranking, "everyone's idea is equal to everyone else's" and inability to take a stance, is frustrating.  I have heard Ken make this point many times with regards to the Green meme and I agree.  And yes, the Democrats are often guilty as charged.  However, I felt that with regards to global warming, many Green meme folks have indeed taken a stand.  Global warming is real and we're exacerbating the problem.  Period.  That's their stand.   In this case, I felt that Ken's criticism was that so-called objective scientists were unknowingly wearing  "green-colored" glasses and thereby cherry-picking data that served their preconceived conclusions. Maybe I need to give the session another listen.

Grant

I did listen to the Crichton/Wilber dialogue to which you referred.  I took away two main points from this dialogue that I basically agree with, but also feel that they are no reason to refrain from taking action today to address climate change.

First, the difficulty of accurate prediction of future climate change. While the specific timing and magnitude might be tough to pinpoint, the direction of the problem is clear--things are getting worse. I would lean on researchers more properly within their fields of expertise on this one.  I am humbled by the blistering intelligence of both Chrichton and Wilber, but I doubt either would claim deep expertise on climate science. (see my notes in the original post).

Second, Chrichton speaks of the negative impact of a misallocation of funds whereby millions would die if we allocate funds that could save them to averting climate change.  10,000 babies will die today in the developing world for lack of medicine that costs $1-2.  AND we're not doing much on climate change ANYWAY.  Don't get me started on the genocide in Darfur or the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda when Clinton was president. (This is not a Left-Right tirade).  Our priorities are disturbing regardless of which party is in power.  Do we really have two parties now anyway?  How 'bout the Republicrats? ;-)  It is merely a red-herring to focus on the opportunity cost of taking action vs. sitting on our hands especially when we consider the pro-active vs reactive costs at 20X the number to move now on climate change.See this recent article on MSNBC outlining Britain's stern warning that doing nothing will cost us far more than acting soon. (The difference between a collective international 1% and 20% of GDP).  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15480912/

(If you follow the link you will also hear from one of the usual skeptic suspects, the Competitive Enterprise Institute piping up about how ridiculous it is. They received $1.3M from ExxonMobil--see MotherJones article on this in Notes section of original post). If you want to find bias, follow the money.

If we simply take Wilber's argument that while the "true" element of the climate change debate is unknown, we can agree on the "beautiful"--well, fine.  Whatever you want to look at.  Waste, environmental degradation is truly dangerous, aesthetically ugly and patently bad any way you want to cut it.

Let's pretend that the whole world is your bed, replete with freshly washed linens.  Would you wear your dirty boots to bed?  From an aesthetic standpoint, of course not.  Would you live next to a toxic waste dump, if all the scientists were assuring you that it was perfectly safe and any concern was "reactionary" and "alarmist"?  You can make that choice for your life and the lives of your children and people in your locality.  But global warming and climate change affects ALL OF US--American, French, Australian, Chinese, first-tier, second-tier--we're all in it together.

my sense is that with the continuing increase of people like u, the necessary actions and precautions will indeed continue to increase .. and that this realm of which aqal is a map

shall prevail

 

Hi FairyFaye-

Thanks for continuing to indulge me this conversation.  What do you mean "people like u"? When you say that the "necessary actions and precautions will indeed continue to increase...and that this realm of which aqal is a map shall prevail", what do you mean?

I do think that AQAL can provide a framework for a comprehensive response to the problem of climate change.  I just haven't heard that come through yet in these latest dialogues with Ken.  There seems to be a sense that since the precise predicability of future climate change is off, then we should just stop worrying about it.  Ken does give ground on species extinction in SES (albeit with neglible negative impact on Gaia) and the problem of peak oil.  Addressing peak oil, and non-renewable energy in general, will go a long way (at least in the LR) for addressing the same problems associated with the bigger (and more mercurial) issue of global warming.

Grant

Hi Grant,

In this case, I felt that Ken's criticism was that so-called objective scientists were unknowingly wearing  "green-colored" glasses and thereby cherry-picking data that served their preconceived conclusions. Maybe I need to give the session another listen.

I think you are quite correct that the vast majority (about 98+%) of orange objective scientists specializing in this physical sciences field are convinced about the seriousness of the global warming crisis and mankind's continuing contribution to it..........So if we have truly reached the orange v-meme (values system) level as a society......this consensus should be a basis for our policy decisions in this area........(although orange scientists in other areas, such as economists, bring conflicting arguments from their perspective.....which sIMO hould be considered secondarily [to a lesser extent] in addressing the global warming problem itself).

I believe the blue v-meme, which is seeking to retain [and regain lost] authoritarian control of the wealth and power structure in this country is impeding this process in these decisions despite the overwhelming orange evidence.........they are also SELECTIVELY choosing orange scientists in other fields to support their positions.........so this becomes a blue/orange values team mix..........

The green v-meme is also involved but to a much lesser extent, due to their relative lack of wealth, power and influence compared to blue and orange..........Greens are however, used by the blue/orange coalition in Rovian/Fox News style values confrontations that create strawman issues, in which strong conservative economists are often pitted against more radical, weaker green proponents in shows/debates produced intentionally to create fear and doubt and conservative points of view.........which is all these blue/oranges need to perpetuate their lucrative places in the status quo............

To my way of thinking, yellow needs to stand with and support the 98+% of professional climatologists, etc. and progressive greens to help the whole society move to healthy orange/green in this understanding.........in addition, they should also acknowledge the important blue and orange values that will be retained, but then focus on the innovative orange/green solutions (such as those promoted by the Enviromental Defense Fund and the WorldWatch Institute) that are necessary to ACTIVELY address the problem right now.........

Yellow cannot wait for all the data to be in, as it never will be, we must go with the best information that we currently have at present.........even with some of the flaws of green, that can be overcome with more time, resources and experience.being in control.......

R.K.

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

hi grant .. by "people like you" i mean people with genuine concern and willingness to dialogue and take action and precaution regarding environmental issues

and by "this realm of which aqal is a map" i am referring to the manifest realm, i.e. life on earth or more accurately: life in this kosmos

 

 

 

Hey folks love the dialectic goin on here. A few things 1) as you mentioned RK the orange v-meme (about 98% of which) are convinced of the seriousness of global warming; they are convinced about this while holding an anthropocentric/conservationalist/instrumentalist view of the environment. (Nature is ONLY instrumenatally valuable to us) this view will motivate the achiver-self if a problem is detected in the instrument (and there is a lot of energy in the achiver self to get motivated if convinced, no?). Roughly, we can take there view as something like "IF the instrument gets f---ed up THEN, so do we humans because we rely on this instrument; so we better keep this instrument in working/functioning order!"

2) RK says  "I believe the blue v-meme, which is seeking to retain [and regain lost] authoritarian control of the wealth and power structure in this country is impeding this process in these decisions despite the overwhelming orange evidence.........they are also SELECTIVELY choosing orange scientists in other fields to support their positions.........so this becomes a blue/orange values team mix.........." I'd like to make a parrallel to this notion which come from a strange place Radioheads Thom Yorke (A campaigner for 'the big ask') in a blog he provided a hyperlink to www.exxonsecrets.org - A site that tries to show some in depth relationships and transactions between peoples in high places (many of whom may be classified as blue desireous of authoritarian controll as RK suggests) working in conection with scientists that are looking to perhaps pad there wallets. Perhaps however, (and this is a side issue that could also be debated) they are orange (both the scientists and the politians [or most of them]), but if so both sides in these transactions would neccesarily then be rather low on the moral developmental line egocentric perhaps ethnocentric! - I think this too might be a possibility high cognition and low morals (as in the Nazi doctor example expressed by Wilber on occasion).   

3) Concerning Crichton and Wilber as discussed by Grant (I too beleive that Wilber is a defender of truth and I also deeply love the dude- non-sexually mind you). But, ain't it hard to tell a friend (Wilber telling Crichton ) that your budies being a little nieve (Esp. after having just completing a book on the topic). That sure the point about all the objective facts not being in pefect order to substansiate the claim of global warming is a true one but, isn't it ALMOST certain - like probably above 99% that humans are having an impact on the warming of the environment and we are doing this NOW and that it is in our hands to mend our ways. Isn't a position like Crichtons largly dismissive- is that degree of certainty still not enough to motivate action -- SHEESH!!   

4) Finally, and perhaps most imporantly I agree with fairyfaye that "there are people like you('s folks)" out there that are taking both engaging in a HeartFelt AND Critical approach to these kinds of issues - (remebering in other words there is a heart-felt WE component to these important critical largly objective debates).

What Ken is doing, I think, is explaining simply that you can NOT win the "global warming" or "NO global warming" argument on either side. You can't, because (1) we have no way to have enough facts and (2) blue and orange cannot accept the arguments - and they are in control. No matter how much any of us may want that to be otherwise, it is what it is. What we DO know, however, is that we are destroying the human race's current status of life, and for the worse, not the better. Now THAT is something that is (a) provable, (b) something blue and orange can understand and will likely be motivated to do something about. In other words, the integral approach to our environmental situation will have to be one that deals with the current power structures and can meet the intellect of the average person where they stand. And that, quite simply, means realizing that the "global warming" argument will ONLY motivate green. Want to motive orange and blue? Tell orange that their quality of life is going away, and going away fast, unless some changes are made. Tell blue that human beings will cease to be "fruitful and multiple" unless we pay attention now to what we are doing to the human race as a whole.  These are concepts they can understand and will be motivated to do something about. Global warming? Orange's response is: so? Crank up the airconditioning! Blue's response is: God wants humans to thrive. If humanity's thriving means the spotted owl dies, well, God won't mind. Only green cares, and greens do NOT control the politics of today (and if they did, we'd likely be in more trouble anyway). What is, is. Work with it, not against it.

Peace.

---

The power of private citizens to do public good is greater [now] than at any time in history. - Bill Clinton, 2006

Hi texannie,

Orange's response is: so? Crank up the airconditioning! Blue's response is: God wants humans to thrive. If humanity's thriving means the spotted owl dies, well, God won't mind. Only green cares, and greens do NOT control the politics of today (and if they did, we'd likely be in more trouble anyway). What is, is. Work with it, not against it.

I agree with this as far as it goes............but to have a healthy orange science and orange society based on scientific principles, big reform within the scientific community needs to take place also (which is probably still bound as much by outdated blue rules of arbitrary hierarchy than orange's).........and maybe it is orange/green's role to push that as well..............

Orange scientists should collectively be more aggressively political in identifying, consolidating and pushing (with a unified voice, even if there is not 100% agreement!) those scientific consensuses that are important to societal well-being.............different fields must join together, as scientists, to enlarge their power to influence public-policy making...........

For too long, scientific/academics have collectively said, "That is not my job" [or that has been the overall result of their ineffectiveness in obtaining/having that role].......But it needs to be their job and we need to make sure there are enough such paid positions devoted exclusively to doing it............a reworking here within orange/green is long overdue!

R.K.

 

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

Well, yes, but I think you are trying to apply green prinicipals to orange, which won't work. Orange is orange. My point was that you have to work with these people where they "are." There are things that will motivate orange without requiring that orange be green. And, there are things that will motivate blue without requiring that blue be orange or green. You won't get blue to care about green concerns - it just isnt going to happen. Does that mean we have to give up? No, just change how you talk to them. That is what I was trying to explain, and I think is also Ken's point.

---

The power of private citizens to do public good is greater [now] than at any time in history. - Bill Clinton, 2006

I think you are trying to apply green prinicipals to orange, which won't work. Orange is orange. My point was that you have to work with these people where they "are."

Which green principles are you referring to regarding the scientific community as a whole?  I agree with your points about being able to talk to each v-meme group in terms it will respond to........... 

Orange's problem in general (here in the U.S. at least), is that they selectively choose physical science findings that offer material gain, while ignoring and underfunding orange scientific findings in the social sciences (especially when they clash with physical and conservative economic science findings).

So to my mind, there is this internal orange scientific and larger community unhealth and inconsistency that really doesn't have much to do with green values............(although the necessity of having more orange people move to green, for humanity to ultimately progress, also exists...........which is another, though related, problem)..........

I am truly enjoying this opportunity to dialogue about these issues..........

R.K.

 

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

"...while ignoring and underfunding orange scientific findings in the social sciences (especially when they clash with physical and conservative economic science findings)."

True enough. But I'm not sure it's "unhealthy orange" so much as it is the strong blue streak we are dealing with here, especially since the dawn on the "W" Bush years! :)

But then, "puzzlingself" mentioned the possibility of orange cognition with blue (or lower) moral development. Also a thought. Hard to untangle sometimes. Either way, the results are the same.

And I think we can reach mainstream blue with the moral arguments, and mainstream orange with the rational/business arguments without "proving" that global warming is (a) bad and (b) something caused by humans and therefore something humans can and should do something about. I agree it is very probably all of the above (99% of scientists agree), but then, I'm not blue or orange! :)  The key is motivation in the right areas/ways, I think.

I sincerely believe that environmentalists made a grave mistake, for example, in using the spotted owl to stop logging in Oregon some years back. They did it because the endangered species law was their only solid 'weapon,' but it was a terrible public relations mistake. If they had instead used scientific/geological evidence (that was already present at the time) that all the logging was beginning to cause massive and dangerous mudslides, they would have made much more headway. Especially if they had negotiated with loggers concerning selective cutting and so forth, and perhaps with other businesses that could have otherwise bolstered the local economies. The longterm net result of the "spotted owl" battle was to get environmentalists labeled as nutcases who would perfer that families starve than that a little bird should die. [Remember that the culture in most of these Oregon communities was also strongly pro-hunting. - Go hungry to save a bird? Any blue or orange hunter is gonna say your nuts.] In the long run, the "save the spotted owl" technique hurt our cause tremendously and helped to put us in the public relations bind that we now find ourselves in. Communication strategy is of the utmost importance. We can't afford any more blunders like that one. We urgently need to think about who we are talking to and in what level/culture they are centered, so that we can communicate with them effectively.

Glad you enjoy the dialogue. So do I. Just wish I had more time for it. I abandoned these forums for months because of my schedule. And will soon have to do so again, for a few weeks at least.

Just as an aside: the forum discussions could be kinder to us academic types. Not all professors are postmodern idiots. :)

Peace. ~annie

---

The power of private citizens to do public good is greater [now] than at any time in history. - Bill Clinton, 2006