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]

Again the "integral" characteristic, or at least "feel," of Rifkin's approach is also informed pragmatism. It's what actually works, or at least is beginning to actually work, according to progress reports like that one from Germany. 

darrell

theurj said:

Germany produced 74% of its energy from RE on one day recently. Apparently an anomaly, as the general mark for the first quarter of 2014 is 27%. They are committed though to increasing that to near 100% by 2050. They lead the way in this transition and are, of course, working with Rifkin on the TIR.

[DavidM58]

Hi Andrew,

That Forbes link is broken, but I found the article, and read about half of it. My thoughts are that he is wrong on almost every point.

Take this one: "Don’t give me political propaganda talking points that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with the allegation of pending, catastrophic, man caused, global warming. That too is a mere fabrication already falsified as having no foundation."

That's one rabbit hole that I've spent some time investigating, and he is wrong. It is not a fabrication that has been falsified.  There are some who attempted to prove Naomi Oreskes study as flawed, but the counter study was deeply flawed and fabricated (by Bernie Pieser, if I remember correctly). And there have been at least a couple of follow-up studies that confirm Oreskes original research.

So that's just one small counter argument to the many errors in Ferrar's article. My opinion is that this is pure propaganda. Note how he ends the article: "Bottom line: green is the new red. That is why Obama at root is so committed to it." 

Obama is further to the right than any "progressive" I know, so if he is "red," ... 

[andrew]

Hi David, some thoughts on this: I think the majority of people alive today would agree that what the petrochemical people did with their technology was astonishing; that they brought us from the plough to the edge of hot fusion and CERN. It does not necessarily follow, though, that they should be allowed to destroy the civilization they helped create. 

I do think that climate is much more complex than just C02. That solar activity does obviously have a significant effect; that some of the other points within this article do have some merit. Perhaps there may even be some truth that life can survive significant amounts of C02 in the atmosphere ; but as a layperson, I  am convinced that human civilization as it is will not to able to survive some of the worst case projections of C02 pollution. For this industry to now play russian roulette with the globe is wreak less and unnecessary, and certainly,  willful propaganda that intends to confuse and obstruct a closer version of reality is reprehensible behaviour. 

We can also look to methods used in the past to get clearer on what is happening within the global information wars. If we look at the traditional methods of manipulation by big sugar, big tobacco, big alcohol , big fat, etc., we can see a rather clear trajectory of methods used to confuse the public , and we can certainly see the same methods being used by big oil and their major allies-- big Ka$h.

What sickened me personally about this article is the justification for the next more odious extraction methods of remaining fossil fuels. Fracking, oilsands ,deep  sea drilling, arctic and antarctic exploitation; the negative consequence for the earth with these methods ( never mind the climate) is far too destructive to give it the flippant pass that this journalist used. It's dishonest and dangerous. 

There are always winners and losers when it comes to major cultural shifts and this powerful group of people should either start making the necessary changes to get off the big petro bus , or be forced by overwhelming consensus to alter their toxic behaviour.

[andrew]

Hey Darrell, I don't want to disrupt the flow of topic on the other thread so i will briefly reply here. I do like the way you are attempting to frame these notions. However, the Tao of Physics , quantum this and quantum that has all too often shown us that this line of inquiry is laden with woo-woo. So, fair warning- tread carefully in these waters:) 

I do lean towards science being able to explain more of the mystery in coming decades/centuries  but those new insights would need to be confirmed by the scientific communities methods of confirming consensus. Nevertheless, you may have gathered by now from my ramblings on the Noah thread that I am quite fond of coherent theories even if personal musings. 

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Yes, mostly musings of a layman philosophizing in relation to science. Certainly NOT science. More like pop science. But in a LL Integral quad sort of way, such culturally-shared musings might prepare the group soil/mind to center a bit deeper or at least begin to once again believe in "spiritual." Modern metaphors to help reclaim the spirituality momentarily lost in the orange "flatland." Out of orange, like some Phoenix rising from the ashes, comes something non-dual-ish and unified-consciousness-ish and "spiritual."

I'm perfectly okay with musings as long as they involve meaningful myths which might help modern man, which includes this modern man named Darrell. 

darrell 

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Yes, the issue is not dependent upon the answer to the question "Are we messing up Mother Nature?." The real issue (and proper question) seems to be: "Is it time to shift from an old order to a new order if we are to prosper?"  

If "survival" is one of the fringe benefits of this shift, then that certainly would be nice perk!  Either way -- for prosperity or for survival -- signs indicate our need to change the "game" from an older order to a newer order (and "economic engine"). I suppose some folks don't want to see the writing on the wall, so they don't. 

darrell

andrew said:

Hi David, some thoughts on this: I think the majority of people alive today would agree that what the petrochemical people did with their technology was astonishing; that they brought us from the plough to the edge of hot fusion and CERN. It does not necessarily follow, though, that they should be allowed to destroy the civilization they helped create. 

I do think that climate is much more complex than just C02. That solar activity does obviously have a significant effect; that some of the other points within this article do have some merit. Perhaps there may even be some truth that life can survive significant amounts of C02 in the atmosphere ; but as a layperson, I  am convinced that human civilization as it is will not to able to survive some of the worst case projections of C02 pollution. For this industry to now play russian roulette with the globe is wreak less and unnecessary, and certainly,  willful propaganda that intends to confuse and obstruct a closer version of reality is reprehensible behaviour. 

We can also look to methods used in the past to get clearer on what is happening within the global information wars. If we look at the traditional methods of manipulation by big sugar, big tobacco, big alcohol , big fat, etc., we can see a rather clear trajectory of methods used to confuse the public , and we can certainly see the same methods being used by big oil and their major allies-- big Ka$h.

What sickened me personally about this article is the justification for the next more odious extraction methods of remaining fossil fuels. Fracking, oilsands ,deep  sea drilling, arctic and antarctic exploitation; the negative consequence for the earth with these methods ( never mind the climate) is far too destructive to give it the flippant pass that this journalist used. It's dishonest and dangerous. 

There are always winners and losers when it comes to major cultural shifts and this powerful group of people should either start making the necessary changes to get off the big petro bus , or be forced by overwhelming consensus to alter their toxic behaviour.

[Layman Pascal]

Makes me think of my recent Harangue on "Spiritually Expansive Ecology"

Darrell R. Moneyhon said:

Yes, the issue is not dependent upon the answer to the question "Are we messing up Mother Nature?." The real issue (and proper question) seems to be: "Is it time to shift from an old order to a new order if we are to prosper?"  

If "survival" is one of the fringe benefits of this shift, then that certainly would be nice perk!  Either way -- for prosperity or for survival -- signs indicate our need to change the "game" from an older order to a newer order (and "economic engine"). I suppose some folks don't want to see the writing on the wall, so they don't. 

darrell

andrew said:

Hi David, some thoughts on this: I think the majority of people alive today would agree that what the petrochemical people did with their technology was astonishing; that they brought us from the plough to the edge of hot fusion and CERN. It does not necessarily follow, though, that they should be allowed to destroy the civilization they helped create. 

I do think that climate is much more complex than just C02. That solar activity does obviously have a significant effect; that some of the other points within this article do have some merit. Perhaps there may even be some truth that life can survive significant amounts of C02 in the atmosphere ; but as a layperson, I  am convinced that human civilization as it is will not to able to survive some of the worst case projections of C02 pollution. For this industry to now play russian roulette with the globe is wreak less and unnecessary, and certainly,  willful propaganda that intends to confuse and obstruct a closer version of reality is reprehensible behaviour. 

We can also look to methods used in the past to get clearer on what is happening within the global information wars. If we look at the traditional methods of manipulation by big sugar, big tobacco, big alcohol , big fat, etc., we can see a rather clear trajectory of methods used to confuse the public , and we can certainly see the same methods being used by big oil and their major allies-- big Ka$h.

What sickened me personally about this article is the justification for the next more odious extraction methods of remaining fossil fuels. Fracking, oilsands ,deep  sea drilling, arctic and antarctic exploitation; the negative consequence for the earth with these methods ( never mind the climate) is far too destructive to give it the flippant pass that this journalist used. It's dishonest and dangerous. 

There are always winners and losers when it comes to major cultural shifts and this powerful group of people should either start making the necessary changes to get off the big petro bus , or be forced by overwhelming consensus to alter their toxic behaviour.

[Edward theurj Berge]

What does a post-growth economy look like?

[Edward theurj Berge]

Towards a Commons approach for developing infrastructure.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Germany is the most energy efficient according to this story, based on a study of 16 major economies by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Germany did so due to "mandatory codes on residential and commercial buildings as it works to meet a goal of reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020 from 2008 levels." All while achieving economic growth, thus belying the regressive rationalization that you can't do both. The report uses 31 indicators in 4 broad categories: buildings, industry, transportation and national effort. Italy was 2nd and the EU 3rd, while the US placed 13th. It is no surprise, given Germany's and the EU's commitment to implementing Jeremy Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution while the US doesn't even have a clue. China is getting with the program and they are now 4th.

[Edward theurj Berge]

See the following video. Early civilization was decentralized but limited to small groups due to human limits of trust. With the advent of agriculture large groups led to a centralized command and control structure. Now with technological advances starting with the printing press we can return to a decentralized society of trust for large groups of people.

The four pillars are decentralized communication, law, production, and finance. You'll see many of the ideas of the Commons Rifkin discussed, but with some additional innovative ideas. See this short video for the details.

[Edward theurj Berge]

From the P2P blog on a participatory market economy:

"I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decision-making and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features [... of] a complementary theory [... that] might be called 'economics 2.0' or 'socionomics.' [...] This opens the door for a new economic thinking and a novel research field, which focuses on the effects, implications, and institutional requirements for global-scale network interactions and highly interdependent decisions.”