Sections
Home » New Economy » The New Economy Challenge: Implications for Higher Education
 

The New Economy Challenge: Implications for Higher Education

A new economy requires a new approach to education. David Korten discusses how we can rethink our goals, reskill ourselves, and teach Spaceship Management 101.
by

On January 29, 2010, David Korten addressed the Education for Sustainable Development Conference in Stockholm, Sweden. His remarks follow.

 

Library, photo by Thomas Hawk

Photo by Thomas Hawk

We humans are in the midst of a potentially terminal economic, social, and environmental crisis of our own making. Our economic systems are unstable, extreme inequality is tearing apart the social fabric, and Earth’s critical living systems are collapsing. We have gathered for this conference, not to debate the seriousness of our situation, but rather to explore how our educational institutions can contribute to the solution.

Building an Earth Community

I want to start by quoting from the preamble of The Earth Charter, a document that grew out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It is a summation of conversations over several years involving thousands of persons representing the grand diversity of the world’s people and cultures. Its opening words frame the work at hand:

We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth Community with a common destiny.

The Earth Charter preamble goes on to make clear that we must not only recognize that we are one Earth Community, we must restructure our institutions in ways that allow us to function as a global Earth Community, a community of life. And it tells us why:

The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

Institutional change is perhaps the most important and yet most neglected of the crucial changes we must navigate. If we humans are to adapt to 21st century reality, we must restructure or replace the economic institutions of the 20th century, which lock us into a dynamic of perpetual economic growth, with institutions designed to support ecological balance, shared prosperity, and living democracy—terms I will define in a few minutes.

This presents an unprecedented challenge for institutions of higher learning organized to prepare young graduates to succeed in a world that we must now put behind us. They are ill-equipped to prepare people of all ages for their necessary roles in creating and staffing the institutions of a new civilization. They must rethink, retool, and reorganize.

Contextualizing the Problem

The truly epic nature of the challenge is best expressed by placing it in its deeper historical and evolutionary context. For the past 5,000 years, we humans have been living in a cultural trance of our own making that alienates us from the land, our true human nature, and our human place in the cosmos.

So who are we humans? From where did we come? For what purpose? And how did we get ourselves in such a mess? Here is how I understand the new story based on the data of science, the wisdom of indigenous peoples, and the teachings of Jesus and other mystics.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago, the integral spiritual intelligence that expresses itself through what we know as creation embarked on a bold and risky experiment in reflective consciousness by bringing forth a species able to step back and to reflect on creation in awe and wonder and to participate as a conscious co-creator in the continued creative unfolding. We humans are that species.

Our reflective consciousness gives us the capacity to choose our future with conscious collective intent. It was a risky experiment, however, because the capacity for self-awareness gives us an ego that can run out of control if it forgets that it exists only as part of a larger whole.

Rebecca AdamsonAge-Old Wisdom for the New Economy Indigenous peoples have learned a few things about making it through hard times. What did traditional economies do to foster abundance, sharing, and harmony with Mother Earth?

As our human consciousness was first awakening, our capacities for conscious self-direction grew. We learned to communicate through speech, master fire, domesticate plants and animals, and construct houses of skins, wood, stone, and dried mud. We developed the arts of pottery, painting, weaving, and carving. We undertook vast continental and transcontinental migrations to populate the planet and adapted to vastly different physical topographies and climates. We created complex languages and social codes that allowed for life in larger communities.

In our earliest days, we humans raised our children collectively in the clan, tribe, or village, initiating them to the ways of life and teaching them the need to serve the community and to care for our Earth Mother as she, in turn, cares for us.

Then some 5,000 years ago, something went terribly wrong: We turned from the ways of Earth Community to the ways of Empire. It was a time of separation and forgetting. Community, partnership, and the celebration of life gave way to domination and violence.

The few expropriated the wealth of the many. The masculine drove out the feminine. We worshiped our Sky Father, but turned against our Earth Mother. We came to value the power to kill and destroy more highly than the ability to create and nurture life.

Conquest became the measure of greatness. Economies came to be based on servitude. With a few on the top and the many on the bottom, everyone was placed in competition with everyone else for the favored positions; the bonds of caring and sharing were broken. Money and power became the prime arbiters of relationships. The creative energy of the species was redirected from securing the well-being of the tribe and Mother Earth to advancing the technological instruments of war and the social instruments of domination.

Resources were expropriated by the winners to maintain the system of domination. The positions of power too often went to the most ruthless and psychologically damaged members of society.

If this discussion of Empire sounds familiar, it is for good reason. Although kings and emperors have been replaced by corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers, we are still living in the Era of Empire. Our institutions have evolved to grow the power and wealth of a small ruling class that in some respects lives even further beyond the reach of public accountability than the kings and emperors of an earlier time.

In the past 100 years, we humans have achieved a technological mastery beyond the imagination of previous generations. Yet, lacking in the wisdom of place and community that is the heritage of indigenous peoples, the consumer culture fabricated by the institutions of Wall Street has led us to forget what it means to be human and to deny our connection to the web of planetary life. The result is an ecological and social crisis that threatens the very survival of the species. The time has come to rediscover our humanity, reclaim the power that Wall Street institutions and their global counterparts have usurped, and bring ourselves back into balance with one another and with Earth—our living home.

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. Korten, D. (2010, February 03). The New Economy Challenge: Implications for Higher Education. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from YES! Magazine Web site: http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-new-economy-challenge-implications-for-higher-education. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons License

Donate to YES! magazine


Reader Comments

Implications for Early Childhood Education

Posted by Alex Khost at Feb 08, 2010 08:56 AM
I very much agree that a large part of the change needed for a New Economy needs to include adjustments to the educational system. And while Mr Korten's suggestions for changes to higher education sound like excellent ones indeed, in my opinion, these changes need to start much earlier in the educational system-- quite frankly, they need to begin before a child is even of an age where they are attending school.

Many of the early childhood alternative educational models do a good job of doing so, non-coercive models such as democratic free schools, models such as Waldorf schools, and even very early learning models like Reggio Emilia break down the walls of disciplines and the walls of exterior institutions for learning quite well. Such models also tend to promote self discovery, moving away from conventional curricula, therefore promoting a critical look at actual history and how history is defined by current authority. Schools run democratically also enable children from a young age to learn responsibility for one's actions, one's impact on their environment, and to look critically at and participate in shaping the systems in place around them.

By the age children are entering school (around 4-6 years), much of their lifelong habits and value systems may already be set firmly in place. And while these continue to grow and be affirmed throughout lifelong learning experiences, later on it often becomes harder to adjust such perspectives. It is for this reason that I argue that the most urgent changes to education need to be happening in early-year parenting and early childhood education and then continue on throughout higher education and child-rearing.

Institutions Reflect Prevailing Cultural Values

Posted by Jean Johnson at Feb 08, 2010 06:13 PM
This was a wonderful article that neatly summarized the spiritually corrupt values that are the foundation of our American consumer lifestyle. The change in educational values; however, is unlikely to occur until the (inevitable) big financial/political crisis grinds the current system to a halt. Then people will finally be ready to listen. In the meantime, we must educate our friends and family and starting planting seeds in all the forums available to us.

Excellent Article

Posted by Tito at Feb 21, 2010 06:13 AM
Posted on my Facebook. I love to see more articles in the future that focus on the role of education and share the principles of "The Earth Charter."

Right problem - Wrong Reasons - Wrong Solutions

Posted by Alex Todorov at Feb 26, 2010 02:44 PM
Hello everybody,

I want to point out that like Mr. William Rees from University of British Columbia, Mr. Korten defines the problem correctly - that is the crisis mankind is in and the grave conscequences of not acting immediately.

But like Mr. Rees , Mr. Korten brings to their analysis and proposed solutions something that renders all their efforts completely useless and doomed to failure.

This culprit is their belief-systems - all those notions of right and wrong they acquired over their lives - everything that makes them what they are and unfortunately puts them in a position from which they are not able to come up with effective solutions.

Dirigiste Heurism is the term coined by Perry Bezanis for a socio- economic system of government to come -a steady-state government, in effect, characterized by worldwide zero population growth, sustainable resource use and fulfillment of all valid base-domain requirements for all members of society.

Operationally, dirigiste heurism is government by scientists that make and implement policies consistent with genetic imperative as fundamentally governing the evolution of all life forms -mankind included and the basic property of which is its essentially mechanistic propagation of the life-form for as long as possible.

It is argued that although genetic imperative is completely natural, neither democracy nor capitalism take it into account. It is, rather, that scientific and mathematical methods alone are capable of sustaining mankind over what we might identify as geological time frames. In fact, the longer mankind allows democracy and capitalism to shepherd the human condition, the less controlled and gradual will be that transition to dirigiste heurism, and the more disastrous the collapse of civilization as we know it today

[ABSTRACT]
1 - 'Democracy is an artifact of (thus-far) intellectual development' -a fact of biological and anthropological sciences.
2 - Genetic imperative drives the life-form to 'live as long as possible as a life-form' -human in particular here -a same such fact.
3 - Science (and mathematics), therefore, is ineluctably 'stuck' as the only agency of such doing -destined therein.
4 - All 'government and economics', then, will inevitably come to be reconstituted about science-and-mathematics toward that heuristic end -Democracy included.

http://www.condition.org/democ.htm
http://condition.org/econpol.htm

actually

Posted by Richard Schulte at Mar 01, 2010 12:47 PM
Your theory falls short of capturing what truly drives our resource crises as a planet, as it doesn't take into account the disproportion of resources and consumption throughout populations. This is growing to become a pretty crucial ecological concept and is a widely taught attribute in understanding the impact of population, poor distribution of resources, and poverty. So, considering that curbing consumption of resources is a top priority, as well as renewable re-generation of a large diversity of them, then I think we will all be right on track.

Using purely scientific and mathematical methods has only lead to terrible conclusions... look at Wall Street for crissakes! Look at GDP! Look at what systems analysis and metrics has done to public services and agencies! I refuse to participate in organizing communities and their economies if all we are doing is playing a numbers game.

It sounds great on paper, and in theory, but put it into practice and it won't look so pretty. Humans are driven by cooperation, interdependence, freedom, and integrity... not by numerical results. Empiricism goes far far back, farther than Aristotle or any western logic attempted to take claim for it. What works best for human society and the earth is something that is rooted deeply within us and the earth... not abstracted, technocratic, social darwinist theories.

You are right about capitalism. It's deepest principles and assumptions fundamentally clash with human society. But democracy, direct democracy, is the greatest path towards resilience. A 'steady state' economy without participation, inclusion and representation would only achieve a surface level change where the crucial issues of social justice, economic justice, and food justice would not necessarily be met by any means. What would it be worth, then? To have sustainability without liberation?

Removing my comment

Posted by Alex Todorov at Feb 26, 2010 03:11 PM
To the moderator -

Before removing my comment you should review the the science that it is based on.

Of course only time will tell who was right - but neither you nor me will be present then - most likely we will be dead.

Of course if Mr. Korten will be grabbing attention of those who are concerned but are not belief-free scientists - the collapse will come much faster and we all will have less chance to have soft landing.

Go ahead - delete this comment as well!

cheers,

alex todorov

Ideologies VS natural fundaments

Posted by Rodrigo at Mar 06, 2010 10:23 AM
David Kortens vision and ability to consider profound reform perspectives is limited by his value system. What does that mean? It means that the respected author (like most other individuals that share the same value systems), at its most early ages, was already been indoctrinated by the value system of the society in wich he was inserted. For example, when he asked for an ice-cream to his mother, father or reference figure and they answered “Not this time. We can’t afford it!”, the idea of property and value money was being putted in his head and reinforced to this day. Therefor, even after new influences and knowledge made this great visionary who wrote the outstanding articles and books refered, he can not clarify or exemplify the functioning of the local economy idea to the point of solving global poverty, corruption and missunderstanding…because, he can not quit the idea of property and the use of money as a mean on an economy of exchange.

Through which points can we identify the limitations and reorient his ideas?

1) Putted well in contrast to the wall street phantom wealth, both the government issued money and the local/main street economy are, like wall street, limitations or irrationalities, since they are based on ideas that have no fundament in the natural laws. They are, like economics and politics, human abstractions and not science or scientific concepts. So, the “phantom” metaphor can equally be used here and there is no point or interest in using this concepts to orient our lives. Further more, in whatever form of money use, it will always port the following disadvantages:
a) Cyclical consumption – The monetary system has to be maintained so the over consumption will produce over waste.
b) Self interest/Social stratification – there will be always someone with better quality of life then others;
c) Technological inertia – When science finds a solution or new project about to solve our problem, there is always the ignorant (but forced) reference to the manual rule: where is the money to do it?

If trying to correct this 3 points through rules (another abstraction), the perfectionism of it would leed to the understanding that money is no part of the equations of life.

2) The self-organizing “local ecosystems” of the “Earth’s biosphere” are not detached or isolated from each other, and even when separated by geographical barriers, like an ocean, mountain, etc… they are always to some extent influencing each others, as they are part of the same biosphere. And the same interrelations of influence/dependence happens between “local economies”. The abstraction (explanatory principle) of a “local ecosystem” or part of the whole ecosystem, can be very useful to the understanding of that same systems through limiting the variables that make the hypothesis pursuing possible to the scientist. But if this one never finishes his work trough placing the results in the context of the general fundamentals that rule the global system (Earth’s biosphere), its experience/new knowledge will be somehow detached from the reality and lacking fundamental. Like the whole basket of the ideas of economics where never faced with the fundamentals of the natural laws.

The concepts and relations treated here can be observed, if I have “digested” them correctly, on The Zeitgeist Movement Website and on the book “Steps to An Ecology of Mind”, from Gregory Bateson. These documents and other important to the above observations can be found at
www.zeitgeistuppsala.wordpress.com

Here is a link that might be a better shortcut
http://dotsub.com/view/a34fba0d-4016-4807-b255-021b58dbc9a4



Good points, Rodrigo...

Posted by Stan at Mar 07, 2010 10:38 AM
...and I think it's true that it's hard for us to think outside of our conditioning on these matters. And I think Peter Joseph is indeed helping us to 'see' better - that actually, we don't need money at all, when we release the age-old concept of scarcity. But I have two comments to that.

(1) David Korten is right to look at the bridging period between the now and the future potential. It can best be built up to the global level from the grass roots level - people re-creating community, and 'proving' it in the laboratory of the local. He also recognizes the role of the 'spiritual' in all this - that we have a higher nature operating in all this, not just our lower human nature. Which brings me to:

(2) Peter Joseph, though doing excellent work in helping us think outside of the current worldview box, believes that merely 'enlightened self-interest' will be the motivator of the transformation. But that attitude doesn't go far enough, into the very purpose of the life experience itself. In rejecting the 'mystic' roots of religions, he has thrown the baby out with the bathwater - the spiritual along with the merely religious. The motivator that will ultimately do the job is the knowledge that the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good - that is, that life has meaning, beyond just in and for itself only. And so we will contribute our best to the new society, not merely because it will benefit ourselves as well materially, but out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning; and in appreciation of the Creation, for giving us the wherewithal TO live such a life. And thus, by becoming one with the Creation, we will become (return to being) at-one with the Creator; for the Creation and the Creator are One.

The prodigal 'son' is returning home; the wiser for 'his' experiences in the world.


(Peter also feels that people, in their behaviours, are simply the products of their environment. But that doesn't allow for the reincarnational aspect of life; which factor also goes to the meaning to, and purpose of, life: that we are 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. That we are involved in a process of the unfolding of consciousness, and thus are on a path, that doesn't end with life on Earth.)

Not entirely correct, Stan...

Posted by Muadib at Mar 08, 2010 04:10 AM
First of all, I'd like to expand Rodrigo's points on Money:

a) Cyclical consumption – Consumption has to be perpetuated for eternity, for money to continue to circulate in the market. As a result, corporations create products that become obsolete in a certain amount of time, reassuring the purchasing of another product, perpetuating consuming. The bottom line? Tremendous amount of waste!

b) Self interest/Social stratification – there will be always someone with better quality of life then others; and there will always be the strife to reach a certain level of quality, as well as the inability to reach it by the largest part of the population.

c) Technological suppression – When science reaches to a breakthrough or new invention, the application of the new technology is almost always suppressed, due to the fact that it cannot fit in the Economic Circle. For example, if the Car Companies started today to manufacture cars utilising ‘Memory Shaped Alloys’, meaning metals that can ‘remember’ their original shape and be restored to it through heat, the mechanics involved in restoring a car’s chassis would stay out of business!

As for Stan's comments, there are some points I'd like to add:

1.'enlightened self-interest' was never implied by Peter Joseph, as it is a kind of 'Self-interest', of course. On the contrary, he keeps mentioning 'Symbiosis' as the main paradigm, which we get as a natural process from Nature and the Universe. And the transformation itself cannot happen, unless we change our 'Social Values' to accept and enhance that. You see, we are all connected to each other and to the Universe, even if the cable is invisible...

2. I fail to understand the notion that 'the Universe has a purpose". You know that we don't know that, it is merely a human conceptual thought, that only has the ability to emotionally make us feel secure. For example, we see the planets orbiting around a star, and we say that 'There is Harmony in the Universe'. But, when a meteor falls in an inhabited planet and there's death everywhere, people say that 'a BAD thing happened' and 'the Universe is cruel'. All these characterizations are human concepts, based on our present indoctrination. Consider it as a painted windows installed at the windows of a house. Everything outside will look according to that 'color' or 'conditioning'. Changing values, in my perception, means to, at first get used in opening the windows, and secondly, to start getting out of the house! Bottom line, we sure don't know if the Universe has a 'purpose', however there are mechanisms or Natural Laws that can help us understand. And, the more proof exist on something, the less theories we are inclined to make.

3. Another notion you mentioned is that of 'Creator' and 'Creation'. Many people ask 'Who created the Universe' and 'How was the Universe created'. Obviously, these are by basis, inaccurate questions. Instead, we should be asking: Was the Universe created? What evidence do we have on that? The answer is NONE. The Big Bang theory is just based on the Christian-Judaistic notion of 'Creation', which implies someone creating it. On the contrary, the Laws of Nature show us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If you heat a metallic sphere up to 500.000 degrees C, it will evaporate, but the matter itself will be there, every single atom will be present. Functions in the Universe that are present in transformation of matter exist, yes, but there are no proof that there's an entity governing these actions, and being able to change them at will...

Here are some lecture links of PJ:

"Where are we now?"
http://dotsub.com/view/dd83d532-7fcd-4a5c-a7f5-58f245ab4fe6

"Where are we going?, part1"
http://dotsub.com/view/2af36fe5-c01c-4ec9-a283-a2ad46b84b42
"Where are we going?, part2"
http://dotsub.com/view/8ea72f84-ae8a-4da0-97e1-7ab84f571a68

Celeb subscription banner ad

Personal tools