Jeremy Rifkin

[Edward theurj Berge]

This dude also deserves a thread, a postmetaphysical visionary of an integral paradigm different from the trademarked variety. And quite "spiritual" to boot, if by that we mean creating a more equitable and humane lifeworld in which all can thrive and aspire to their highest potentials. From the integral capitalism thread:

Balder:

Have you discussed Jeremy Rifkin's notion of "distributed capitalism," based on emergent peer-to-peer technological models, which he discussed in his book, The Empathic Civilization?  I skimmed the thread and didn't see mention of it, so I thought I'd add it to the mix.  Here's a brief article on it.

(An interesting notion of his, which is not directly relevant to this thread but possibly relevant to this forum, is Rifkin's notion of an emergent "dramaturgical self" as a stage of self-making beyond the "existential postmodern self."  I haven't explored it in depth -- I've just been reviewing his book for a class -- but I'll look into it more and will comment further if it's relevant.)

theurj:

Thanks for these links. I've heard of Rifkin but have yet to read him. I agree with most of what he's saying but he is stretching the definition of the term capitalism beyond its intended meaning. Recall its meaning from the beginning of the thread. Private ownership of the means of production with profit flowing to the top is antithetical to shared, open and distributed ownership of resources and information and P2P relationships, much like selfish concern and cosmocentric morality are so in a moral hierarchy. Rifkin is right to make the connection between the worldview and economic-communication systems, and that the internet correlates with an empathatic, biospheric view necessary for such shared resources and environmental consciousness. But again, capitalism was all about the exploitation of natural resources as if they were infinite with little to no regard for the environmental consequences. Rifkin laments this destruction and rightly analyzes the consciousness and systems that created it, capitalism, yet by keeping that name in his new view of P2P distribution is a functional misfit.

One can also view him speak on his new book at YouTube. Just watching the first couple minutes it seems to be the same info in the text linked above.

Balder:

I also had posted this video on his work here on IPS awhile back.

theurj:

Now I understand hybrid systems during transition phases. For example we have hybrid gas-electric cars which are better than just gas-driven. But we know that it is a transition to a full electric car when we develop the technology and infrastructure to make it feasible. That is, we know we must completely leave behind using a limited resource like petrol for a more sustainable energy source. So with economic systems. There are hybrids of capitalism with open source and of course it is a step in the right direction. But like with petrol we know that at some point we will leave capitalism behind in a more equitable, humane and environmental consciousness with correlative political economy.

 

So for me it says something about our consciousness to which economic system we attach. Given the I-I agenda of a kinder, gentler capitalism it appears to be on the transition of rational-pluralistic and it calls that integral. Hence you get no language or values about open source, distributed networks or P2P. Whereas I think what Rifkin is describing, that ecologic empathy that is growing out of the informational-pluralistic into the internet P2P network, is what we might call integral. And it is open source, not private property. But again, it is currently a hybrid in transition but we know where it is going and what must be left behind.*

 

*As to worldview and moral level replacement, see the previous thread on ladder-climber-view. Like I said, I don't think it's a strict or clean dividing line between one level and the next, with transitions containing mixes and hybrids. But we see the trajectory of where it's going and what it will eventually leave behind.

You can find Rifkin's website here. Following is an excerpt from the synopsis on his lecture "The age of access":

"The new information and telecommunications technologies, e-commerce and globalization are making possible a new economic era as different from market capitalism as the latter is dissimilar from mercantilism. In the new century, markets are slowly giving way to network ways of conducting business, with far-reaching implications for the future of society....The notion of exchanging and holding on to fixed property becomes an anachronism in a society where everything is continually evolving."

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

I'm proud to be an American (supporter of European initiatives heading in the direction of interdependence)! 

Yes, the Second Industrial Revolution has a strong grip on the U.S. I finally got around to watching the movie Argo a few days ago. The history of shadow government U.S sponsored coo of a beloved/popular democratically elected leader (who was nationalizing oil for the people) in order to install the oil corporation puppet "Shaw" was, according to the historical blip, sponsored/backed mostly by U.S. and Britian because of the political influence of those two country's oil companies. I thought "my, that sounds rather familiar, considering that those two same buddies were most active in waging and supporting the invasion of Iraq." 

darrell

theurj said:

Also the energy companies are fighting to prevent an energy smart grid. But the EU, unlike the US, is smart enough to fight back, as they are on the forefront of this evolution:

"The European Union, the world's largest economy, has taken steps to keep the Energy Internet an open architecture by requiring that conventional power and utility companies unbundle their power generation from their transmission of electricity. The unbundling regulations came about because of growing complaints by millions of small, new renewable energy producers that the big power and utility companies were making it difficult for them to connect their local micropower plants to the main transmission grid. The companies were also accused of discriminatory practices that favored speedy connectivity for green electricity generated by affiliated business partners and of imposing bureaucratic delays and even refusing to accept green electricity from others."

[andrew]

We might see Britons move on nuclear as similar to Integrals move on Ka$h (C.C.). Yeah, it deals with the carbon issue but is still tied to the same toxic global finance system mindset ( the love of mammon).

[Edward theurj Berge]

Here's Kevin Werbach commenting on Rifkin's marginal cost internet, the foundation for his project.

"The marginal cost of connectivity is virtually zero, but the up-front expenses of building high-speed broadband networks are massive. [...] The potential benefits of a world of cheap digital connectivity are titanic, both in economic and social terms. It's far from certain, however, that we'll get there along the current market and policy trajectory."

"As Rifkin points out in his book, unlicensed wireless devices point the way to another model. [...] Various providers are deploying WiFi access points that automatically function as public or community hubs. And TV White Spaces, the 'super-WiFi' technology that Rifkin mentions, is finally ready for widespread commercialization. If open wireless connectivity continues to grow, it might overcome the paradox of network infrastructure funding."

"There's only one problem: This outcome requires policy decisions in the near future that are far from certain. [...] The FCC and other agencies have to decide just how strongly they care about unleashing an open wireless future."

"Rifkin reminds us this is not a choice between profit-seeking private actors and some collectivist sense of well-being. The road to the connected commons runs directly through the valley of capitalist dynamism. Even today's incumbent operators can and should participate in building a new collaborative network ecosystem. We will only get there, however, if we make the right choices."

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Theurj, I am re-reading the first part of The Third Revolution. I only got about 60 pages into the book before getting distracted and stopping during my first attempt at reading the whole book. But it's all good (my failure to complete the reading project the first time) because re-reading has its advantages anyways. Sometimes learning really requires a bit of overlearning, more repitition than one would assume necessary. 

While re-reading those first few pages I came across one of the solutions to the problems of the old guard's resistance. Rifkin and someone else in Europe was astute when they realized that the construction industry which represents 10 % of the GDP in Europe was an ally for the conversion to renewable energy, since one of the 5 pillars is modifying buildings to become micro-producers of electricity from solar panels, etc. This is a more "integral" approach, since it works with existing structures and resources within the current system in order to help transform the system in a less painful and more sustainable fashion. Get one major industry on your side when going up against the self-serving will of the "old guard" power companies. THIS is the way to go. It is what I call New Virtue, type 2, which means that in relation to the evolutionary trajectory we manage to utilize the old resources and structures just enough to be a support for the new resources and structures emerging from the new ways which evolution is nudging us toward. It is the limited, but valuable (albeit somewhat dangerous because of the temptation to cling to old ways or to drag our feet), contribution of conservativism to evolution. Rifkin himself has quite a bit of this type 2 new virtue. He tries to write about solutions which work with capitalism instead of simply advocating that we toss it to the side (an act which would take all our heart, soul, and energy, even if it were possible to achieve in such a direct manner). He also, however, seems to endorse an outgrowing of business as usual, or capitalism as we know it (or whatever term Noam Chomsky used in his speech posted here via one of your links). I call this tendency of Rifkin's "new virtue, type 1" (because it rides the evolutionary wave, or works with it). He has both types of "new virtue."

But I'm not sure his assumption that P2P culture will grow sufficiently without fertilization or intention, is quite right. All his 5 pillars are right side quad realities. I believe that the left side of Integral quads be incorporated into an additional, sixth, "pillar" of a psycho-social nature, if we are to stack the cards in favor of ushering in the third industrial revolution before it's too late.

Here is what I said about this proposed 6th pillar in my book-in-progress, Your Third Nature. "Your third nature" is a secular way of saying either "spirit." Or you could use the alternate secular wording of "optimal psychological potential (an integrative capacity)" as a definition for "third nature."  Or perhaps simply "whole-thinking" or "whole-thought." My wife, an educator, and myself are starting to think that whole-thinking might be a teachable skill that we must include in our educational system if democracy and successful adaptation to changing realities (eco-realities, etc.) is to be achieved. Without this thinking skill (which ironically goes beyond regular left-brained-biased "thought/thinking") then we simply won't have the tool (I call the mind the "Master Tool" in my first book, Allsville Emerging) with which to make democracy and adaptation work.   

The following excerpt paves the way for such an educational initiative, as it proposes a larger factor (a sixth pillar) which would subsume and legitimize it. 

from Your Third Nature (in-progress): 

A Good Use for it

Another source of inspiration is Jeremy Rifkin's book The Third Industrial Revolution. Whenever a person (in this case, me) sees a good use for an idea, then that too becomes an inspiration for developing the concept further. Rifkin's book provided me with that type of inspiration. It suggested a major use for the concept of a third nature.

First let me explain what Rifkin means by “Third Industrial Revolution.” According to Rifkin, the first industrial revolution ran on steam, powered primarily by coal and wood. The second industrial revolution ran on petroleum. The third industrial revolution (TIR) will rely upon renewable, or “green,” energy sources.

Something Rifkin said in his book made a light bulb turn on in my head. He said that a new narrative and a new “vision” is needed. Interestingly, this particular factor was not identified as one of the TIR's interactive and interdependent “pillars.”

“Why not?” I wondered. Isn't a new vision a factor (a psycho-social factor) which is just as important as the other 5 pillars? Without psychological insight into the need to change our ways and our worldview how could the TIR be developed? There would be no political will for it.

When talking about the new vision, Rifkin mentions a need for us to shift to “lateral power,” in which energy production is no longer dependent upon a powerful few, but is performed by many smaller players. This shift is necessary because of the nature of renewable energy. Renewable energy can be harvested and processed effectively/productively, but not in the same way that oil is harvested and processed. Green energy often comes in more sporadic and smaller units—here, there, and anywhere.

Contrast the harvesting of wind energy to the harvesting of oil.

In the case of oil, expensive rigs and refineries are required. Oil is only found in a relatively few places and is naturally stored deep under the ground. This means that large drilling stations must be constructed and manned. The average Joe cannot afford to go out and buy oil detection equipment, purchase the land (or rites to it), buy an oil rig to put on the land, or pay several oil rig workers for the weeks or months it takes to strike it rich. Also, don't forget that not all oil drilling projects strike oil. No average Joe could afford such losses. Only someone, or groups of someones, with plenty of money or credit could finance the overall process of accessing the oil deep under the ground.

Even after the oil is found and then extracted from the ground it must be extensively refined before it can be used as fuel. Again, only folks with deep pockets (or, in the case of state-run oil production, the political power to funnel huge sums of public money) can afford to buy and maintain such expensive equipment and pay for the many services/workers needed in the production process.

Point is, this money-making game is “rigged” (pun intended) in favor of the wealthy from the get-go. I'm sure you've heard the adage: “It takes money to make money.” The system that is used to get energy from oil certainly helps make that saying true.

Energy of a highly concentrated nature (such as petroleum) which is harvested and produced in this centralized manner lends itself to being exploited by the rich and powerful among us, including the now-infamous “petrol-dictators.” This can be, well... “not so good” for economic diversification and for democracy. It can lead to an overly vertical, “top-down,” power structure that favors oligarchy, aristocracy, or plutocracy over democracy.

In contrast the wind blows sporadically and all over the place but provides less concentration of energy per unit. Even an average Joe might be able to buy a small windmill attached to an electric generator. Unless he lives in a very windy place, he may not make much money from the electricity produced from his windmill. It may only reduce his own electric bill. The savings may pay for the windmill, but it may take years.

If Joe does happen to live in a windy place he may generate enough electricity to exceed his own needs. He can then sell the extra juice to an electric company (providing his electric company has an intelligent energy grid which allows for that). His windmill will “turn” (pun intended) a profit. But he will not likely become a super wealthy man from the venture. He will likely need to be content to share the wealth with a whole lot of other small-time energy producers. Perhaps he can look right out his window and see his competition. His next door neighbor might have a windmill too.

Even if Joe decides to make a wind farm, the returns will not likely be great enough to strike it rich like an oil investor does when he hits even one “gusher.” Again, renewable energy, such as that obtained from wind-powered generators, tends to be spread out in a manner that few people can make a killing at it.

But that doesn't mean it won't be profitable. It just means the profits will be shared by many people instead of by a few.

Rifkin predicts that a shift to this more widely distributed way of producing “green” energy will have a “democratizing” effect because of the way it spreads the wealth (and its accompanying political power) around. What holds true for wind harvesting tends to hold true for other renewable energy production modes as well. Joe could purchase a solar cell or two to put on his roof. The solar cell may pay for itself in time. But Joe will not strike it rich with that means of producing energy any more than he can from his windmill. He could also install a geothermal unit to heat his house. It too may pay for itself eventually, due to lower heating bills. Same goes for the hydroelectric turbine he placed in the stream behind his house.

Even if he invests in all four of these green energy ventures he still will not be a rich man. In terms of the money he makes or saves from green energy he must be content with taking in an “average” income. That's okay. When all is said and done there's nothing wrong with being and average Joe with an average income. Some of our best neighbors and citizens are “average Joes.”

This average Joe tale illustrates how, according to Rifkin, the shift to a green energy industry could help spread both wealth and political power. Who needs oil tycoons when a whole bunch of average Joes can meet our energy needs? Better-distributed wealth also correlates with better-distributed political power. When the wealth is more evenly distributed there are less people with disproportionately deep pockets to pay for lobbyists or to make back-room deals with political leaders. In this case less really is more. By helping spread the wealth around, the TIR has great potential to further democratize our nations and world.

Also, we might anticipate that the action of sharing energy production and power would help facilitate a corresponding shift to a social model of interdependence. A change in how we do things could help us change the way we see the world. Once we experience the fruits of lateral power structures we will probably become more and more “sold” on the concepts of interdependence and social synergy. It would be like test driving a new car and parking it in our own driveway. The new vehicle seems more and more “at home.”

But the change process would seem to work the other way around as well. A change in our thinking could greatly assist us in changing the way we do things. If we begin to think more and more in terms of interdependence it will help bring about the political will to make the needed changes. That would be analogous to learning all about the features and stats of the car that we are considering for purchase. Long before we see the car in our driveway we are “sold” on the idea that its many benefits outweigh its cost or costs (imperfections or lack of perfect “fit” with our overall needs).

If we manage to reason things out and consciously decide to adopt a new social paradigm of interdependence, then this change in thinking or worldview would go far toward helping us create the lateral power structure needed for the TIR. Creating a green industry and economic engine relies to some extent on our ability to understand the truths of interdependence and synergy.

This in turn requires a more dynamic or holistic way of thinking.

Enter your third nature. It is a master orchestrator which/who “gets” dynamic interactions, interdependence, and synergy. It understands these things in a way that neither the first nor second natures can.

Your first nature “gets” flow and unity just fine. But it becomes easily confused and loses the flow-consciousness when all the identified and analyzed parts or details are introduced. First nature is not hardy to second nature burdens. When the details are added to a first nature's impressionistic and vibrant sketch of reality it often ends up being like putting too many big logs on a fire. The logs smother out the flames. The innocent grace of our first nature's “Garden of Eden”gets eclipsed and squashed by our second nature's “Tree of Knowledge...”

Your second nature “gets” the many analyzed/identified parts (“the trees”). But it tends to lose the deep-sense impression of a unified whole (“the forest”). The flow-consciousness and unity-sense, as well as all those wonderfully vibrant impressions, of our first nature get lost in the shuffle. The Tree of Knowledge takes us out of the Garden.

Your third nature is the best equipped of all your natures to see the “trees” at the same time it sees the “forest.” It sees not only a broad-sweep whole, but a highly differentiated whole which still has the dynamic qualities of wholeness and fullness. In fact the added complexity of the differentiated parts actually increases the richness and dynamic quality of the whole. The highly differentiated whole is not merely the matter-of-fact assemblage of parts (or sub-skills) that we tend to see from our second nature. Third nature can integrate technical (second nature-like) systems with natural (first nature-like) systems. Or as Kevin Kelly, author of the book Out of Control and executive editor of Wired magazine might say, it can integrate the “made” with the “born.”

darrell

theurj said:

Also the energy companies are fighting to prevent an energy smart grid. But the EU, unlike the US, is smart enough to fight back, as they are on the forefront of this evolution:

"The European Union, the world's largest economy, has taken steps to keep the Energy Internet an open architecture by requiring that conventional power and utility companies unbundle their power generation from their transmission of electricity. The unbundling regulations came about because of growing complaints by millions of small, new renewable energy producers that the big power and utility companies were making it difficult for them to connect their local micropower plants to the main transmission grid. The companies were also accused of discriminatory practices that favored speedy connectivity for green electricity generated by affiliated business partners and of imposing bureaucratic delays and even refusing to accept green electricity from others."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Rifkin's recent talk on his new book.

[Edward theurj Berge]

At 33:30 he discusses the issues of network neutrality and how corps want to dominate the internet. If we want to retain equal access "we have to create a political movement to make that happen" (35:30). At around 37:00 we're going to have to regulate the social utilities like Facebook, Google, and Amazon just like we previously regulated the public utilities like phone and gas companies. Otherwise they'll continue to maintain their monopoly status. The battle is between "the monopolization of everything versus the democratization of everything" (37:30). And right after he acknowledges we will need a change to biospheric consciousness to facilitate this socio-economic shift.

[Edward theurj Berge]

At around 1:03:00, in response to a question, he brings up The Empathic Civilization, the evolution of consciousness through various eras that arose in concert with energy-communication regimes. We discussed this earlier in the thread, and answers many of those who wonder about the necessary consciousness shift that is required to prevent tech from being used for merely selfish or profitable aims. Hence the battle between monopolization and democracy based on different value sets. The thread is only 14 pages, a mere 15-20 minute read.

[Edward theurj Berge]

See Frischmann's review of the book here. Actually he only has space to deal with one key issue: Who will pay for the fixed costs of the infrastructure? He credits Rifkin for addressing the issue but also criticizes him for being incomplete. Rifkin acknowledges this will be an epic battle of the monopolists and the commons, but Frischmann thinks it's going to be a lot harder to overcome the former than it might appear, if it can be done at all.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Sounds like he himself is inching towards possibly considering psycho-social-cultural interventions for such consciousness as being an essential 6th pillar for the TIR. I suggest that it be considered a legit 6th pillar in my book-in-progess Your Third Nature. Perhaps Rifkin is starting to bark up that same tree! 

darrell

theurj said:

At around 1:03:00, in response to a question, he brings up The Empathic Civilization, the evolution of consciousness through various eras that arose in concert with energy-communication regimes. We discussed this earlier in the thread, and answers many of those who wonder about the necessary consciousness shift that is required to prevent tech from being used for merely selfish or profitable aims. Hence the battle between monopolization and democracy based on different value sets. The thread is only 14 pages, a mere 15-20 minute read.

[Edward theurj Berge]

The Empathetic Civilization is nearly 700 pages, hardly 'inching.' And he mentions this stuff in most of his other works, but this one focused on it. As for what he refers to as 'pillars,' he specifically makes clear these refer to energy-communication infrastructures. Different books have different focuses, as does the new book.

[andrew]

This was advertised on The Masters today. 

And by this commercials storyline, pipelines and petroleum are the best things to ever happen to nature:

Is the future so bright we gotta wear shades? Apparently so.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

This is where the Integral vision could help "integrate" Rifkin's sound initiatives. He did the traditional thing (for Orange, modern) of bending over backwards to emphasize the right side of the Integral UR and LR quads (especially the LR), or what my quantumized version of them ("quantum quads" in my book-in-progress, Your Third Nature) calls quantum quads B and C (B=quantum wave function collapsed or "unpacked", C = quantum wave function collapsING or "unpacking"). Rifkin was willing to play the main game. He is not the standard green activist sort. He is willing to work with existing capitalistic systems tied into the Second Industrial Revolution, while gradually transforming those resources into support and investments for a Third Industrial Revolution based on renewable, earth-friendly, energy. This is all good and all quite "integral." I call the conservative utilization of existing SIR resources and infrastructures "type 2 New Virtue" in my book-in-progress. Rifkin is to be applauded for his wise choice to work partially within the existing "game." He puts on his American "football" uniform and plays awhile, then goes off to the side to play a bit of the other "football" (soccer) with his more-enlightened European friends. This is a very smart move. It is a slow version of the Trojan Horse outflanking-right-under-their-noses approach to "winning" the future.   

But perhaps he played a bit too much American footbal (metaphorically speaking, of course) when he failed to go ahead and label the Integral LL quadrant as being a major part of a sixth pillar. By including both the UL and the LL together as a "psycho-social" or "psycho-cultural" single "factor" or "pillar" I too am playing into the traditional game. The right side quad realities are still afforded the lion's share (five-sixths) of the emphasis.

But if Rifkin wants an integrated plan, he needs to legitimize at least that much (one-sixth) of the left side realities by labeling it as a sixth pillar. Otherwise he has slipped into a touch of what I call "type 1 New Sin," which means he is conforming too much to the old ways of seeing  left side (subjective and intersubjective) realities as cheerleaders on the side of the game. The left side realities are in fact a huge part of the "master tool" -- the mind itself which fashions all other tools (and systems).

Rifkin knows that he must also win minds. He and I agree wholeheartedly about that. My only difference of opinion lies in the degree to which the psycho-social factor should be considered on par with the objective realities of technological things and systems. I say make the psycho-social factor a "pillar." Rifkin either disagrees or just hasn't seen fit yet to do so. 

Ken Wilber's contribution of a solid (ironic use of the word there, since the left side realities are not literally solid!) "Integral" approach could wisely assist Rifkin's systemic approach to facilitating the TIR. 

BTW: I think Rifkin's and the European Union's adoption of the "20-20-20 by 2020" formula is a stroke of genious in terms of the psycho-cultural "narrative" that Rifkin does in fact also emphasize (even though he does not call it a pillar). 

I also see another convergence upon the psych-social subfactor of whole-thought or "both/and" cognitive skill which I have been discussing recently as an important part of the "psycho" part of the psycho-social or psycho-cultural factor (or "sixth pillar"). The below excerpt from The Third Industrial Revolution aligns with my oft-repeated insight that we need to positively exploit the converse of the addage "Where there's a will, there's a way." The converse is, of course, "Where there's a way, there's a will."

In the below excerpt Rifkin correctly (IMO) concludes that once folks see how the 5 pillars work together synergistically to make a whole greater than the sum of their parts then they will start to ramp up the "both/and" cognitive skill. A concrete example, much like an object lesson, will prime the minds for this type of thinking.

Actually it is already in the business and science worlds, in the form of systems thought. So this existing acceptance (although still confined to a relatively few forward thinkers) of the viability of systems thought and plans becomes an interface between the SIR and the TIR.

Similarly, I discuss at length the way which the horozontal-acting quantum quad D (Integral's LR) naturally interacts with the vertical depth dimension. The way a system "unpacks" things (even existing, already-unpacked) things dips down a bit deeper into the unfolding reality (which I liken to a flare-with-depth-unfolding, or "flaring" out).

Also, complex systems seem to act like a satelite dish which picks up some of David Bohm's (and Basil Hiley's) "psi signals" or "active information" from the quantum substratum of reality (Bohm also calls this the "Implicate Order").

Love relationships and human consciousness are also powerful satelite dishes which pick up such quantum and sub-quantum information (I have a personal example of that which I will share later. By meditating and lovingly relating with my wife, my deceased friend, Mark, was able to make contact for about the third time from the "other side." I'll share later the details of this fascinating "ghost story" which suggests the manner in/by which the relationships and meditative grooves helped pull in his "signals." )

  Here (finally!) is the excerpt from Rifkin's TIR book. The bold print emphasis is mine.: 

(in reference to San Antonio city adopting a TIR master plan) ...

... That means that the city could still allocate 95 percent of its investment to shoring up the old Second Industrial Revolution infrastructur, ensuring it against a potential collapse during the period of transition. 

    Why is so little investment required? It is becaus the cost of maintaining an old infrastructure in steep decline, with mounting expenditures, is relatively high compared to that of creating a fresh, new infrastruture. Mending a worn-out infrastrucure provides few new economic opportunities and adds little real value to the economy. New infrastructure, by contrast, spawns all kinds of symbiotic, synergistic, and ancillary business entures and enterprises. 

    Again, this assumes that the city takes a systems approach in laying out a new infrastructure. The real multiplier effect occurs when the interaction between pillars gives rise to a new emergent paradigm. While each of the five pillars that make up the Thirid Industrial Revolution infrastructiue, taken alone, would add only marginal value to the economy, when they are connected in and interactive sytem that acts like an evolving organism, the new economy takes off. ...

Notice how seeing the way the right side realities work is thought to help the participants "see" the synergy or interaction effects. When they see this concrete and plausible "way," then they will have more will to invest in it. This assumes that some few decision-makers have enough systems-thought capacity and appreciation to invest in the plan. Apparently they do in San Antonio and in a few other major cities.

Rome, in particular, is an exciting prospect for "showing" the synergy. To me this is powerfully symbolic considering how Rome collapsed way back when from failing to take into account interaction effects due to unsustainable practices (externalizing costs from excessive urbanization, etc.).

And Germany, ex-home of the NAZIS, is also a major player in the TIR. Both (Rome and Germany) have "been there, done that" and are wisely situated to do something much more holistic or integral this time around. 

d

theurj said:

The Empathetic Civilization is nearly 700 pages, hardly 'inching.' And he mentions this stuff in most of his other works, but this one focused on it. As for what he refers to as 'pillars,' he specifically makes clear these refer to energy-communication infrastructures. Different books have different focuses, as does the new book.