In May of 2003, Integral Naked launched with two dialogues between Ken Wilber and Stuart Davis. We are happy to once again present the winning team that started the Integral Naked adventure over three years ago.
Like Part 1 of this extraordinary dialogue, Part 2 hits the ground running at 600 MPH and never lets up. Topics include:
--The very real dangers of eulogizing tribal societies and tribal consciousness, and why in doing so the pluralistic wave of development is quite literally engineering its own destruction. (See Part 1 for more on “Pluralism and the regressive slide.”)
--Why “enlightened leadership” for the future is of necessity going to be Integral Leadership, and the encouraging signs that an Integral Approach is catching on in world politics, with public support from Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Al Gore, among others.
--Given the exponential growth of human consciousness—roughly: Archaic 300,000 years ago; Magic 30,000 years ago; Mythic 3,000 years ago; Rational 300 years ago; Pluralistic 30 years ago—is it possible that Integral consciousness “resets” this seemingly unsustainable curve with the introduction of an entirely new tier of growth?
--How both Al Gore and Michael Crichton can be sympathetic with an Integral Approach, and yet seem to offer diametrically opposed views on global warming, as stated in An Inconvenient Truth and State of Fear, respectively. Ken goes on to illustrate the two central questions one wants to consider when addressing environmental issues: 1. What is the actual data about the state of the environment; and 2. Given that data, what does it mean and what should we do? Crichton, for example, doesn’t say whether global warming is or is not happening, but rather makes the case that not all relevant data
is being included in that discussion, and that no adequate decisions can be made about question #2 until that happens.
--If, for the sake of argument, we assume that global warming is happening, then what are the consequences? Specifically, who or what is negatively impacted? If one listens to the vast majority of environmentalists, they would suggest that human actions are hurting the planet, are hurting Gaia. But as Ken point out, that’s not exactly right. Global warming, if anything, increases the diversity and vitality of the biosphere. Weeds, bacteria, viruses and so on love it—humans, however, might not survive. When presenting arguments for why we must address climate change, a touch of honesty goes a long way: We don’t need to save Gaia, we need to save ourselves. Anthropocentrism here is entirely appropriate, so why hide it?
--Even if global warming is a real and pressing issue, another real and pressing issue might beat it to the punch for world-wide catastrophe: Experts agree that within 50-100 years we are simply going to run out of oil and gas. And if we have not modulated our burn rate or found an alternative source of energy? Ken: “Over a decade or two crash, we’re going to be back in the Middle Ages… and we’re basically going to see a reduction of the world population by about 70%.”
This is an example of integral dialogue at its best. Enjoy the ride….
(For Part 1 of this conversation, click here.)