Capitalism 3.0

[PopJimmy]

....

If Capitalism is like an operating software then its 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

...
“…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


....

http://coolmel.zaadz.com/blog/2007/10/z3_conscious_capitalism_and_bright_green_business

http://c4chaos.com/

[PopJimmy]

Blog Action Day! Ecology, Politics & Consciousness

Today is Blog Action Day! The theme is to post anything about the environment. Good thing I just finished reading the green issue of What is Enlightenment: Ecology,Politics & Consciousness. Check it out.

This is one of my favorite issues so far. Ross Robertson did an excellent coverage of a new breed of environmentalists called, ”bright greens” and analyzed their world views from an integral perspective. Here's the blurb from the article entitled, A Brighter Shade of Green – Rebooting Environmentalism for the 21st Century.

“Environmentalists have long seen the march of human progress as the source of our planet’s ecological woes. But is Mother Nature really better off without us? Meet the heralds of the next great environmental revolution, who dare to say that the brightest promise for a radically sustainable future lies in harnessing the power of human creativity—and technology—to remake the world.”

Robertson narrated his falling out with his old “illuminated hippie type” environmentalism and how his views had been altered when he read the book, Worldchanging: A User's Guide for the 21st Century. I've been wanting to read this book for a while now. Thanks to Robertson it's now on top of my to-buy list.

Recently, I cited the “green” article on the latest Zaadz Symposium. See Z3: Conscious Capitalism and (Bright) Green Business. It was my attempt to tie in conscious capitalism with a brighter shade of green business. Here's a portion of what I wrote.

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.