One World. Many Needs. Many Views
Eco-
Conscious
 Moderated Consumerism
 Limits to Growth
 Cradle-to-Cradle, Bio-Mimicry
 Zero emissions
Nature First
Networked
Society
 Away with traditional country and/or
corporate borders : City-Hubs.
 Horizontal, cross-border collabo...
 Expansion of wealth, ownership and new growth
 Continued Consumerism and Hedonistic life-styles.
 Short-termism, Schum...
 A world of Power , Principles and Politics
 Polarisation between Beliefs and/or Power
Blocks
 The Geo-politics of Emot...
Techno
Modernity
 The world of Prof. Michio Kaku and
 Kurz Weill Singularity
 Game-changers and Disruptive Innovations
...
 Conscious Capitalism
 The rise of new (global and business)
leadership: Gandhi’s and Mandela’s
 Neuroscience , psychol...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Worldviews

351

Published on

worldviews.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
351
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Now- and as I have walked this path now for a while, and where-ever I had a conversation with people above this global energy change challenge- I received a variety of perspectives on the challenge.

    We live in One World- but we do have a wide variety of local and personal needs- and we do live in a world with very many and different views or awarenesses.

    So- the first thing we may realize when we address the issues is that there is and will be no single one answer to the problem.

    First and foremost- the problem is perceived differently by different people around the globe. And as the problem (or needs) are perceived different, so are the answers and solutions…

    I have attached in the handout a recent article from

    In a most recent article in the New York Times from Andrew Revin with the working title Can Humanity’s ‘Great Acceleration’ Be Managed and,

    If So, How?

    I share you some similar observations and insights in my working practice- and which we are working with:

    We need to understand the Global AND Local- in order to make good and proper (energy) decisions on locations– balancing Social needs, with Economy and Sustainability.

    And Vica versa.

    The aggregate of all the local needs and deeds should be somehow be overlooked- and guided.- especially on Energy & Sustainability.

    In the words of Andrew Revin:

    Ultimately, there will need to be an institution (or institutions) operating, with authority, above the level of individual countries to ensure that the planetary boundaries are respected. In effect, such an institution, acting on behalf of humanity as a whole, would be the ultimate arbiter of the myriad trade-offs that need to be managed as nations and groups of people jockey for economic and social advantage. It would, in essence, become the global referee on the planetary playing field.

    ===

    Go to press release from Planetary dashboard shows “Great Acceleration” in human activity since 1950 Human activity, predominantly the global economic system, is now the prime driver of change in the Earth System (the sum of our planet's interacting physical, chemical, biological and human processes), according to a set of 24 global indicators, or “planetary dashboard”, published in the journal Anthropocene Review (16 January 2015).
    Go to article from Andrew Revin:
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/can-humanitys-great-acceleration-be-managed-and-if-so-how/?_r=1


    IN this article we can read the following words-:

    Even without specifying exact global boundaries, global metrics can be highly misleading for policy. For example, with nitrogen, where the majority of human emissions come from synthetic fertilizers, the real-world challenge is to apply just the right amount of nitrogen to optimize crop yields while minimizing nitrogen losses that harm aquatic ecosystems. Reducing fertilizer application in Africa might seem beneficial globally, yet the result in this region would be even poorer crop yields without any notable reduction in nitrogen pollution; Africa’s fertilizer use is already suboptimal for crop yields. What can look like a good or a bad thing globally can prove exactly the opposite when viewed regionally and locally. What use is a global indicator for a local issue? As in real estate, location is everything.

    Finally, and most importantly, the planetary boundaries are burdened not only with major uncertainties and weak scientific theory – they are also politically problematic. Real world environmental challenges like nitrogen pollution, freshwater consumption and land-use change are ultimately a matter of politics, in the sense that there are losers and winners, and solutions have to be negotiated among many stakeholders. The idea of a scientific expert group determining top-down global limits on these activities and processes ignores these inevitable trade-offs and seems to preclude democratic resolution of these questions. It has been argued that (Steffen et al 2011):

    Ultimately, there will need to be an institution (or institutions) operating, with authority, above the level of individual countries to ensure that the planetary boundaries are respected. In effect, such an institution, acting on behalf of humanity as a whole, would be the ultimate arbiter of the myriad trade-offs that need to be managed as nations and groups of people jockey for economic and social advantage. It would, in essence, become the global referee on the planetary playing field.

    Here the planetary boundaries framework reaches its logical conclusion with a political scenario that is as unlikely as it is unpalatable. There is no ultimate global authority to rule over humanity or the environment. Science has a tremendously important role to play in guiding environmental management, not as a decider, but as a resource for deliberative, evidence-based decision making by the public, policy makers, and interest groups on the challenges, trade-offs and possible courses of action in negotiating the environmental challenges of societal development (DeFries et al 2012). Proposing that science itself can define the global environmental limits of human development is simultaneously unrealistic, hubristic, and a strategy doomed to fail.



  • Now I would like to progress with a couple of typical “belief-sets” of people, countries, businesses and communities around the globe..

    ON our future, and on our best ways – the strategies- forwards in this future.

    Let’s start with the more conservative and the more natural class of eco-conscious. Say- the people advocating ecology and people who are deeply connected with the Climate Change agenda.

    They see our global change challenge as one whereby we, human civilisation, will and are to find some moderation in our lifestyles, consumption patterns, our place in life ( or in nature) and acknowledge perhaps again the importance of being more in harmony with nature.

    IN this lifestyle and perspective, policies to regulate cities and industries to a zero emission regime and to improve the lifecylce analysis of products and services in order to boost sustainability are the new normal.

    This is the outlook whereby much of humanity problem is solved by raising the awareness and perspective on nature…

  • Another form of looking at the challenge, is to hail today’s abilities to connect. This is the world where everybody connects with everybody- and global problems are solved – on the fly- by accessing a global community of knowledge, know-how and can-do.

    In addition- and thanks to this more open and free lifestyle- we will see the rise of sharing. Sharing of goods and services- making room for community thinking and less individualism. Ownership of cars, houses and jobs becomes much less relevant. This is a world of diversity and inclusiveness and as such- available energy will be shared in an equal and fair way..
  • People who hold free-markets as the solution to most of our today’s challenges are the people who believe in shared capitalism, If we are able to extend the free market forces over the world, and over the market sectors which needs solutions, such as energy, housing, water, education, health, etc,.- we will see, gradually and over time, the rise of people and nations.

    We will see the freedom, creativity and in-ge-nuity of entrepreneurship shine and deliver the solutions the market asks or screams for…

    The US has done it. Europe has done it. Look at the difference between South and North Korea…

    IN this world view- Schumpeter and share-holder ownership are King. New resilience will be born in times of crisis. Look at the great depression. Look at the second world war, Look at the financial crisis. Are’nt we back in business?

    In this world view, and nevertheless all the good words and works- it still will be true that those not fit for the fight or plight- will loose out. And is also true that those who can play best, will earn best…



  • The world of tomorrow can also continue to be shaped by what Machiavelly once wrote- now some centuries ago:

    The world is and still will be run by power.

    Decision making Power over the people, the businesses and nations.

    IN this perspective- people, businesses and nations- are interlocked in an never ending tug of war, competition and comparison on leadership.

    It’s just in the nature of man – to rule.

    Rule over the self, and rule over people and nations.

    As the world moves into this new decades of multi-plurarism in countries- we will see and experience the effects of this darwinistic behaviour: more and more above or below table power-play will become the norm.

    As nations get more and more interlocked in this power game, so get’s the energy challenge more and more locked into this tug of war.

    In addition, and as Globalisation leads to bigger enterprises and stronger governments- we may see and experience new interplays and leadership styles of survival: driven by the competition – everybody is driven to look and be strong… at times harsh.

  • And then- I shared this a little earlier- we have the Technology Optimist view:

    At times, a radical optimistic lifestyle and perspective is held by the people who belief in technology and in progress through science and technology.

    IN this perspective on the global change challenge- people see the accelerated advancement in labs with nano and quarks, and in our computing power the answer to our problems.

    Within 20-30 years from now, computers will be so smart that they can design and solve all or most of our today’s complex system problems. Be it in energy or in finance or politics…

    In other words: We don’t need to solve all these (planetary boundaries) or global problems now. Let’s be calm and build the computing power to help us to do so…

    IN this world fits the view that the energy challenge will be solved by exponential growth in solar, energy storage and renewables- and that in the end- say 30 years from now- we have passed the age of fossil fuels- and we are living in a world of abundant energy, available and free for all..

  • And finally- there is a perspective on the rise of a more conscious and shared leadership style. A leadership style which can transcend over own or own community needs and believes, and who can work, think and act from a global mind-set. Truly looking at complex situations from a detached, almost neutral position- and with the intent to best serve the whole.

    Making best use of positive psychology and hope.

    Whilst the above views are brief and just an example- and in no means intended to be conclusive- they can help us to better understand the situation we are in- and what stakeholder groups mind-maps can be.

    This is important for us to know.

    Perhaps it is relevant that before we address any problem, any complex situation- we may first better understand in what categories of perspectives our society and stakeholders are in today..

    MY expectation is: all of the above and perhaps more.

    So- our pathways need to find some form of resonance (or ring some hidden bells) in them all.

    And remember:

    Resistance to change falls when the benefits are made clear.

    So- our pathways forward need to be able to demonstrate the benefits to all stakeholders. Collectively and individually.

    We have to become true social artists…

    That’s quite a challenge!!
  • Worldviews

    1. 1. One World. Many Needs. Many Views
    2. 2. Eco- Conscious  Moderated Consumerism  Limits to Growth  Cradle-to-Cradle, Bio-Mimicry  Zero emissions Nature First
    3. 3. Networked Society  Away with traditional country and/or corporate borders : City-Hubs.  Horizontal, cross-border collaborations  Cultural awareness and tolerance  A new world of sharing and abundance Power to the People
    4. 4.  Expansion of wealth, ownership and new growth  Continued Consumerism and Hedonistic life-styles.  Short-termism, Schumpeter, Ayn Rand, Resilience  A world of larger inequalities and divisions:  Rich and poor. Have’s and Have Not’s Money First Shared Capitalism
    5. 5.  A world of Power , Principles and Politics  Polarisation between Beliefs and/or Power Blocks  The Geo-politics of Emotions  Darwin’s Survival of the Fittest Power to the Strongest, First Darwin
    6. 6. Techno Modernity  The world of Prof. Michio Kaku and  Kurz Weill Singularity  Game-changers and Disruptive Innovations  A world of Smart Cities, New Surprises , Exponential Growth and Abundance The Rule of Science & Technology
    7. 7.  Conscious Capitalism  The rise of new (global and business) leadership: Gandhi’s and Mandela’s  Neuroscience , psychology and spirituality  Gaia, Oneness and Global Mind-set. Transformative leadership Conscious Humanity
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×