Concerns about an Integral Approach to Climate Change and My Initial Impression of Integral Ecology

[barbiplease]

My much-anticipated copy of Integral Ecology finally arrived in the mail the other day. I look forward to learn what Integral has to offer in the way of solutions for global climate change. Especially in light of controversial statements made by Ken Wilber over the years, which haven't been particularly helpful given the growing disconnect between the scientific community and public apathy for support of climate policies:


April 2003:

I believe that the first World Federation will likely be orange-to-green. My hope is that it will be healthy green, but who knows? I believe that any such green World Federation will make substantial strides toward world harmony, but it will eventually face the inherent limitations and contradictions of all first-tier perspectives. The equivalent of worldwide, politically-correct thought-police will surface—a green Inquisition, if you will—whose subtle brutalities, accompanied by a series of extremely unpleasant economic events brought about by green's hobbling of orange business, will force a second-tier, yellow, World Federation to move haltingly into place. (Orange business cripples ecology; ecological green cripples orange business; both are forms of first-tier violence, neither of which is countenanced by yellow, and thus the first World Federation will likely be characterized, among numerous other forms of wholeness in practice, by a reconciliation between capitalism and ecology.) But that, I believe, will be at least a century or so away.

Until that time, I harbor the pain of vision unrequited. Until that time, the loneliness of integral heavily weighs on any who yearn for wholeness in action. Until that time, the bright promise of a tomorrow that coheres is no consolation but source of torment, for those of you who are so cursed.

(source: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/iraq.cfm)

2007:


2007 (or 2008?):

Ken Wilber audio discussion with Michael Crichton, science-fiction writer and global warming skeptic on Integral Life, which is largely negative in its discussion on the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Here are my responses to all of the above (either on the main posts or in the blog comments following these posts):


This Ain't No Spanish Inquisition

We Need a Doohickey

Global Warming Skeptics with Green Centers of Gravity

(A note: all the "deleted comments" were deleted by an "integrally-minded" person who got mad and then deleted all of his comments, in case anyone thinks that I deleted them or was talking to myself).

Needless to say, I couldn't resist the temptation of skimming through the pages of Integral Ecology to get a sneak preview on an Integral approach to global climate change. I was therefore disappointed to discover after looking up the terms "climate change" and "global warming" under "Index," that only 5 pages out of 800+ are devoted to this issue.

Not only that, but throughout the five pages devoted to climate change, scant attention is given to the actual climate science. Instead, it appeared to be written by and for scientific laypersons who seem largely uninformed of the scientific consensus.

I don't know how others feel, but this troubles me given that Integral is supposed to be the "leading edge" of consciousness. Personally, I have never been a proponent of deep ecology, nondual ecology, or systems theory, yet I feel that Integral should embrace the scientific consensus or at least, climatology, while offering a higher perspective.

While I realize that the authors are trying to be inclusive and integral in their approach, I'm not at all convinced that the writers are cognizant of climate science. Of course, I could be dead wrong in my assessment so I'll have just have to read the whole book to know for myself. Should I be wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

I find it curious, for example, that the authors claim to draw from over 200+ perspectives on environmental studies from every zone or methodology. These fields are listed alphabetically from A to Z and range anywhere from Acoustic Ecology to Zoosemiotics (AKA Animal Communication). Yet the most critical and important perspectives to understand insofar as global climate change is concerned--Climatology, Oceanography, and many other fields pertaining to the natural sciences in zones 6 and 8--are conspicuously absent from this list.

In the meantime (should anyone care), I will type out the full 5 pages to offer as an example of an "Integral approach" to climate change.

[David Sunfellow]

[David Sunfellow]

Hi Barbi: You asked, "Why over there, and not here?" I'm assuming this is in response to my suggestion to set up an integrally-oriented climate change feed on Twitter. If so, you misunderstand. Personally, I am interested in you posting your thoughts on climate change wherever you can: here, on Integral Life, and elsewhere. I suggested Twitter because it is fast becoming a way to reach a lot of folks very fast with important information and I am slowly building an integral network that will allow me to aggressively support your efforts. That's why I suggested it. The kind of deep conversations you've been engaged in can't take place on Twitter, but Twitter can let lots of people know that these conversations are taking place and encourage them to read them and/or participate.

I completely agree with your concerns that the integral movement must respond more directly, and comprehensively, to climate change issues. I also agree that there is a cult-like devotion to Ken Wilber that needs to be counterbalanced with far-ranging, free-spirited debate among people everywhere who share an interest in integral perspectives, whether or not that have any particular allegiance to Ken Wilber and his work. All of the integral networks and activities I am engaged in have their sights squarely aimed at fostering this kind of discussion. Ken Wilber and the important work he has been doing is one voice among many others.

Finally, concerning responding more directly to your posts, I've pretty much given up on lengthy discussions (and heated debates) on climate change. The discussions I had here, and on Integral Life, convinced me that this is largely a waste of time. I am, however, acutely interested in staying well informed on this topic and in pointing others who are interested in the direction of "helpful discussions" on this topic. For me, the time to debate and endlessly discuss this topic is over. Now is the time for action and setting up networks that can disseminate credible information to those who are ready to do something. Thus, you're not going to find me wading into the kind of discussions you've been having with Brian. I will, however, point others in the direction of these discussions, especially the one you referred to above. I haven't had a chance to read everything yet, but what little I did read was a real eye-opener. I will do my part to alert others to the exceedingly important conversation you have initiated on this topic, especially as it pertains to what has apparently been overlooked in Integral Ecology. I find it astonishing (and deeply concerning) that only 5 pages were dedicated to the topic of climate change...

[barbiplease]

Hmm. I don't get it. Why over there, and not here, David?

Am I doing something "politically incorrect" for the "Integral Movement" (AKA Ken Wilber and his devotees) in posting criticisms here?

I think they are legitimate concerns to express, which I elaborated on in greater detail below:

http://integrallife.com/member/barbi-hammond/blog/800-pages-and-only-5-are-devoted-global-climate-change?show=all

Sean Esjborn responded to the thread above, but there are actually bigger fish in the pond. I'm actually more concerned about the movement as a whole in addressing climate change issues authentically and ultimately about the integrity of the movement as a whole. Not to mention Wilber's critics, who accuse the movement of discouraging free inquiry, critique, and peer-review of his ideas within these organizations. Some even accuse the movement of cultishness. All of these factors combined leaves a curious member of IL to wonder, you know? Especially when no one responds to my concerns posted above (not even you, who told me to go to Twitter).

[David Sunfellow]

Hi Barbi! A quick question? Are you on Twitter? And whether you're on Twitter or not, what do you think about the idea of setting up a Twitter feed that tracks climate change from an integral perspective? If you set one up, I will point everyone in your direction. You could become the "go to" person for integrally-minded people who are interested in climate change from an integral perspective. You could post information about new studies, old studies, news reports, controversial topics, whatever grabbed your attention, and also be the place folks went to who had questions. And Twitter is fast and easy. I'm running three Twitter feeds right now, including Integral Rising's fast-breaking integral news feed. What do you think? You could call your feed "climatechangebarbi" (that has a nice ring to it...)