Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

A New Energy Paradigm Requires Second-Tier Innovation

Posted October 12th, 2008 by barbi hammond in global issues and environmentali
Notes for an upcoming blogging entry:


 

 


 

The following is a rough draft of ideas.  Everything below needs work.


 

 


 

 


 

Aside from the dismal state of the economy, most Americans would agree that the country faces an additional crisis in terms of the ongoing energy crisis.  We know what an economic crisis means.  ("SORT" of...). But what exactly is the "energy crisis"? 


 

 


 

The meaning of "energy crisis" seems to vary, depending on the person consulted and his or her contexual frame of reference.  Therefore, the answer varies, depending on a number of hidden factors such as education, political persuasion, experience, religion, cultural background, to name just a few--and overall center of gravity, in terms of his or her level of consciousness development in approaching the problem of energy.


 

 


 

This post will attempt to take a hierarchical and elitist approach by examining various worldviews and their approaches to the energy crisis. I will do so by first asking the question, "What does the energy crisis mean?" to myself at various levels of stages of personal growth or development. I will then attempt to apply these various answers and worldviews to existing models of consciousness as described in Ken Wilber's AQAL, Spiral Dynamics, Jean Gebser, and developmental psychology. As a side note: the application of various positions on energy to stage-development in consciousness is merely a thought experiment or exercise to "map out" these political views in terms of their similarities to existing maps of consciousness-development, based on my interpretations of these maps. As such, they are not necessarily the viewpoints or opinions held by the mapmakers themselves but are merely personal attempts to examine these competing belief systems through the lens of other models or paradigms, for whatever that is worth..


 

 


 

First, however, a quick note about the term, "hierarchichal" and also, "elitist": Ken Wilber identifies two different forms of hierarchies that are often confused in academia, the dominator hierarchy and the value hierarchy.  Whereas the dominator hierarchy is a hierarchical order that attempts to oppress, dominate, and disenfranchise or exclude those members belonging on the lower rung of a hierarchical order or ladder, not all forms of hierarchy are dominator hierarchies.  The confusion arises largely as a consequence of the Green (academic) inability to perceive value or hierarchy in general. The Green worldview, therefore, is unable to distinguish between the dominator hierarchy on the one hand, and the value hierarchy on the other.  As a consequence, they denouce all hierarchies (including the value hierarchies) as oppressive regimes that are in violation of human rights, dignity, equality, diversity, and so on. However, by failing to differentiate between the good and bad hierarchies--they confuse non-dominator hierarchies with dominator hierarchies. 


 

 


 

Value hierarchies differ from dominator hierarchies.  Unlike the dominator hierarchies, value hierarchies do not attempt to dominate, oppress, control, or exclude lower portions or aspects of being but rather seek to embrace and include all present and prior or more primitive stages of being within a nest of concentric spheres.  It is known in the perennial philosophy as the "Great Chain of Being."  Thus, whereas the value hierarchies transcend and include the lower in a nest of being for the sake of agape, inclusion, and wholeness--the dominator hierarchies oppress and exclude the lower for purposes of power, separation, and control. 


 

 


 

For example: the Nazis of Germany represent a form of dominator hierarchy that attempts to oppress and exclude those members on the lower end of its hierarchical ladder that they regarded as qualitatively "inferior."  This is a "bad" form of hierarchy.  However, it would be inaccurate to state that all forms of hierarchies are "bad," or are merely dominator hierarchies.  


 

"Value hierarchies," by contrast, are in reference to the ranking of value or quality within a given set of phenomena or perspectival levels. These qualities, moreover--are apprehended subjectively through the eye of mind or spirit but are in and of themselves aspects which are incapable of measurement by scientific means. This is because "measurement" refers exclusively to mass and measurment in the form of numeric quantity but not to "measurement" of quality--which is inwardly perceived.
 

Some art forms, for instance, are perceived as higher in quality or value than other art forms.  Because some art forms are valued as being higher in quality, value and quality are inherently hierarchical in nature.  Take away hierarchy from art--then you take away quality, as well; and you are left with a bunch of "different" art forms of equally-worthless art with zero quality.  
 

To deny hierarchies altogether is to deny value and quality such that no one "thing" is qualitatively any "better" or "worse" than any other, for the sake of equality or diversity--be they belief systems, actions, level of development, degree of complexity, quality of work, or any other phenomenon by which to compare or judge what is better or worse to guide human action. Ultimately, this form of thinking leads to the loss of value.
 

 


 

But not to belabor a point...but I should mention too that even from the standpoint of science, some forms of hierarchy exist. A cell, for example, is higher in complexity than an atom or a molecule.  Obviously, this hierarchy is not the result of a despotic molecule "dominating" or "oppressing" the simpler atoms by brute force or subjugation.  


 

 


 

Yet the living organism is hierarchically arranged and develops from simple to complex, but not vice-versa.  You first have molecules, for example.  And then cells.  Cells then develop into tissue or organs, and from organs to organism and so on.  At higher levels of complexity, you have mind and spirit. Each level transcends and includes all lower levels of being, but not vice-versa. 


 

 


 

It's impossible to have a cell, for instance--without first having molecules.  This is because the molecule exists prior to any cell-formation and are the components of a cell.  Thus, the cell transcends and includes the molecule--but not vice-versa.  And it is the not vice-versa which establishes this particular order or hierarchy.  It is therefore a hierarchical arrangement although not in an oppressive, dominating or excluding way. 


 

 


 

Thus, a value hierarchy is a "non-bad" form of hierarchy.  A "good" form of hierarchy to distinguish from dominator hierarchies, when applied to molecules or levels of consciousness or spiritual development. 


 

 


 

In terms of spiritual development, for example, the value hierarchy is otherwise known as the Great Chain of Being: a concept of being which is at the core of all the great wisdom teachings throughout the world.


 

 


 

The Great Chain holds that God, Spirit, or Emptiness is a nest of being composed of infinite  holons, or concentric circles, with each higher level transcending and including all lower in a spirit of inclusiveness or agape. these concentric spheres range from matter to life to mind to soul to Spirt or God, the highest sphere or ground of all being and/or Emptiness--the vast emptiness or void out of which all manifestations arise.


 

 


 

Now, to apply this basic concept of of value hierarchy to personal or stage-level development as it relates to one's conception of the meaning of energy crisis from various levels of stage-growth.  We all pass through these stages, after all, both personally and collectively; although some of us get "stuck" in development along the way.


 

 


 

Individuals and even administrations and governments can be broadly classified into seven or eight different levels or stages of consciousness-development.  These levels or stages, in turn, provide a unique or different lens to the world to offer a unique or different perspective to energy policy.  By examining the various worldviews, it is possible to understand what it means to various people when asked, "What is the energy crisis?"  And to also locate or pin-point their relative level of stage-development in terms of overall consciousness.


 

 


 

A note:  First-tier consciousness is the center of gravity for over 90-95% of all humans, in terms of consciousness-development.  At first-tier levels, each worldview holds his or her view as the only "correct" worldview while denying the reality or truth of all other worldviews.  Therefore, first-tier consciousness denies the existence of "higher" or "lower" truths because "theirs" is the only "true" worldview whereas all others are "false teachings," more or less.  Nor is there hierarchy in first-tier consciousness in the sense of spiritual or consciousness-evolution.   That is the basic difference between first- and second-tier consciousness.  Second-tier is capable of perceiving these various stages of development and perceiving truth through a number of differnent perspectival lenses--and discerning their value in comparison to others.


 

 


 

Question:


 

 


 

"What does energy crisis mean?"


 

First-Tier Consciousness


 

1.  egocentric


 

"When I'm sitting in traffic and run out of gas on my way to pay the utility bill."


 

 


 

The egocentric approach is the most fundamental and least inclusive of the worldviews, in terms of number of perspectives that it is capable of holding.  From the standpoint of a living organism, the egocentric is by analogy on the level of a molecule or cell, or just above the level of atom...I apologize for the bad wording..or analogy


 

 


 

Generally, the egocentric worldview is held by children, teens, or adults who do not have an opinion or interest in current events (whether with respect to the energy crisis or to any other issue) unless an event or crisis happens to impact them on a more personal level such as at the gas pump, or when their power is suddenly disconnected due to failure or inability to pay the utility bill, for example.  Such individuals tend to be the least educated, least privileged, and lowest on the socio-economic ladder compared with the rest of the population.  Often they are disenfranchised from society-at-large and exist not far beyond the survival mode of existence; and have very little political influence or power.  Sometimes, it is possible to fall through the cracks of society to this basic level of existence otherwise known as Red, or the survival mode of existence, from a higher socio-economic stage.  Examples of such cases are when people get sick, become homeless, or lose their jobs and go on welfare or Social Security Disability, for example.  However, it would be inaccurate to say that all people who exist on the level of red or survival mode of existence are "egocentric"; but only to say that most people who are in Red or are existing in survival mode tend to be on the whole, egocentric in nature and incapable of holding the viewpoint or perspective of another..  More often, through no fault of their own because they were never exposed to other perspectives.  Usually, they are children or teens. 


 

 


 

Most people pass through the egocentric stage of development.  Otherwise, they tend to be adults who are less educated and less interested in current events, in general, for various reasons.  Occasionally, they may join dominator-hierarchies or hate groups such as gangs, al-Qaeda, or Neo-Nazis for the sake of personal identity or for acceptance into a surrogate family or peer group of blood brothers..


 

 


 

2. ethnocentric


 

 


 


"Energy independence from foreign oil."

 


 

The ethnocentric is more inclusive in terms of its capacity to transcend and include the views of an egocentric.  Unlike the egocentric, which is child-like and is concerned primarily with self-needs at the exclusion of other, the ethnocentric extends this basic concern beyond self-needs to the needs of others members of his or her own ethnicity or nationality.  


 

 


 

Those who hold this worldview have a tendency to be highly patriarchal or patriotic in their orientation.   It is basically a mythical worldview which values nostalgia and tradition over that of innovation or novelty.  Because of this tendency, it favors conventional forms of energy such as fossil fuel, making it difficult for those of this worldview, Amber, to accept a new paradigm such as those offered by alternative or untried forms of alternative energy.  They also tend to be at odds with scientific beliefs that run counter to their religious beliefs such as their rejection of Global Warming as a man-made phenomenon. 


 

 


 

As such, energy crisis from this stage of development is primarily one of energy independence from foreign oil for the sake of national security or supremacy.  Or for self-sufficiency and self-reliance by rolling up the sleeves, getting on a rig and then drilling one's own oil, right here in one's own country: a form of pride, perhaps--to no longer be at the mercy and control of foreign oil.  Or for the sake of the American Way of life.  They often favor policies that encourage a military solution to the energy crisis, and prefer conventional or traditional forms of energy such as oil, coal, and gas-powered vehicles and older paradigms.


 

 


 

3. ethnocentric to worldcentric (orange)  


 

 


 

"Energy independence through supply-side economics and via Greenwashing."


 

 


 

Whereas amber looks backward into the mythical past, the mental-rational is future-oriented and looks forward to progress and development.  Its future goal is to someday implement clean, renewable energy sometime in the near-distant future, according to most oil commercials.  If ever they can figure out a way to make renewables as lucrative as their non-renewables...or possibly greenwash their non-renewables to pass as renewable to the unassuming public.  They will, some day.  Whenever they evolve to Green.  Until that day, they are "Orange aping Green".


 

 


 

Those belonging in this category tend to be materialistic and three-dimensional in their basic outlook or orientation toward energy.  Although they do not reject science, technology, or Global Warming, they tend to favor free market solutions to global warming, which is seen as a secondary problem to the primary issue of increasing the domestic supply of conventional forms of energy, such as oil, coal, and natural gas to meet the market demands of consumerism. 


 

 


 

Supply-side economics can only work when there is a limited supply of a certain resource over which one has monopoly or control.  In a certain sense, therefore--unlimited, renewable energy such as solar and wind power poses a certain marketing draw-back to supply-side economics for the fact that it is impossible to bottle the air or the sun, for example, to profit from it--when it is freely available everywhere to everyone.


 

 


 

What is more, those who control the supply-side of limited, non-renewable resources, such as uranium, natural gas, coal, or crude oil--wish to make the most of their profits from these products so long as supplies can last and do not care to see a competitive green industry flourish right beside them to displace their own outmoded industry, which would naturally force prices to go down.


 

 


 

Those on orange do not necessarily define the energy problem as a global issue of climate change and Global Warming, although there is often lip service given to Global Warming in the form of "Greenwashing," a deceptive marketing practice used by many companies to appeal to consumer emotion by convincing them that their Greenwashed product is suddenly healthier, cleaner, or ecologically-friendlier than their previous incarnation, such as BP ("Beyond Petroleum") and "clean coal technology.".


 

 


 

4.  worldcentric (Green)


 

 


 

"Global Warming Climate Change caused by greenhouse emissions."


 

 


 

A worldview that perceives the energy crisis as a global threat in the form of Global Warming and Climate Change, but fails to offer innovative solutions for energy independence to compete with the current energy paradigm.


 

 


 

2nd-Tier Consciousness


 

 


 

5.  Teal


 

 


 

"Global Warming, Climate Change, and energy independence through conversion to a renewable, carbon-free energy system."


 

 


 

Innovative technological solutions for bringing about a new energy paradigm that is appealing to all levels of consciousness may come in the form a Teal worldview, a secular mutation or leap into the higher "Integral" conciousness.  Effective government solutions to Global Warming and alternative energy begin at this stage. 


 

 


 

6.  Turquoise


 

 


 

"Global Warming, Climate Change and effective strategies in bringing carbon-free, renewable energy to all parts of the world."


 

 


 

Complete conversion to 100%, carbon-free renewable energy for not only the developed countries but for the entire globe including China and India.  This may become a reality with Turquoise leadership and diplomacy, an even higher and deeper, more spiritual perspective than the secular Teal.


 

 


 

7.  Indigo


 

 


 

"Sustainability through a combination of spiritual and technological breakthroughs."


 

 


 

Beyond Turquoise is yet an even higher level of integration that is capable of capable of eradicating hunger, disease, war, Global Warming, and Climate Change through a combination of both spiritual and technological breakthroughs...


 

 


 

random notes and videos...


 

 


 

 


 

Who will face up to the climate change crisis?


 

Obama or McCain: Are their proposals enough to make a difference?


 

 


 



 

 


 


"Clean Coal"


What is "clean coal technology"?  Some preliminary notes


 

Robert Kennedy Jr.: No Clean Coal


 

 


 



 

 


 

Clean Coal's Dirty Secret


 

 


 

..


 

 


 

Is Clean Coal Possible?


 

 


 

..


 

 


 

Powering Past Fossil Fuels


 

 


 

José Etcheverry: "We are stuck in a paradigm of energy generation that is two centuries old"


 

 


 

Carbon capture technology is "putting the cart before the horse," climate change policy analyst José Etcheverry tells The Real News Network's Afsan Chowdhury, because the technology is unproven. Instead, Etcheverry, who works for the David Suzuki Foundation, says the world should be focusing on renewable resources such as wind and solar power. But large energy producers are opposed to these types of energy, Etcheverry says, because renewable energy is diffuse, can be owned and operated by anyone anywhere, and therefore makes it impossible for the large energy companies to continue to dominate the energy market.


 

 


 

..


 

 


 

McCain-Obama Nuclear Energy Transcript (from Town Hall Debate):


 

 


 

First, McCain:


 

 


 

You're going to be examining our proposals tonight and in the future, and energy independence is a way to do that, is one of them. And drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements of that. And I've been supporting those and I know how to fix this economy, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and stop sending $700 billion a year overseas.


 

McCain probably needs to stop staying he "knows" how to do something, because it can make people wonder why anyone would think otherwise, but he's on solid ground here. We're still not convinced on the efficacy of offshore drilling, but he is, and who here is a single issue voter anyway?


 

and:


 

 


 

We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs. We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology. All of these things we can do as Americans and we can take on this mission and we can overcome it.


 

  


 

We like clean coal insofar as it keeps an American industry alive, but might suggest alternative fuel companies look to coal country to set themselves down. We suspect there's a work force there hungry for, shall we say, alternative employment.


 


 

And Obama:


 

 


 

We're going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy.


 

 


 

McCain gets a bit exasperated:


 

 


 

Now, how -- what's -- what's the best way of fixing it [ciimate change]? Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.


 

  


 

Look, I -- I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it's clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.


 

And -- and I know that we can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel. The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too. Sen. Obama has opposed that.


 


 

Obama takes issue:


 

 


 

And that's why we've got to make some investments and I've called for investments in solar, wind, geothermal. Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.


 

 


 

What exactly is reprocessed spent nuclear fuel?  Trying to figure out...


 

 


 

 Politifact.com :


 

 


 

....In a June 5, 2008, news release, McCain was a more precise, calling nuclear energy, "an emissions-free source of electricity for the nation."


 

It is true that nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouses gasses, the ones at the heart of the debate over global warming.


 

 


 

But that doesn't mean nuclear power is "clean," Greeff said.


 

"It makes the most toxic substance known to mankind," Greeff said. "It's a tradeoff. Does it emit carbon dioxide, no. But radioactivity is absolutely environmental pollution."


 

 


 

Thomas B. Cochran, senior scientist in the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, argues that McCain's plan to subsidize the nuclear industry comes at the expense of other energy alternatives, some of which are faster, quicker and cheaper than nuclear power.


 

 


 

Cochran also takes issue with McCain's suggestion that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel hasn't been properly addressed. It has been tried and discarded as too expensive and risky, Cochran said. And one of the byproducts of reprocessing is plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. That creates security risks.....


 

 


 

Green Solutions to the Economic Crisis:


 

 


 

The New Bull Market:


 

 


 

....Since 2001, the wind industry has grown 339 percent; the solar industry has grown a whopping 579 percent; both are projected to continue their blockbuster double-digit annual growth into the foreseeable future. In contrast, the Dow Jones average has climbed just 2 percent during the same period, and is only barely hanging on at those levels because of the artificial boost produced by talk of the bailout.....


 

 


 

Green Recovery:


 

 


 

...Today, the Center for American Progress releases a new report by Dr. Robert Pollin and University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute economists. This report demonstrates how a new Green Recovery program that spends $100 billion over two years would create 2 million new jobs, with a significant proportion in the struggling construction and manufacturing sectors. It is clear from this research that a strategy to invest in the greening of our economy will create more jobs, and better jobs, compared to continuing to pursue a path of inaction marked by rising dependence on energy imports alongside billowing pollution.....