Help
Sign In
C4Chaos
May 2009 
Z3: Conscious Capitalism and (Bright) Green Business
Posted on Oct 13th, 2007
by 
~C4Chaos
~C4Chaos
This post is the sixth in a series on the topic of Eco Business and Conscious Capitalism. I'd like to thank Julian Walker for putting this Zymposium together and to all those who joined this conversation in the past few days. Before I express my own thoughts on this topic, allow me to recap the different perspectives covered by my fellow participants.
Siona kicked it off with a powerful meditation on first person perspective of Conscious Capitalism: a sense of responsibility, or "taking ownership of my position in the world." Brian followed up with the two roles we play in the conscious capitalism equation: conscious consumer, and conscious earner. Christiana dug deep and wide by asking a few important questions and differentiating the different aspects of Conscious Capitalism and Green Business. Jeff continued with his personal reflection by sharing an overview of the history of capitalism and then opening the "case" for Conscious Capitalism. And finally, Tommy Rosen (of Eco Gift Shop) shared a dilemma that he faces as an entrepreneur in the field of "green" business--the dilemma of not being "ECO" or "green" enough.
In this post, I'll share my views on Conscious Capitalism and its important role in the proliferation of "green" business.
The Driving Force Behind Conscious Capitalism
The participants touched on different perspectives and definitions of a big umbrella term that is Conscious Capitalism. A common thread I noticed is that Conscious Capitalism boils down to Capitalism infused with right intention. And what is the driving force behind this "right intention"? Patricia Aburdene, author of Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism, put it succinctly,
"Welcome to the Dawn of Conscious Capitalism--a popular, decentralized, broad-based crusade to heal the excesses of capitalism with transcendent human values."
Transcendent human values--such us fairness, love, integrity, caring, humility, and compassion--are the forces that drive this right intention.
To put it another way, whereas the major mode of thinking in Capitalism is "objective" (i.e. profit at all costs, creation of a consumer culture), in Conscious Capitalism, the major mode of thinking is driven by "subjective" (i.e. sense of purpose) and "intersubjective" (i.e. high standard of morals and ethics).
If Capitalism is like an operating system software then it's long due for an upgrade. In the book, Capitalism 3.0, author Peter Barnes, described the two versions of Capitalism and a proposed solution:
Capitalism 1.0, or shortage capitalism, wherein people want more goods than the economy can provide; Demand exceeded supply.
Capitalism 2.0, or surplus capitalism, wherein there's no limit to what corporations can produce; their problem is finding buyers. This version created the excesses that we see today which result in three tragic flaws: "it devours nature, widens inequality, and fails to make us happier in the end."
Capitalism 3.0, re-inventing the commons, wherein the essence is to "fix capitalism's operating system by adding a commons sector to balance the corporate sector. The new sector would supply virtuous feedback loops and proxies for unrepresented stakeholders: future generations, pollutees, and nonhuman species." Note that although it doesn't use the word "conscious" or require changing the profit motive and human nature, Capitalism 3.0 is a manifesto coming from a more embracing world view, sense of purpose, and ethics (i.e. it includes future generations and has compassion for non human species).
Conscious Capitalism and (Bright) Green Business
If Conscious Capitalism is capitalism infused with transcendent human values, then green business (or eco business) is its natural offshoot. Caring and compassion are transcendent human values that are behind the idea of sustainability (caring for the environment and nature, and compassion for culture and future generations, including nonhuman species). Sustainability in turn is the hallmark of a green business.
However, although green businesses are devoted to sustainability and that big corporations are now paying homage to being green, we still often see environmentalism, anti-capitalism, and capitalism clashing with one another. In their loud clashing, although the extremes on all camps raise our collective awareness of the limitations on each of those camps, I think that the more sustainable solution(s) lie somewhere in the middle. When it comes to capitalism and environmental concerns I firmly believe that the solutions lie somewhere in the brighter shade of the “green” spectrum – a shade of green which embraces technology, ecology, economics, politics, consciousness and ethics, and in the process, raises the consciousness of capitalism.
Case in point: In the green issue of What is Enlightenment: Ecology, Politics & Consciousness, Ross Robertson praised the book, Worldchanging: A Users Guide for the 21st Century. Worldchanging is comprised of "bright greens"--"those who harness the engines of capitalism, high technology, and human ingenuity to jump-start the manufacture of a dramatically sustainable future"-- in contrast to "dark green" (old-school environmentalism which is anti-this, anti-that, while wallowing in their own romanticism).
"...bright green environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the "tools, models, and ideas" that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions."
As Jeff Klein and Michael Strong would say, "criticize by creating." Their motto echoes that of the bright greens. And bright greens are as ambitious as they are practical. Here's what Alex Steffen (co-founder of Worldchanging) has to say:
"We don't need more recycling, we need a completely different system of closed-loop manufacturing, and no matter how many cans I crush my personal actions at the consumer level are of very little importance in getting us there. Even millions more eco-consumers will not get us what we need. What we need instead, it seems to me, is a global movement of smart people who understand the systems in which we're embedded, are actively pursuing better models which could replace them, and are clever as heck about communicating visions for doing so to their fellow citizens."
Bright greens seek to understand technology, ecology, economics, design principles and capitalism, and leverage them for solutions instead of tearing down the systems in which we're embedded. By this definition, my views are very compatible with the bright greens. However, as Robertson pointed out in the WIE magazine, the bright greens are somewhat anti-spiritual:
"According to Sterling at least, the bright green paradigm will be one that is completely free of spiritual or mystical overtones.... 'If it doesn't pass muster over at the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, we don't want to know about it. It's not that we're going to pick big public fights with spiritually motivated Greens and other illuminated hippie types. This is useless and a waste of time. like beating up Quakers and Amish. We're simply going to serenely ignore them, the way everyone else does.'"
I have no problem with this. After all, computers, nanotechnology, nuclear, solar and wind power were created without spiritual or mystical overtones. I'm not saying that we have to deny the spiritual or the mystical impulse, but I think that, at this point in time, the spiritual and mystical language should stay in the background or on a different domain so as not to cause more confusion and stigma in the business world. Similar to a separation of church and state. We can honor the transcendent human values and reconcile them with the task at hand. But I see no need to be too "spiritual" and "religious" about it.
To sum it up, Conscious capitalism is the tree, green businesses are branches and leaves, we (consumers, entrepreneurs) are the agents of growth and change. Awareness starts with the individual and spreads like wild fire.
Access: PublicTagged with: consciousness, conscious capitalism, julian walker, zymposium, z3, eco business and conscious capitalism, siona van dijk, brian johnson, c4chaos, tommy rosen, eco gift expo, christiana wyly, jeff klein, environmentalism, spirituality, eco business, worldchanging, capitalism 3.0, bright green, What is Enlightenment
brilliant, sir.
Oh, I really really loved this a lot…
Excellent, nice wrap up! …and that makes a lot of sense!
Its too bad Sterling is a little churlish about the ‘spritual’ folks, this tends to polarize people, but his logic isn’t hard to grasp. He doesn’t want his version of conscious capitalism tainted by intangibles. Business folk have a hard time getting capital when the ROI is full of intangibles! It is a step in the right direction though…
Thank you for your thoughtful and radiant synthesis, and for taking the conversation further and deeper.
This piece and your links will inform my further inquiry into the theory, practice, and meaning of Conscious Capitalism.
Hi all,
'After all, computers, nanotechnology, nuclear, solar and wind power were created without spiritual or mystical overtones' - are you absolutely certain about this?
I have been enjoying these threads…I'm wondering, does anyone else seem to feel the desire to address the Spirit (for lack of a better, comprehensive word,) in Conscious Capitalism? To me, it feels like we are leaving out a key component to the WHOLE of human experience and interaction. Let's take this quote from Gothe…
“'Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back always ineffectiveness, concerning all acts of initiative (and creation.) There is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in ones favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no one could have dreamed would come their way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.'
~Johann Wolfgang Von Gothe
I have to admit that the “synergy” that comes from “Providence” is something. And because this something is ever-present, I believe it should be taken into account. Perhaps, there is a discomfort with the word “spiritual” because of one's personal association or disassociation with the word. I ,for one, have been guilty of making these assumptions. Personally, I'm about as far from the “religious right -wing” as possible. So, it wounds me to feel dis-included in the conscious capitalism model simply because I happen to be very “spiritual.”
These are wonderful insights you're sharing. I appreciate your thoughts and am learning from these posts!
Warm regards,
Michele
William McDonough has the right attitude and approach for subjective conscious capitalism and he practises it. Check his famous presentation at Bioneers in 2000 :-)
Peter,
You made christmas come early! What a wonderful presentation!!!
p.s. your /p icon is sublime
yes, Peter! thanks for sharing that video! love it! i'm collecting videos on William McDonough on Zaadz videos. check it out: http://videos.zaadz.com/tagged/william+mcdonough
feel free to add more :)
~C (for Cradle2Cradle)
“We're simply going to serenely ignore them, the way everyone else does.”
:)
I also enjoyed this Z3 symp. a lot.
Just want to set things straight on the Gothe quote (it's Goethe, by the way)
A quotation by Murray is widely misattributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe [1]. The following passage occurs near the beginning of Murray's The Scottish Himalayan Expedition (1951):
““'Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness, concerning all acts of initiative and creation. There is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no one could have dreamed would come their way. I have learne a deep respect to one of Goethe's couplets: “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!' ”
The “Goethe couplet” referred to here is from an extremely loose translation of Faust 214-30 made by John Anster in 1835. Reference: Goethe Society of North America: [2]
I just thought you might want to know…
Cool. Thanks for the correction. Do you think it still carries the same meaning?
Goethe's lines:
“Wir wollen stark Getränke schlürfen;
Nun braut mir unverzüglich dran!
Was heute nicht geschieht, ist morgen nicht getan,
Und keinen Tag soll man verpassen,
Das Mögliche soll der Entschluß
Beherzt sogleich beim Schopfe fassen,
Er will es dann nicht fahren lassen
Und wirket weiter, weil er muß.
We want to drink strong drinks
so start brewing right away!
What isn't happening today, isn't done tomorrow,
An one shouldn't let any day pass away.
What's possible should by decision
coureageously be begun.
Then he won't let go of it
and keeps on working, because he must.
(my 'literal' translation) - so I guess with a lot of good will we can let it mean what Himalaya climbing Mr. Murray made of it; especially since he knows what he's talking about!
Hi Mushin,
I read an Enlightenment positivism in Goethe's lines, amplified to a dangerous extreme by Murray's notion that Providence actively helps the doer. Isn't this just the attitude (replacing new age mysticism with establishment Christianity) that gave rise to Western colonialism, materialism and, ultimately, our present crises of climate change and social injustice? It's indeed a Faustian bargain–there is nothing in this attitude of traditional (e.g. sustainable) cultures, or of the conservatism and caution about hubris that lies in Western tragedy.
Many people (Lenin, Mao, George W. Bush, the entire scientific community) seeking accomplishment have believed that they were working hard, doing good, and, most horribly, had god or history on their side.
Maybe we should lay off Goethe's coffee and stare at Goethe's possible and preceed our decisions with reflections on hubris. And maybe we should believe that when we act it is without knowing if Murray's providence is on our side.
A couple of thoughts on that L.D.
It is my experience that some of us need that kind of encouragement (providence helping) when we're climbing huge mountains or starting great things.
One cannot worry about hubris if one feels there is really something to be done, and one feels called to do it - especially if the idea or vision is pretty much different than the Zeitgeist, and/or is facing opposition from the outside (or 'sabotage' from the inside).
I don't think it is the attitude or the spirit that is at fault here it is the adaption and the use. It's good to have a long stick if you want to leverage your lifting power - but surely you can use the same stick as a weapon.
So you can certainly use the attitude that speaks from Murray's quote to encourage yourself or others when 'down', or use it to do some heroic nonsense, or even start a whole movement - like communism, for instance - that is fantastic in the beginning (Proudhon, early Marx, Rosa Luxemburg etc.), and then turns into a major tool for suppression.
I don't think that watching out, guarding against hubris is something that will be of use here - as much as it might help people like me at times to 'take themselves back' and listen to others.
It's an evolutionary thing - humans tend to learn from their mistakes much more then from their successes. If you want to get diversity (which seems to be one of evolution's drifts) than you need parasites, adverseries etc. The thing that talks to the Lenin's, Mao's and - not such a big figure - Bush's is powerful adverseries; and I guess in his own wierd way Bush might even believe that he is humble…
And I absolutely agree that we act best when we do not care either way, if providence is on our side or not… when we care about dialogue, with people, living beings, environment and our deepest heart
Mushin,
I think the attitude is just what is at fault, to go aggressively after the possible, and think it is god's work because you feel it is, and believe god or history will actively help. I think the Zeitgeist has been that precisely for centuries in the west, which new age mysticism (“if you know what you want the universe gives it to you”) amplifies rather than opposes.
So I think practices that help to guard against personal and cultural hubris are of use and very important–a big part of that cliched phrase “be the change.” Decades back, anyway, on Israeli kibbutzes (or collective farms, socialist creations), kibbutz presidents were assigned full time kitchen duty during the year after their terms ended.
So you think it's the attitude that is at fault, and I think that if there is anything at fault here it is how one uses such an attitude (“Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!')
So we differ. And we do so, I think, becaause we have a different view of what the attitude is This is, if we want to see where conflicts come from and what might need change, probably one of the 'natural causes' - people believing they differ, when it isn't even clear what they differ about.
So rather than making that clear I would like to go another way as it isn't important to me what the role of hubris is… especially not in a discussion. Hubris and humility are two poles of a field that is quite abstract to me, except in clear situations.
Putting presidents in kitchens might be an interesting exercise - but it says more about the valuation of kitchen work than about the valuation of humility. It can be regarded as the “wrath of the little men”, it could say a lot about forced labor - there was a period in China when intellectuals where forced to do manual labor.
If I meet a person and am truly interested in her or him, I don't see him/her as a consumer, capitalist - to pick up the thread of this original post here - and I don't even care about their ideologies and opinions, neither do I care much for if they are humble… I open up to them unquestioning, letting them deeply in to me, feeling them, tasting them, listening to them - and then seeing what wants to bloom between us.
Therefor an analysis of their altitude, their moral ideas (and practices) etc. is something we usually will not touch upon unless we've come to deeply trustfully listen to each other.
In my experience, whenever I do judge people's attitudes or opinions, it is a movement of separating myself from them - and putting myself in a sure place (above them).
So being the change is a nice cliché, and people believing in that cliché (or acting according to it) are culturally closer to me than people believing in the greatness of the American Way of life, for instance. Nevertheless that only plays a role when we're not meeting but playing around with concepts (which I like to do at times as well).
I applaud (and really listen to) your attitude of openness when engaging with individuals.
Yet I believe that what we think together (in a social network, an opposing counterculture) has concrete importance, and that to talk about those thoughts is not conceptual jousting.
In that context, the idea of cultural hubris and and its relevance to our social crisis is not, I believe, an abstraction. And I guess my overall point is that the new age idea that one can get the universe actively on one's side is such (in your words) a clear situation. I view it as the damaging mainstream zeitgeist dressed in new clothes.
Well the idea of cultural hubris that is attached to the “American Dream” might be - well, not so great anymore, or as it is being used by the present govt. but it helped create democracy in Germany (West) after freeing us from what we brought upon ourselves and through WW2 on a large portion of the world.
Japanese Zen-Buddhists - enlightened masters, by their own and present day standards - blessed Kamikaze pilots before they took of…
Enlightened Tibetan Lamas took 15 and 16 year old girls from around the monastries for their Tantric rituals without much consent from these girls…
There is a long tradition of what we presently would consider very humble spiritual people who committing atrocities in the name of their spirituality in history.
Humilty is not necessarily a characteristic that goes a lot beyond being a personal trait - a way of being one shouldn't brag about or 'push' as a medicine. Not in my view, anyway.
But if I would feel that hubris was a key problem (challenge) of our culture then - what would be a real cure?
Conscious capitalism as painted in the Z3 is one angle that needs to be covered, and many other ones.
As a person who doesn't believe that the universe takes sides, and actually that it doesn't even have sides as it has no center, I've always seen that people who are on a different developmental stage are sorely in need of someone or something to be on their side, and they'll believe whatever it takes to feel comfort in a huge universe out of their control.
I mean, no intelligent person after having given it a thought or two would seriously believe that some thing/process as big as the universe could care about them personally or even this planet… (Just look where we live!)
And even if you think/believe that God is in you as a very personal (to you) presence - and I've had quite a few experiences suggestive of that - than It/She/He is Everywhere also… and again, an intelligent person knows that this is a very, very big also.
So really if we take hubris to be the problem, we must ask intelligently what strengthens/motivates hubris - and I would look for the answer in emotional and intellectual and bodily education. Then hubris will disappear out of the sheer sense of magnitude we are faced with as individuals…
This for me has been a rewarding conversation; thank you.
Hello, Z-4 Chaos, I just left a message with Siona about doing a panel discussion in a recorded teleconference call to record this commentary as podcast on Making It All Click, or that she do it (and I'd love to join in).
I really dig what's being brewed here in your 4th plane reality. I call what you're discussing: Being Responsible for What Happens Next.
Also, meine ich das; ich sage das nicht nur so. Hoffentlich konnen wir Gesprach sehr wundabar informativ machen!
Besides, I have so much to learn!
First of all, I love this community – Brian thanks so much for helping us to all get together.
Chaos, a right-on summary – there was Tommy Rosen's and the bright breen vs. spirituality dilemmas left with that beautiful energy of unresolved issues … for which I'd like to offer additional perspective.
Much of Tommy's conflict comes from seeing something out of balance that isn't simple to work around. If one views truth as the key to balance – even to regaining balance when it's difficult – then Tommy's problem is highly solvable: the woman who can't find recycled base metals (because they aren't available today) can highlight that but still take part in the event. The fact that these are not available, showcased at the event, could eventually lead to the amazing result that someone with the ability to do so, entrepreneurs a solution to offering recycled base metals, no?
The entrepreneur holds some unique capability to offer greater evolution of conscious capitalism than the consumer, to any extent that the colective rules of play/business (rules of capitalism) are set more by businesses than by consumers. (I've written on this as Integrated Aikido Entrepreneurship or Aikido Activism at http://www.well.com/~rb ).
On bright green vs. spirituality, one view is that a type of spirituality is represented by every item, thought, person. If bright green is considered to involve a more scientific, solution-oriented approach to regaining balance between human culture, nature and self, then wouldn't that inherently involve a type of powerful underlying spirit?
The notion that spirituality is what we do in meditation, dance, yoga, church, or in spiritual discussions with teachers or others – but then this spirituality is somewhat left behind in our day to day interactions with others and things co-navigating the freeway, sidewalk, supermarket, social network site, etc. – is an important notion. I suspect it is true much of the time, and that where it is false, it is very important and worthy of further notice and consideration.
Truth, it seems, is spirituality, is bright green (solving the problems of today in a procreative fashion – like winning the game to change the rules of play), and is a solution to Tommy's dilemma. Truth is powerful, and can be a great, great friend – especially in our current managerial capitalist age (see Shoshana Zuboff's critiquing of the different ages of capitalism) in which inauthenticity is often the tool for improving the bottom line of profit.
I suspect that the truth is that fruition is the authentic form of profit – and so a far more durable form of profit than today's form; and that a transformation from today's profit to profit as fruition can (must?) be engendered through today's form of capitalism.
Perhaps a new form of capitalism is currently evolving where authenticity is the basis – naturally making profit authentic (fruition). It might take some Aikido to get there, but ultimately evolution is unstoppable. That is not the same as saying that what we do doesn't matter, because evolution can have multiple outcomes (if there are, indeed, multiple solutions to an evolutionally stable strategy for human culture) including regression to barbarism or even human extinction. Why not choose cultural evolution through authentic commerce – as a meta-notion for (Henry Ford's, John Mackey's-Jell Klein's-et al. ) peace through commerce?
“The entrepreneur holds some unique capability to offer greater evolution of conscious capitalism than the consumer, to any extent that the colective rules of play/business (rules of capitalism) are set more by businesses than by consumers.”
exactly! thanks for your insighful comments, Reed. i bookmarked your essays on The Well. good stuff. will read up on it. i can relate to your Aikido analogy since i also took Aikido for a couple of years. and yep, it's a good analogy in business and in life :)
~C
“Truth, it seems, is spirituality.”
I couldn't agree more Spidey. Thanks for your interesting post.