1  

Sustainability  Through  an  Integral  Lens  

Boston  Architectural  College  –  Capstone  2013  

Valli  G.  Geiger  

   

  2  

 Table of Contents

Table of Contents Page 2 Biographical Notes Page 3 I. Introduction Page 4  II. Where We Are Now Page 5 III. How Did We Get Here: The Making of The Western Mind Page 8 The Dark Ages: 500 AD to 15th Century Page 10 The Black Plague: Setting the Stage for the Renaissance Page 12 The Renaissance 14th-17th Century Page 13 The Protestant Reformation Page 14 The Age of Enlightenment Page 17 The Descant Page 19 IV. The Way Out: A New World View Page 20 Integral Theory Page 20 The Return of the Feminine Page 25 Stages of Development Page 31 Integral Leadership Page 38 V. Sustainability Theory Through an Integral Lens Page 40 Sustainability Theory Page 40 The Environmental Movement Page 42 Water Page 43 Population Growth Page 44 Climate Change Page 45 Biophilia/Habitat/Species Health Page 48 VI. Practical Application to the Sustainability Field Page 50 The Living Building Challenge Page 50 Education Reform Page 53 Practice Reform Page 56 Bibliography Page 62

         

Table of Contents

  3  

Table of Contents Page 2 Biographical Notes Page 3 I. Introduction Page 4  II. Where We Are Now Page 5 III. How Did We Get Here: The Making of The Western Mind Page 8 The Dark Ages: 500 AD to 15th Century Page 10 The Black Plague: Setting the Stage for the Renaissance Page 12 The Renaissance 14th-17th Century Page 13 The Protestant Reformation Page 14 The Age of Enlightenment Page 17 The Descant Page 19 IV. The Way Out: A New World View Page 20 Integral Theory Page 20 The Return of the Feminine Page 25 Stages of Development Page 31 Integral Leadership Page 38 V. Sustainability Theory Through an Integral Lens Page 40 Sustainability Theory Page 40 The Environmental Movement Page 42 Water Page 43 Population Growth Page 44 Climate Change Page 45 Biophilia/Habitat/Species Health Page 48 VI. Practical Application to the Sustainability Field Page 50 The Living Building Challenge Page 50 Education Reform Page 53 Practice Reform Page 56 Bibliography Page 62

“We see much suffering, and recognize this as the deep groaning of a world ready for transformation.” (Michele Gossman)

  4  

Anurag Jain – Integral Living

I. Introduction Somewhere in our quest to modify our environment, protect ourselves from predators and danger, maintain comfortable temperatures and stay dry; we became separated from an understanding of our own and our surrounding environment’s health, the finiteness and preciousness of non-renewable resources. While the widespread destruction of habitat, emptying of aquifers, desertification, and rising green house gases are well known, they have failed to ignite a movement for change significant enough to reach a societal tipping point. This paper will explore the current epoch’s beliefs and worldview, how this worldview has led to separateness from nature, the cosmos and each other to the earth’s great detriment. This paper will further examine how the energy conservation and ecological movements of the last 40 years have failed in creating a foundation for change. Finally, using Integral Theory, this paper will propose a way forward for the design fields. Sustainability has many strata, many are in conflict or tension with each other; Integral Theory provides a unifying vision of Sustainability, allowing a societal tipping point to be reached. II. Where We Are Now Despite 30 years of concerted effort, the Sustainability Movement has failed to ignite change on a large and enduring scale in the United States. Why is that?

  5  

In an article called the “Death of Environmentalism”, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger noted that:

“Nearly all of the more than two-dozen environmentalists we interviewed underscored that climate change demands that we remake the global economy in ways that will transform the lives of six billion people. All recognize that it’s an undertaking of monumental size and complexity. And all acknowledged that we must reduce emissions by up to 70 percent as soon as possible.

But in their public campaigns, not one of America’s environmental leaders is articulating a vision of the future commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis. Instead they are promoting technical policy fixes like pollution controls and higher vehicle mileage standards — proposals that provide neither the popular inspiration nor the political alliances the community needs to deal with the problem”, (Nordhaus, 2005).

Why is that? There are two main reasons; one is that many environmental leaders are still working within an old paradigm or worldview, one that focuses on science, technology, and the technological fix. The second reason is that part of that paradigm focuses on parts rather than wholes. So like the old cartoon about the blind men and the elephant, different scientists and activists focus on different parts of the crisis, failing to fully appreciate that each issue is simply part of the larger whole elephant. To understand one part and intervene there, does not bring you closer to saving the elephant.

The crisis is one of outlook and philosophy, not technology. It is a philosophy that has been part of the Western Mind for so long that it is the sea within which we swim and fail to question it. It is what Ken Wilber, American philosopher and proponent of Integral Theory, calls “Flatland”, a philosophy that focuses on the objective, the measurable, the observable parts, assuming that to understand the parts is to understand the whole. It is based on a model of the world as machine.

  6  

Our current built environment compounds our frenetic pace, alienation from nature, exposure to unprecedented levels of toxins, tendency toward processed food, growing obesity and poor health. The built environment is toxic: physically, emotionally and aesthetically for both human kind and nature. The architectural field, instead of leading the way to creating a rich, vibrant and healthy built environment, too often reflects the mechanistic, alienated and modern worldview that currently exists. It has become largely irrelevant to ordinary people, a field hired by corporations or affluent individuals to design and build “signature” buildings. The rest of the built environment is haphazard, ugly, unhealthy and expensive to operate and maintain and ultimately unsustainable. Randolph Hester, author of Design for Ecological Democracy, says: “When form too strictly follows function, form produces lifeless efficiency and spiritless convenience. The modern city, conceived of as a rational, scientific machine for living, results in a rational, scientific, machine-like living”, (Hester, 2010, 117). Our denial of the magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the change required is profound. We raise mileage standards a little. We debate carbon taxes or Cap and Trade programs, but don’t pass legislation. We award LEED certification for buildings that remain large energy users, as though small improvements will get us there; while 95% of our new buildings don’t even reach basic LEED standards. In 2013, atmospheric carbon levels reached 400 parts per million, a level outside the scope of man’s experience on earth. The oceans are acidifying, habitats are collapsing, underground water supplies are being used faster than they can be replaced, the human population has reached 7 billion and we remain utterly dependent on oil, gas and coal for our power and heat. In the meantime, before our eyes, we see evidence of the impact of growing carbon and methane in the atmosphere. Storms grow stronger and more frequent and the damage they leave behind increases exponentially. Roy Scranton, a former US soldier and now

  7  

PhD candidate at Princeton, in a recent NY Times op-ed, powerfully addressed this pattern of denial:

“The human psyche naturally rebels against the idea of its end. Likewise, civilizations have throughout history marched blindly toward disaster, because humans are wired to believe that tomorrow will be much like today — it is unnatural for us to think that this way of life, this present moment, this order of things is not stable and permanent. Across the world today, our actions testify to our belief that we can go on like this forever, burning oil, poisoning the seas, killing off other species, pumping carbon into the air, ignoring the ominous silence of our coal mine canaries in favor of the unending robotic tweets of our new digital imaginarium. Yet the reality of global climate change is going to keep intruding on our fantasies of perpetual growth, permanent innovation and endless energy, just as the reality of mortality shocks our casual faith in permanence. ….

The biggest problem climate change poses isn’t how the Department of Defense should plan for resource wars, or how we should put up sea walls to protect Alphabet City, or when we should evacuate Hoboken. It won’t be addressed by buying a Prius, signing a treaty, or turning off the air-conditioning. The biggest problem we face is a philosophical one: understanding that this civilization is already dead. The sooner we confront this problem, and the sooner we realize there’s nothing we can do to save ourselves, the sooner we can get down to the hard work of adapting, with mortal humility, to our new reality” (Scranton, Roy. 2013).

III. How Did We Get Here: The Making of the Western Mind

Ken Wilber, American philosopher and proponent of Integral Theory, agrees with Einstein that the current epoch’s problems cannot be solved by the current epoch’s methods. We see this everywhere, with every discipline in crisis, unable to supply

  8  

answers or solutions to our current deep and critical problems. The changes to climate and the massive overuse of natural resources are the outcome of the underlying beliefs and values of this epoch. Those same underlying beliefs and values contribute to the growth of Capitalism to the detriment of other competing values and to a widening income disparity through out the world. The challenge of our time is to evolve a new worldview, one that embraces both the successes of objectivity, science and rationality while also allowing for the “re-enchantment of the world” (Kelly, 2010, 133). Philosophers have long spoken of the three facets of life: truth, beauty and goodness. We have focused on truth (science) and forgotten beauty and goodness. We see them as “subjective” and outside of or apart from how we make decisions in the economic realm. We need a worldview that reincorporates beauty and goodness in order to return meaning and value to both human kind and the planet we live on. Integral Theory offers a lens into such a worldview. How did we come to separate these three realities? The current state of our world and of our architectural design paradigms is the result of a multitude of forces, historical developments and cultural overlays. Twentieth century thought traces its roots from the Medieval period through the Enlightenment. The Dark Ages: 500 AD to 15th Century

From 500 Ad to the 15th Century the Catholic Church expanded and dominated most of Europe and was the dominant force shaping scientific, political and cultural thinking. The Medieval Period is known as the “Dark Ages” for good reason. Scholastic pursuits were discouraged; empirical observation was seen as having no value. Nature and man were held as fallen and hence the study or understanding of either was not valued, as it did not bring one closer to God. Instead, man with his earthly desires and nature with its wildness were to be subdued and all focus was on the next world, the spiritual afterlife. “Men – not animals or birds, trees or planets – were the true messengers of divine communication, chosen as God’s prophets” (Tarnas, 1991,109).

  9  

It is difficult in this secular age to appreciate how deeply the Church and its tenets penetrated all society. There was no civil society; there was only the Church and those who ruled in its name. Over hundreds of years, pagan religions and peoples were destroyed; alternative viewpoints crushed or assimilated and watered down. A single God was in place and he was male. Doctrine over time became absolute and often understood as the literal truth. “The devout Christian sought enlightenment by reading Holy Scripture… Intellectuality alone was not sufficient to grasp cosmic truth… the pivotal role was played by faith…Hence faith was the primary means, and reason a distant second, for comprehending the deeper meaning of things.”(Tarnas, 1991, 112). Richard Tarnas, Historian, describes the effect of the Christian era on the Western Mind:

• “to establish… the recognition of one supreme God, absorbing and negating the polytheism of pagan religion….

• to reinforce Platonism’s spirit-matter dualism by infusing it with the doctrine of original sin, the fall of man and nature… largely severing from nature any immanent divinity…

• to absorb and transform the pagan Mother Goddess mythology into a historicized Christian theology with the Virgin Mary as the human mother of God…

• to diminish the value of observing, analyzing, or understanding the natural world, and thus to de-emphasize … the rational and empirical facilities in favor of the emotional, moral and spiritual…

• to renounce the human capacity for independent intellectual or spiritual penetration of the world’s meaning in deference to the absolute authority of the Church and Holy Scripture for the final definition of truth” (Tarnas, 1991, 165-66).

While innovation and independent thought were discouraged, this long period of consolidation of power and rule by the Catholic hierarchy did bring the benefits of peace, stability and the organization of a rising population. “Out of the feudal order had grown towns, guilds, leagues, states, international commerce, a new merchant class, a mobile peasantry, new contractual and legal structures, parliaments, corporate liberties and early forms of constitutional and representative government” (Tarnas, 1991, 220).

  10  

The Black Plague: Setting the Stage for the Renaissance

In October 1347, twelve ships sailed into the port of Florence, Italy. On board were dead or dying sailors covered in black boils filled with pus and blood. The Black Death had arrived and it spread quickly and lethally through out Europe. In just three years, one third of the population of Europe died of the plague. Stability was gone, undermined by the economic devastation. Food and land prices dropped precipitously, badly damaging the wealth of the church, and the owning class. But the plague did bring an unexpected benefit to the laboring classes who survived. With the sudden loss of population, the value of their own labor increased. Suddenly, they could leave a bad situation and seek better opportunities with the likelihood of finding them. Together with the 100-year war between England and France, the plague brought severe economic depression, which lasted decades. Many felt God had abandoned them. The church was seen as increasingly corrupt. The social upheaval together with the invention of the compass, and the printing press ushered in the end of the Medieval period and began the Renaissance. The Renaissance: 14th-17th Century

  11  

The Renaissance can be thought of as an explosion of joy for those who had survived the Black Plague. Gone was the Medieval Christian ideal of withdrawal from the world in piety. In its place was the Renaissance Man, who embraced a “ life of strenuous action… activity in the world as well as contemplation of eternal truths; devotion to state, family, and self as well as to God and Church, physical pleasure as well as spiritual happiness; prosperity as well as virtue” (Tarnas, 1991, 228). Tarnas notes that unlike the later split between matter and spirit, there was no division between the realms of human knowledge and religious life or between the arts and sciences. Leonardo di Vinci pursued art and science, was an inventor, sculptor, and theorist in mathematics, mechanics and empiricism. This new Western personality was secular, had a multiplicity of interests, creative innovations, a  sense of the individual and a wiliness to question traditional authority and limitations on human activity (Tarnas,1991, 228). At the same time, it was in many ways a return to the Pagan beliefs of an “expanded and enchanted cosmos, an exalted view of human potential and a belief in a utopian social vision” (Kelly, 2010, 48). The Protestant Reformation

But this same explosion of knowledge, philosophy, science and questioning of traditional authority was seen as hedonistic by many. This hedonism was also seen as infecting the church, and deepening the corruption there. A conservative backlash was the result. In 1517, Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, enraged by the selling of indulgences by the church as a way to raise money for the building of cathedrals, nailed to the church door his “95 Theses”, criticizing the Church, the Pope and the practice of

  12  

buying freedom from God’s punishment with money. Luther’s rebellion spread along with his belief that man stood alone before his God and his personal conscience, that only scripture held the literal truth. Luther and John Calvin after him, believed firmly in the Medieval notion of a fallen man and fallen nature, predestined for damnation or salvation through God’s grace alone. (Tarnas, 1991, 237). John Calvin believed that man was evil and driven to sin. His only hope was work, as a means of expressing gratitude to God and society and that any material success was a visible sign of God’s grace. Commercial success was now seen as virtuous and beneficial. Despite the continued splintering of the protestant religion into many competing sects, each convinced they held the ultimate truth; this notion of work and success being tied to God’s favor remained. “Thus two of the fundamental traits associated with the modern worldview – the ideal of freedom and the disciplined pursuit of capital – are intimately tied to the Protestant Reformation, which transpired alongside the rise of modern science” (Kelly, 53). “Whereas traditionally, the pursuit of commercial success was perceived as directly threatening the religious life, now the two were recognized as mutually beneficial” (Tarnas, 246).

“By overthrowing the theological authority of the Catholic Church, the internationally recognized supreme court of religious dogma, the Reformation opened the way in the West for religious pluralism, then religious skepticism and finally a complete breakdown in the until then relatively homogenous Christian world view” (Tarnas, 1991, 240).

The Scientific Revolution While Martin Luther, John Calvin and others were locked in a battle for a new protestant soul based on the literal interpretation of scripture, the scientific revolution also marched apace. Copernicus, a mathematician and astronomer, discovered the earth revolved around the sun, in direct contradiction to scripture. Giordano Bruno followed with a more advanced theory of planetary movement and suggested that the Bible be followed for its moral teachings rather than its astronomy. For this and other unorthodox views, he was tried and executed by the Inquisition for heresy. The Church, alarmed by the danger of a science that contradicted religious doctrine, reacted with increasing harshness. The books of Copernicus and Bruno were banned. Galileo, another astronomer, was arrested and forced to recant. Yet despite these efforts by the Church and the new Protestant Reformers, other astronomers like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton echoed Copernicus and Bruno. Philosophers and scientists, among them Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes soon followed and were vigorous proponents of rationalism and empirical observation as the basis of discovery. “The scientific universe, its material heavens, and its planetary Earth – was not notably congruent with traditional Christian conceptions of the cosmos” (Tarnas, 1991, 301). Here begins the split between spirit and matter, between heaven and earth, as played out between religion and science. Descartes described man as made of two things: matter and mind. Mind was unchanging, indivisible and whole. He also believed that man was the only dualistic thing. Animals were purely matter, acting purely on instinct and on the laws of nature.

  13  

“Thus arose the psychological necessity of a double-truth universe. Reason and faith came to be seen as pertaining to different realms, with Christian philosophers and scientists, and the larger educated Christian public, perceiving no genuine integration between the scientific reality and the religious reality…. faith had moved in one direction with the Reformation, Luther, literal Scripture, fundamentalist Protestantism and Counter-Reformational Catholicism, while reason had moved in another direction with Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Hume, empirical science, rational philosophy and the Enlightenment” (Tarnas, 1991, 302).

The Age of Enlightenment

   In the 18th century, Hume and Kant systematically refuted the traditional philosophical arguments for God’s existence. Hume, “an entirely secular thinker and more unequivocal in his skepticism, the matter was simple: To argue from the problematic evidence of this world to the certain existence of the good and omnipotent God of Christianity was a philosophical absurdity” (Tarnas, 309). Kant, argued for God, but said his belief was based on faith alone, man “could not claim that these inner persuasions were rationally certain” (Tarnas 309). The social and philosophical movements of the 17th and 18th centuries, exemplified by Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Hume and Rousseau, continued the Calvinistic focus on productiveness but rather than its basis in pleasing God, was based on its value to society. It focused on a view of human relations known as the Social Contract Theory (Nussbaum, 2008). This view values people according to their productiveness, their membership in adding to society’s wealth. Nature was seen, by Locke as having little intrinsic value, rather society’s use of nature to create goods, gave it its only value. The repercussions have been stark; by focusing on human value only in relationship to what is produced, is to value people and by extension animals, plants, minerals and the earth, by what can be gotten from them. Once emptied, used up, depleted, they lose status, value and are no longer worthy of society’s regard. This implies, for all of us, that our status depends on our health and our status and value will decline as we age or fall ill, or are too young or disabled to contribute. It also allows that view to be extended to the earth and its inhabitants as part of a calculation of benefit with no intrinsic value or worth of their own.

  14  

By the end of the 18th century, the concept of the world as enchanted was dead, and rational-empirical science was no longer encumbered by religious dogma. The rapid advances in science put more and more emphasis on what could be seen, observed and measured. The values and truths of culture and the value of man as unique and the center of the cosmos fell before the advance of science and astronomy. “The New Universe was a machine, a self contained mechanism of force and matter, devoid of goals or purpose, bereft of intelligence or consciousness, its character fundamentally alien to that of man” (Tarnas, 327). The 19th century continued to bring the alienation and devaluation of the individual into clearer view. John Stewart Mills’ philosophy of Utilitarianism stated that man’s motivations could be whittled down to responses to pleasure and pain. Claude Bernard’s Positivist Science was similarly bleak:

“If our feeling constantly puts the question why, our reason shows us only that the question how is within our range…we must always seek to exclude life entirely from our explanations of physiological phenomena… Life is nothing but a word which means ignorance…Science should always explain obscurity and complexity by clearer and simpler ideas” (Kelly, 2010, 71).

Darwin’s theories further cemented this notion of man as a highly successful animal rather than God’s chosen one. “Consciousness, once believed to rule the universe and permeate it, was now understood to have arisen accidentally in the course of matter’s evolution…”, (Tarnas, 1991, 327). The Descant Yet throughout these last 500 years, there has been a small persistent thread weaving its way along, offering another way. In music we have the main melody, it is in the foreground and what we hear first, but there is also a counterpoint. It is known as the descant. It is higher, lighter, and dances in the background of the music. So too, in the emerging Western mind has there been a descant. While the main focus has been on dualism, an emerging mechanistic view of the world that devalued both man and nature, there has been a counter point, one that brings the feminine back into a balance with the masculine. This view sees the world moving toward the dawn of a new age where rank and privilege disappear, equality is for all, and there is fair distribution of property. One that sees man as part of the natural world and that world seen as good, rather than fallen. In the Medieval times, it was represented by the followers of Joachim of Fiore. The Renaissance could be seen as the great flowering of the descant or counterpoint and is represented by this quote from the Italian scholar, polymath and playwright Giambattista Della Porta (1536-1615), which captures this utopian vision best:

“The Whole World is knit and bound within itself; for the world is a living creature, everywhere both male and female, and the part of it do couple together… by reason of their mutual love” (Kelly, 50). It re-emerged again in the Protestant Reformation, represented by the Ranters, radical Puritans and the Quakers; smaller Protestant sects that believed the world was moving toward a Utopian ideal. Ranter Bauthumley claimed, “God is in everyone and everything

  15  

living, man and beast, fish and fowl, and every green thing, from the highest cedar to the ivy on the wall”, (Kelly, 2010, 55). It submerged during the enlightenment and re-emerged in the Romantic period as an interest in the occult, magic, emotion, literature and nature, in reaction to the ugliness of the industrial age. It reemerged in the counter culture of the 60’s and remains a counterpoint to today’s hypercaptialism and focus on materialism, seen in a growing interest in eastern religion, meditation, astrology, paganism and the rise of fundamentalist religion. IV. The Way Out: A New World View

\

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Albert Einstein

Integral Theory:

“The marriage between vision, values, and policy has proved elusive for environmentalists. Most environmental leaders, even the most vision-oriented, are struggling to articulate proposals that have coherence. This is a crisis because environmentalism will never be able to muster the strength it needs to deal with the global warming problem as long as it is seen as a “special interest.” And it will continue to be seen as a special interest as long as it narrowly identifies the problem as “environmental” and the solutions as technical.” (Nordhaus, 2005)

Integral Theory’s initial form began to take shape with the publishing in 1976 of a book by Ken Wilber, American Philosopher and Buddhist, called “The Spectrum of Consciousness”. In it “he made the case that human development unfolds in specific stages that extend beyond those ordinarily recognized by Western Psychology. Only by

  16  

moving through each developmental stage, Wilber argued, is it possible to develop a healthy sense of individuality and then ultimately to experience a broader identity that transcends and includes the personal self” (Tony Schwartz, 1996.) Over the next 30 years, Mr. Wilber expanded his initial view of human development to include quadrants or lens by which to look at the world, stages of human development and the lines of intelligence for development. His contribution to the field of human development was to acknowledge modern, rational, objective science as true but a partial view of the world, or true as far as it goes. This objective “truth” is described by Wilber as existing on the right side of a 4-quadrant box and reveals what can be measured objectively and empirically – what can be seen. But, what is key to this theory, is that the right-sided two boxes: objective truth, is mistaken by modern society as the whole truth. Wilber argues that it is just half the truth. The left side or interior quadrants represent the other half, which cannot be measured or seen but which makes up subjective and interpretive experiences. The interpretive experiences are what gives life meaning: love, hate, shame, joy, rage, belief in God, conscience, values, the beliefs of a culture. The four quadrants are subjective and objective, individual and social. Integral Theory acts as a map to the complexity of our experience of the world. The four-quadrant map is known as AQAL: All Quadrants, All Lines. The four quadrants create a single Holon. A Holon as described by Arthur Koestler “is both itself a whole while at the same time being a part of a larger whole, so that reality becomes a series of nested Holons”. A fundamental concept of the AQAL (All Quadrants, All Lines) is that a Holon cannot be reduced to any one of the four quadrants with the exclusion of the others. Doing so results in a partial and incomplete view of reality, a one-sidedness of views that base themselves on only one quadrant and doubt the validity of the other quadrants. Wilber applies the term “flatland” to those situations or systems of knowledge where the Left Quadrants (Subjective) are ignored in favor of the Right Quadrants.

  17  

Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrant Map

 (Ken Wilber, Integral Institute)

Quadrants: The Left side of the quadrants represents those things felt, perceived and understood emotionally. They are the things that give life meaning, but they do not exist in objective, observable form. They are subjective. Upper Left Quadrant is the interior of an individual, their thoughts, emotions, beliefs, memories, values, spirituality and sensations. In historical philosophical terms, this quadrant is known as “beauty”. Lower left Quadrant is the “cultural dimension (or inside awareness of the group-its shared worldview, its shared values and beliefs, shared feelings, and so forth)” (Wilber, 2007, 73). This quadrant is known philosophically as “Goodness”. The Right side of the quadrant represents things both measurable and observable in the world around us and within us. The right side is objective and is called “Truth”. Upper Right Quadrant: This looks at the individual from the outside. What can be seen or understood about a person objectively through scientific understanding. So you may tell me you are feeling joyful. I can believe you or not believe you, but if you are hooked

  18  

up to an MRI, I can report that when you “say” you feel joy, this is what I see: brain activity - your neurotransmitters, the limbic system, the neocortex of your brain. You may tell me you are angry (Upper Left emotion experienced internally by you). I can tell you: your fists are clenched, your face is contorted into a scowl, your pulse is fast, your breathing is rapid and your face and neck are red. While objective observations are valuable and provide data by which to understand many things, it is a limiting view, a partial view of a human being. A behaviorist working from the upper right side quadrant will have a limited understanding of a person based only on observing his external behavior or his objectively measured physiological characteristics like: height, weight, pulse rate, blood pressure, hemoglobin and hematocrit. These objective measures each provide a piece of information, but even collated, tell us little about who this man is or what he believes in, or what motivates him. The whole of him is much greater than the sum of externally observed parts. The lower right quadrant is the objective exterior forms and behaviors of human society and the natural world: Social-economic systems, government, networks, policies, procedures, and environmental systems. Mr. Wilber and others contend that our current epoch has functioned by focusing on the right side of the quadrant: the rational, linear, deductive, and objective sciences. While this viewpoint has been wildly successful in moving human kind forward technologically, it has not been without significant cost. A cost that grows larger and more unsustainable with the passage of time. In response, Integral Theory proposes to map the rest of the human response to the world and integrate it into current scientific thought. Integral presents the next stage of human development or the new worldview, one that brings back the left hand quadrants and integrates them with the right. Giving equal weight to goodness and beauty, as well as truth.

While many scientists, environmentalists, policy makers and politicians remain wedded to a focus on technology and science as the answer to discrete problems; the growing Sustainability Movement is an integral response to the crisis we face. It embraces science, technology and culture, values, and spiritual questions about our obligations to the other inhabitants we share the globe with. It includes social justice, questions economic assumptions, argues against reductionist science in favor of a more complex understanding of the interdependency of systems. We can see this in Bill Reed’s definition of Sustainability. Listen to how integral he is when he says,

“Sustainability is not a deliverable. Sustainability is not a thing. Sustainability is not simply about efficient technologies and techniques. It is about life – a process by which living things such as forests, neighborhoods, people, businesses, mushrooms, and polar bears ensure their viability over the long haul. It is a process of reciprocal relationship – a process by which living things support and are supported by the larger whole. That means a building can’t simply be high performance and considered sustainable. Imagining a high-performance building is like imagining a high-performance liver. Certainly, the limitations of that liver are pretty obvious outside of the context of the whole body. Buildings, neighborhoods, and cities are the same. Buildings can be worked on as

  19  

autonomous, but only become meaningful and beneficial when understood as part of the living fabric of place”, (Reed, 2007).

Many leaders in the Environmental Movement function from a preferred quadrant, usually a right quadrant with a focus on objective, measureable truth. This often means they are less than effective at solving complex problems that require an all quadrant response. For example, an international organization may send a technological expert like a hydrologist to a country in South America to advise and design a water system for a rapidly growing city. It is not uncommon for a technologically wonderful design to remain on the shelf, long after the hydrologist has left, because the plan failed to account for the politics of the city, the power differential between classes, failed to account for the thousands of people who have built homes on land they do not own and failed to account for the shared values of the inhabitants; values that may be significantly different than those of the professional class of America. Yet the hydrologist may leave feeling he was successful, that he did his job and their failure to implement it is their failure, not his. From an integral perspective, he would be wrong, he would be seen as having failed to see reality, all of reality. He assumed that he was designing in a flat, rational world with no culture, beliefs or competing claims as barriers to his project. The Return of the Feminine

There is one missing piece to the 4-quadrant model, in my opinion. If each quadrant were based on a non-divisible whole, then I would argue for the inclusion of an additional fundamental piece. I would add Feminine to the left hand side and Masculine to the right hand side. Like the 4-quadrants, gender is a basic reference point. Like the other left hand boxes, feminine values of interdependency, collaboration, cooperation and relatedness have been discounted while the masculine values of competitive striving, independence, separateness and dominance have held sway and are often the lens through which science examines both the human and natural world.

  20  

 The Social Contract theory of Locke and Hobbes still holds sway today as a set of unexamined assumptions, which permeate our society. It creates as a starting place, the assumption that everything exists to be used for creating wealth for society and that everyone and everything is judged by their productivity. We can hardly be surprised that this viewpoint would lead to the vast exploitation of the earth and all its creatures. Environmentalists would do well enfold goodness and beauty back into their worldview, to include human dignity and social justice as an integral part of the work of sustainability. In contrast to Locke and Hobbes’ Social Contract theory with its bleak and narrow focus on man and nature’s value only as producers, Martha Nussbaum, Philosopher and Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, offers as an antidote, Capabilities Theory. It presumes that all humans have inherent dignity and all have inherent worth; that we form a society not from fear, as Hobbes would have it or mutual advantage, as Locke and Rousseau would have it, but from love and attachment, which are inherent human qualities. She proposes that all citizens should have a basic threshold level of each of the following 10 capabilities and that to lack them is not just a calamity but unjust and wrong. 10 Capabilities:

1. Life 2. Bodily Health 3. Bodily Integrity: free from violence, sexual assault, domestic violence and

to have free choice in reproduction 4. Senses, Imagination & Thought 5. Emotions: The attachment to things and people. To love, care and grieve. 6. Practical reason: Protection for liberty of conscience and religious

observance 7. Affiliation 8. Other species: to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants

and the world of nature 9. Play

I  

We  

Feminine  

It  

Its  

Masculine  

  21  

10. Control over one’s environment: a. Political b. Material      

It can be argued that this is a profoundly “feminine” viewpoint or approach and is gaining recognition as women and the “other” including those who are disabled, homosexual, and members of minorities gain a place in the public sphere. Sunaura Taylor, painter and activist for disability and animal rights, in the film “Examined Life” speaks to this point directly by describing her visits to a coffee shop as a political act. Taylor has arthrogyposis, uses a wheelchair and has minimal use of her hands. It is a political and philosophical act, because by her mere presence, she is asking those around her “Do we or do we not live in a world where we assist one another?”. She sees it as a direct challenge to the assumption of the “able bodied”, a challenge to individualism that says I live in a world where I need help and at some point in time, even for a little bit of time, so will you. Women vote differently than men. They consistently vote in higher numbers for democratic candidates that support the safety net. Perhaps it is because men spend much of their adult lives as free agents. While women have more free agency in the US then they do in much of the world or have had in the past, women are still continually reminded of our interdependence on others and others on us. We bear the babies, nurse the sick, and care for the young and the old. We know how fragile we are, how sickness and poverty are one disaster, one misfortune away. Nussbaum has noted that the idea of the “rugged Individual” is a masculine ideal. It only works for single, healthy young males. If you are old, in poor health, disabled or a woman with babies and children, it is a philosophy that utterly fails. (Nussbaum, 2008.) In its place, she has proposed an alternative approach to life and society, claiming that, “treating the acknowledgment of vulnerability is key [emphasis mine] to realizing the human good.” In other words, to recognize our fragility and vulnerability is to recognize our humanity, our mortality, and our dependency on others and hence by extension our dependency on the natural system in which we are embedded rather than apart from. The “masculine principle has been traditionally associated with such qualities as competitive striving, independence or separateness, dominance and in later periods with a certain … rationality that stresses certainty, closure and rigidly hierarchical thinking” (Kelly, 2010, xiii). Kelly sees a return of the “feminine”, a balancing of feminine and masculine principles as imperative, if the worldview is to become one which “embraces material sufficiency for everyone, honors the generative power of life and love, seeks a balance of feminine and masculine principles and nurtures a realization of the mature potential of our human nature” (Kelly, 2010, 158).

  22  

Feminine principles of interdependency, community, sacrifice and collaboration must be woven into every discipline and strata of decision-making. The separateness of our heads and hearts must be healed, the notion that we are somehow separate from the earth on which we live, that our fate is apart from the health of our ecosystem must be healed if human kind is to continue to thrive. It is not enough to slow our destruction, we must regenerate the earth on which we depend and in order to do that, we must regenerate and heal our own separateness from each other, from our work, from our interior life and its’ call for meaning. In short, we must integrate our parts back into wholes. We must welcome back the left quadrants and integrate them into our worldview. We need a new Renaissance.

The new Catholic Pope, Pope Francis, in a recent exhortation echoes this richer view of human kind,

“Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless… Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its

  23  

disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”…

… Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. We calmly accept its [money] dominion over ourselves and our societies. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex. 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose” (Evangelii Gaudium, Chapter 2, 53-55).

The growing urge to reunite right and left is described by Richard Tarnas, Historian and Professor of Philosophy, thus: “… to be the collective reawakening of a spiritual and existential desire to merge

with a greater unity – to reconnect with the Earth and all forms of life on it, with the global community, with the cosmos…in the widespread call for the reenchantment of the world – the reenchantment with nature, of science, of art, of everyday life… to overcome old separations and dualisms – between the human being and nature, spirit and matter, mind and body, subject and object, masculine and feminine, intellect and soul, cosmos and psyche – and to discover a deeper integral reality and unitive consciousness” (Tarnas, 2006, 427).

Stages of Development: The second component of the Integral Model of Human Development is composed of an understanding of the stages of human development. Janet Drey, an expert in Leadership Development, notes it is not common to think or speak about adult physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological, moral and spiritual development. She says further:

“Integral theory points to the importance of considering different lines of human development as well as the progressive levels or stages of adult development. In each unfolding stage, an individual or group evolves toward greater complexity/maturity/capacity/capability” (Drey, 2010, 348).

Levels or stages of development are permanent milestones; once a stage is reached, it is an enduring development. A child once there, has permanent access to language, it is not a “peak experience, present one minute and gone the next”(Wilber, 2007, 31). Once a stage or level is reached the person has access to the capacities of that stage. Carol Gilligan’s stages of female moral development are a perfect illustration. In her book, “A Different Voice”, she says that women move through four stages of moral development called pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional and Integrated. A woman at stage one, pre-conventional has a morality centered entirely on her. Pre-conventional is also called egocentric (Wilber, 2007, 46). This is quite different from a woman who has progressed to a post-conventional or world centric stage 3. In this

  24  

stage of moral development, a woman includes but goes beyond herself, to include her tribe or family, her nation and finally “all of us”, all human beings or all sentient beings. She now has care and compassion for ”all of humanity, for all men and women everywhere, regardless of race, color, sex or creed” (Wilber, 2007, 46). It is not until the world centric stage of ego development that a woman or man will care about global concerns. Does it not behoove Sustainability advocates to address those in the egocentric and conventional stage? How do we speak to them in a way that addresses their concerns? How do we help them move from egocentric to conventional or conventional to world centric? Stages Of Human Development: Spiral Dynamics  

  (Wilber, 2007)

There are numerous depictions of stages besides Carol Gilligan’s work on moral development. I believe Clare Graves and Don Beck’s stages of self-development is the most useful to the Sustainability movement. Named Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and further developed by Ken Wilber, Spiral Dynamics is based on the assumption that both cultures and people evolve through stages in a definite pattern. But, both individuals and cultures can remain stuck in a certain stage or actually regress to an earlier stage in extreme circumstances.

  25  

The four most advanced stages are of interest here. Traditional Amber/Pre-Modern is thought to represent about 23-25% of the US population. People in this stage are loyal to their family, their religious peers, and their nation or ethnicity. They are socially conservative, and value authority, and subjugate self for good of the group. The military is a classic example. Social conservatives in the Republican Party are another. They are intensely loyal to the people within their system but not those outside it. The sustainability movement has rarely addressed their concerns and they will be unmoved by idealistic arguments on animal and nature rights, or global concerns. They will be moved to protect their nation-state or group. The military is actively evaluating global warming as a threat to national security and a threat to national stability. They could partner with the Sustainability Movement for widespread preparation for global weather changes. Protection of one’s family and community are paramount here. They are not swayed by science or rationality but could respond to religious arguments for conservation and the protection of God’s creation.

The Modern/Orange stage is exemplified by individualism. Half the American population is thought to be in the modern stage. People in this stage expect everyone to work and each to receive the rewards of their own hard work and risk taking. Hobbes and Locke’s social contract theory finds a ready audience within this stage, as does Ayn Rand’s support of hyper-individualism at the expense of the common good. The Republican slogan of “Makers not Takers” is a classic Modern stage viewpoint. Capitalism arose in this cultural developmental stage. There is a reluctance to contribute to the common good, instead self-reliance is preferred. Arguments about the common good, sacrifice for others, income redistribution and idealism will leave those in this stage unmoved. The Modern does accept science and rationality. This is a group that could be moved to build green houses, have solar panels, and be energy independent rather than be caught in a failing system. Their impulse would be selfish but the end result would move the US to a lower carbon footprint. Opportunity for new businesses, new markets in “green” industry will appeal to this group. The Post Modern/Green stage moves back to a focus on community and the common good. Civil rights, feminism, environmentalism arose out of this stage. Those in the post-modern stage believe in equality and are suspicious of hierarchies. The post-modern viewpoint has a global focus. This is the group most Sustainable Movement people come from and they are often talking to each other when they present arguments for change. They will appeal to moral rightness and idealism and are mystified that the other stages are unmoved. They can make mistakes in refusing to judge the actions of others due to their rejection of a hierarchy of values. They can be rigidly idealistic, refusing to compromise, based on moral self-righteousness. Looking at interactions from the perspective of what a group values allows us to speak to their concerns rather than our own. This can lead to allies and a stronger likelihood of successful change in legislation and policy. For example, Nordhaus and Schellenberger recount the successful passage of the 1975 fuel efficiency standards (CAFÉ) as a partnership between the UAW, automakers and a group of staffers in Congress “out of clearly defined self-interest: to slow the advance of Japanese imports” (Nordhaus, 2005). Environmentalists were not at the table and had reservations about the bill. Automakers and the UAW were working from Pre-modern and Modern viewpoints, with

  26  

a focus on protecting jobs and remaining competitive and profitable. Those were the arguments that made them sign on to a bill that also served the environment and slowed down carbon emissions. Nordhaus has also recounted the failure in 1990 to raise CAFÉ standards again, when the environmentalists choose not to pursue an alliance with the UAW that would have helped the environment and saved the auto industry. Rather, they “repeatedly brought overly ambitious legislation to the floors of the House and Senate without first striking compromises with the UAW” (Nordhaus, 2005). This kind of rigid idealism has not served the cause of environmentalism well. “By thinking of their own narrowly defined interests, environmental groups don’t concern themselves with the needs of either unions or the industry.” In another words, the only arguments environmentalists are willing to make are green/post modern ones. They are unwilling to engage with groups who hold different values and priorities. They are also unwilling to enlarge their field of interest and look at a wider picture of societal ills, many of which hang together.  Nordhaus and Schellenberger, expressed a integral viewpoint, when in their article they urged the Sustainability movement to broaden their focus to issues like health care, saying: “And yet if you were to propose that environmental groups should have a strategy for lowering the costs of health care for the auto industry, perhaps in exchange for higher mileage standards, you’d likely be laughed out of the room …. Because health care is not an environmental issue” (Nordhaus, 2005).   Integral Theory can be thought of as a more accurate map of the world then we have been using to date. Indeed, Integral theorists would say that we have been operating on half a map for the last 300 years. Integral Theory “helps you see both yourself and the world around you in more comprehensive and effective ways” (Wilber, 2007, p.18). Many believe the developing new worldview will be integral; a reintegration of separate disciplines, a move away from deductive reasoning, a move away from sub-specialization as a method for understanding the larger system and a new appreciation of the whole, a new awe for complexity and as Sean Kelly in his book, Coming Home, describes it, “a re-enchantment of the world” (Kelly, 2010, 133). This is possible now, because as Wilber points out, “During the last 30 years, we have witnessed a historic first; all the world’s cultures are now available to us…. Knowledge itself is global. This means that also for the first time, the sum total of human knowledge is available to us – the knowledge, experience, wisdom and reflection of all major human civilizations – pre-modern, modern, and post-modern are open to study by anyone” (Wilber, 2007, 16).

Why is this important? We have experienced 300 years of developing Western thought, culminating in the post-modern worldview. A worldview, which while successfully creating modern society is now collapsing in on itself. It has taken us to a place of industrial and technological marvels but at a cost, which is no longer sustainable. We must move beyond the world of unbridled Capitalism, individualism, and reductionism to a re-joining of man to the world or face the end of our species.

  27  

As Donella Meadows says: “Celebrate Complexity – Let’s face it, the universe is messy. It is nonlinear, turbulent and chaotic. It is dynamic. It spends its time in transient behavior on its way to somewhere else, not in mathematically neat equilibria. It self-organizes and evolves. It creates diversity, not uniformity. That’s what makes the world interesting, that’s what makes it beautiful, and that’s what makes it work” (Meadows, 2002). Thinkers like Ken Wilber, Sean Kelly, David Orr, Janet Drey, Janine Benyus, Richard Hames, Donella, Meadows, Bill Reed, Martha Nussbaum, Christopher Alexander, Mirabai Bush and Michele Gossman are creating an Integral worldview, one that holds that all parts of us are required to create a thriving world and all parts of the greater whole of nature and complex systems must be understood with humility, not reduced to individual parts, if we are to regenerate nature. Jacob Needleman, American philosopher, in an interview on Integral Life (Integrallife.com), notes “we have created enormously complex challenges for ourselves, challenges that require an entirely new level of intuition and problem solving…. An empirical mysticism to supplement an empirical science” (Needleman, 2013). Integral Leadership:

 “… fundamental innovation rarely comes from the mainstream. Dominant incumbents in industries rarely pioneer radical new technologies or products. New social movements do not come from those in the centers of power. The

  28  

same is true for much of the leadership required to create a regenerative society. Look to the periphery, to people and places where commitment to the status quo is low and where hearts and minds are most open to the new.  The periphery is not defined just by race or economic status, but by the degree to which different power groups have been assimilated into the Industrial Age mind-set and power structures… It might mean women, whose ways of leading differ innately from men’s but, by and large, have had little space to be expressed fully.” (Senge, 2010, 5429)  

“Calculative thinking computes … it races from one prospect to the next. It never stops, never collects itself. It is not meditative thinking, not thinking which contemplates the meaning that reigns in everything there is … Meditative thinking demands of us that we engage ourselves with what, at first sight, does not go together.” Martin Heidegger, Memorial Address (Death of Environmentalism, Nordhaus, 2005)  

Successful leadership requires an ability to be both analytical and meditative, to use right side systems and to understand left side beliefs and values; to articulate them, speak to them and allow them to lead to more than technical solutions. Alexandra Merrill, mentor and women’s leadership theorist, believes that leadership is based on “the benevolence in the laws of nature, is bio-mimetic and therefore leads up toward peaceful co-existence” (Merrill, 2013, 3). She notes that in many cases, leaders have no theory base from which to work and fail to address basic human needs within the group. As a feminine theorist, she notes that underneath any group and its “implicate order is a pulsation of human needs, common struggles, anxieties, worries, hopes, and dreams for peaceful, sustainable lives.” Merrill argues a “balance of mindfulness on process theory and clarity on task efficiency creates an environment where all members feel seen, heard, held and appreciated” (Merrill, 2013, 4). This ability to bring a full human perspective to the group allows for a group to do their work using all four quadrants of reality as worthy of consideration. Janet Drey, a facilitator and leader development expert says to constantly ask yourself: “What perspective am I leaving out?” I would add that we should be asking, “What quadrant am I leaving out?” “What feminine values and voices am I leaving out?” “What stage of development is my audience and am I addressing them?” Drey goes on to discuss the inclusion of leadership training that teaches “contemplative practices of mindfulness; developing the habits of seeing our seeing, seeing our relationship with others and to the “whole;” letting go of attachments, illusions and worldviews that are limited; and moving toward more responsible or effective awareness with action” (Bush, 2010, 348).

  29  

V. Sustainability Theory Through an Integral Lens

Sustainability Theory  

“Environmentalists and community activists, of necessity, have shone the spotlight on the resultant failures, and we owe much to those who were and still are on the front line, fighting to reverse past abuses and prevent future ones. Battlegrounds however are poor sources for reconciliation let alone for evolution beyond the current state. The reaction to the environmental movement has divided communities and solidified polarities. It has become fodder for politicians seeking to enflame supporters, while efforts at meaningful, systemic change are stalled or ignored. If we are to evolve a new way of relating to the places we inhabit, we will need to move beyond the conflict that has framed much of the relationship between developers and environmentalists over the last 50 years” (Reed, 2008, 2).

So what does the environmental movement look like if it recreates itself using an Integral approach? Jason McLennan’s introductory words in his book, The Philosophy of Sustainable Design, reflect an integral worldview by inviting sustainability advocates to broaden and deepen their view of the issues:

• “That we, as a society, cannot continue for long down the current path we are on, each year breaking records for the amount of energy, water and materials used and the pollution and waste created, without seeing widespread social, economic and environmental upheaval.

• That we in the building professions must bear a large share of the responsibility in redesigning the places and systems that we use to live sustainably, because many of the solutions to our environmental problems are design problems.

  30  

• That a sustainable future is possible and achievable within this century if we continue to remove the barriers to sustainability and apply appropriate technologies and the knowledge we continue to acquire.

• That most of the barriers to a sustainable future are not technological but fear and ignorance based.

• That each of us must begin now so that the treasures of today remain for future generations to enjoy. Each of us has a role to play.” (McLennan, 2004, xxvi)

Why are we failing to address the crisis of our time? John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said more than a century ago “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe” (Nordhaus, 2005). Are we attempting to use the same methods, the same worldview to “fix” the environment that we used to damage it? Have we pursued our concerns about the environment, water, energy, habitat, indoor air quality, air pollution, climate change separately and apart from their root causes? Have we focused on being “Cassandras” warning of disaster rather than promoting a hopeful future based on sustainability?

The History of Sustainable Design: Sustainable design is a new concept, the beginning of an integration of water conservation, energy conservation, sustainable materials, regenerative and restorative ecology, social justice, environmentalism, climate change and renewable resources. Each element began as a separate thread, a different part of the elephant. As the crises accumulate, we begin to appreciate the fragility of the environment and man’s negative impact on our natural world. The Sustainability movement begins to step back and see the integrated whole.

The Environmental Movement

It is difficult to point to one person, work or time when something begins. In the late1940’s, Clair Patterson, a geochemist at the California Institute of Technology, as a side shoot to his work on determining the age of the Earth, had noticed high readings of lead in almost everything he tested. After several years of study, he determined that there had been almost no lead in the atmosphere prior to 1923, but with the advent of leaded gasoline; lead in the atmosphere had increased dramatically. He spent the rest of his career fighting to get lead removed from gasoline. His efforts finally led to the creation of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the end of leaded gasoline in 1986 (Bryson, 2003, 158). Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, published in 1964, is credited with awakening the public to species loss and the health risks of pesticides to both birds and humans. Despite fierce opposition when it was published, Silent Spring helped lead to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides and helped jumpstart the environmental movement. Carson was unusual for her time. “Embedded within all of Carson's writing was the view that human beings were but one part of nature distinguished primarily by their power to alter it, in some cases irreversibly” (http://www.rachelcarson.org). This view of humanity as not separate from the world and the world as organic system, not

  31  

machine was at odds with the widely prevalent views of the 1950’s and 60’s, which saw progress and technology as purely positive. Her research linking bird decline with the increasing use of DDT is being played out again in our time as we see a worldwide, rapid decline in honeybee colonies. Early research, as published in Science, suggests that a commonly used insecticide, neonicotinoid, may be responsible (Henry et al. 2012). Europe has acted to establish a two-year moratorium on neonicotinoid while additional studies are conducted. The US has not acted and chemical companies resist any such action vigorously. The 70’s seem to have been the time when the work of many culminated in creating an environmental awareness and activist movement, supported by the general public. The Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969, the loss of song birds and bald eagles, the appalling amounts of litter through out America created movements to clean up the environment, preserve specific habitats, protect species, and create national parks, but it was a patchwork approach to specific threats. The basic approach to technology, lifestyle, use of automobiles, the extraction of natural resources, the creation of roads, the rings of suburbs further and further from the city core, continue. Our worldview while shaken, and increasingly questioned, still holds sway. We see this in each of the major compartmentalized issues affecting the earth: water, population, habitat destruction, resource depletion, widening inequality and climate change. Water

“If the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century

will be fought over water” (Ismail Serageldin)

Vandana Shiva has written extensively on water. In her book, Water Wars, she describes the extension and rise of our current worldview together with climate change and exponential population growth coming together to create a worldwide water crisis. She describes a battle between 2 paradigms. One paradigm holds water as sacred “and treats its provision as a duty for the preservation of life”, a universal ecological necessity, while the second is relatively new and sees water as another commodity, “its ownership and trade as fundamental corporate rights” (Shiva, 2002, x). This battle between a universal ethic that sees water as a commons and the basis for all life and its commoditization is taking place through out the world. I would argue it is a continuation of a world view that began in the 1800’s, a view that sees both mankind and nature as fodder for profit, with no inherent value in and of themselves. Again, we see two radically different worldviews vying for dominance. Commoditization allows us to sell water to the highest bidder, to extract groundwater and surface water with no regard for the future or for those on the earth who have no voice, who cannot pay: the ecosystem, the natural world and the poor. Population Growth The world population was estimated at 370 million in 1350 and reached 1 billion in 1804, 454 years later. It took just 123 years to reach 2 billion, 33 years to reach 3 billion and 14 years to reach 5. The rate of growth has stabilized. The earth’s population is

  32  

now growing another billion every 12-13 years. The United Nations estimates the earth reached 7 billion in 2011 and will reach between 8.3 – 10.9 billion by 2050. (United Nations Population Fund). The Human population increase and its increased demand for natural resources: land, water, food, material goods and energy are also seen in a dualistic and conflicted way. Capitalism prefers a growing pool of low paid labor and consumers to buy products. Our economic system requires continued growth while the sustainability of that model looks to be reaching its limit. As societies gain affluence, they naturally lower their birth rate. It may be an evolutionary response to our habitat reaching its limits but governments all over the world vigorously resist it.

Climate Change Climate Change is closely tied to the emission of carbon and other green house gases into the atmosphere and associated with the enormous use of petroleum based products. Capitalism and the corporate focus on profit doesn’t easily allow other considerations to enter into the decision making process and petroleum industries have been highly effective in preventing climate change legislation and in fomenting a propaganda war against the very idea of climate change. The Sustainability response has been to focus on the technology needed to switch from carbon based fuels to renewable resources. Some environmentalist continue to call for a huge increase in nuclear power, focused on the elephant leg of carbon emission and failing to see the elephant leg of nuclear waste and a potential for black swan events, as we have seen with the continued crisis of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, 2 years after the earthquake and flood in Japan caused nuclear core meltdown.

  33  

The IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 2013 report was released in October of 2013. Key Findings:

• Human Effects: “Human activities are continuing to affect the Earth’s energy budget by changing the emissions and resulting atmospheric concentrations of radiatively important gases and aerosols and by changing land surface properties.”

• Air and Sea Temperatures: “Global mean surface air temperatures over land and oceans have increased over the last 100 years. Observations from satellites and in situ measurements show a trend of significant reductions in the mass balance of most land ice masses and in Arctic sea ice. The ocean's uptake of carbon dioxide is having a significant effect on the chemistry of seawater.”

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, globally-averaged temperature and sea level rise are generally well within the range of the extent of the earlier IPCC projections. Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both.”

It is not a lack of evidence that fails to move the public or the policy makers of this

country.

  34  

Amory Lovins has demonstrated that the technology needed for change is not the barrier either: “I come to this issue from having led in 2010–11 perhaps the most rigorous whole-system analysis and “grand synthesis” yet done of a coherent solution to our nation’s energy challenge. It was performed by 61 of us at Rocky Mountain Institute over six quarters with $6 million of philanthropic support and much help from industry in both content and peer review. Our study Reinventing Fire showed how to run a 2.6x-bigger U.S. economy in 2050 with no oil, no coal, no nuclear energy, one-third less natural gas, 82–86% lower carbon emissions, $5 trillion lower net-present-value cost (assuming that carbon and all other externalities are worth zero), no new inventions, and no Acts of Congress—the transition led by business for profit” (Lovins, 2013). And yet this transition does not occur. One has to assume that it is the worldview and the philosophy of industry, policy makers, legislators and those advocating for the switch that prevent it. Many in the Environmental movement continue to focus technology arguments, but clearly the world is unmoved and asking for something more, some other reason to change. Climate change creates more intense droughts and more severe but less frequent rains, larger cyclones and hurricanes. As we acknowledge the growing severity of the weather, denial becomes harder to sustain; resilience, social justice, social stability and adaptation discussions become another way onto the policy agenda, but are seen by many environmentalists as either a sell out or a distraction. Rather than distraction, it is a way to a re-invigorated environmental movement that partners with groups who share a new worldview, one that includes dignity for man and earth.

Biophilia/Habitat/Species Health

“Homo industrialis, having reached the limits of nature’s tolerance, is seeing his shadow on the wall, along with the shadows of rhinos, condors, manatees, Lady’s Slippers and other species he is taking down with him. Shaken by the

  35  

sight, he, we, are hungry for instructions about how to live sanely and sustainably on the earth.” (Janine Benyus)

Integral approaches are showing up everywhere. Integral Biology is one of the most promising. Known as Biomimicry, it moves from the reductionistic model of nature to

1. “Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf.

2. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the “rightness” of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts.

3. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it.” (Benyus, 1997, Foreword)

Again we see the rise of an alternative worldview. While nature as something to extract value from, remains the overweening approach to natural resources, Biomimicry offers a way out of resource depletion and habitat destruction. Benyus, in her book, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, describes her own education in forestry. She describes multiple courses that studied each piece of the forest separately, rarely was the forest as a whole examined. She noted that she learned nothing about cooperative relationships, self-regulating feedback loops or dense interconnectedness, all of which are in abundance in nature, particularly forests (Benyus, 1997, 3). Flatland versus an Integral worldview, which will prevail and what will be the consequences? In a race between an integral biology and ecology and a view of nature as having no intrinsic value, will we lose the opportunity to heal ourselves of various diseases because the plants are lost to extinction before we know their value? As habitat destruction accelerates, will we lose whole ecosystems with incredible biodiversity before we realize the loss? If A.O. Wilson is right and there is an “innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms… [And] life around us exceeds in complexity and beauty anything else humanity is ever likely to encounter”, what is the effect on the human psyche when we have lost millions of species through our own destructive philosophy?

“Long lived cultures around the world tell stories in which important lessons for humanity are conveyed by other species. They do this as a reminder that other species have something to teach us” (Senge, 2010, 5592). We save habitat and species not because we might need them, not because we can profit from them, but “to recover our capacity for awe at the marvel of the living world and our fellow travelers on Spaceship Earth, without which we are unlikely to rediscover our place in the large natural order” (Senge, 2010, 5592).

  36  

VI. Practical Application to the Sustainability Field: Invitation to a Renaissance The Living Building Challenge The separate threads of environmentalism, social activism, and building design are increasingly coalescing into a single field known as “Sustainability”. This is characterized by an increasing number of disciplines falling under its heading and a wider view, a more “integral” view of the problems effecting the earth and mankind’s future. We see this in the development of the green certification program the “Living Building Challenge” (LBC). It uses as a symbol, a flower and its petals, each unique, whole but part of a larger whole. It is an example of Integral Theory’s description of a Holon. Each part whole and made up of smaller parts, while itself, part of a larger whole again. But a flower must be seen in total if it is to be recognized as a flower and the changes proposed in all the petals, together, create a more sustainable, shared world. Each, individually, will not. While some of the petals are based on objective, right quadrant systems, others like “Beauty” and “Social Equity” are calling for left quadrant values to be added explicitly to the Sustainability focus.

                Living  Building  Challenge  2.0  Each Petal:

• Site o Limits to Growth o Urban Agriculture o Habitat Exchange o Car Free Living

• Water o Net Zero Water o Ecological Water Flow

• Energy o Net Zero Energy

• Health o Civilized Environment o Health Air o Biophilia

  37  

• Materials o Red List o Embodied Carbon Footprint o Responsible Industry o Appropriate Sourcing o Conservation + Reuse

• Equity o Human Scale + Humane Places o Democracy + Social Justice o Rights to Nature

• Beauty o Beauty + Spirit o Inspiration + Education

This attempt by The Living Building Challenge to widen its view to more of the elephant is in sharp contrast to another green certification program: LEED. If the LBC is the Sustainability Movement’s attempt at Integral thinking, LEED is the equivalent of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to the rich and powerful. LEED is a “flatland” or right quadrant view of sustainability: reductive, objective, and measurable, with a focus on parts and completely missing the whole picture. It is architecture as church selling “forgiveness” or in this case “greenness” to corporate interests.

A perfect example is the Boston Atlantic Wharf, awarded LEED Platinum designation in 2012. Atlantic Wharf (seen above) is a glass skyscraper, one of the most inefficient designs in the world. Its glass sheets require both extensive heating and extensive

  38  

cooling year round. Atlantic Wharf’s website declares: “Atlantic Wharf is designed to use 33% less energy than comparable downtown office towers and 42% less energy than a typical existing office in New England. Atlantic Wharf is designed to use 69% less domestic water in the office tower compared to a typical downtown tower”. This may be an improvement in the efficiency of a highly inefficient building style, but it does not come close to net zero in water or energy. Worse, it gives the highest score available to a building style that is a failed model for sustainability and falls on Bill Reed’s scale of Regenerative Design as a “Relative Improvement”. If LEED is supposed to change the planet, we are in trouble. A building that uses a higher performance window without questioning a building made of windows has seriously missed the point of green building. As Bill Reed illustrates in his Regenerative Design diagram below, if you are less than net zero, you are still adding harm, if you are at net zero, you have ceased harming but are not yet restoring. Only when working restoratively are we beginning to undue damage and only when we move to “regenerative do we have the opportunity to fully dance with nature as equal partners with an equal stake in the outcome”.

(Used with permission) Education Reform The medical field has undergone two radical reform movements. The first occurred in 1910 with the release of the Flexner Report. Abraham Flexner, an educator with no experience or knowledge of the medical profession, was commissioned by the Carnegie

  39  

Foundation to review the state of medical education in the United States and Canada. “An unflattering but not necessarily inaccurate description for Flexner’s assignment was that he was to be the hatchet man in sweeping clean the medical system of substandard medical schools that were flooding the nation with poorly trained physicians” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178858/). At that time, most medical colleges were for profit trade schools run by one or two physicians, held to no standards or pre-requisites and were overseen by no one. The report was devastating to most and recommended that fully 1/3 be shut down and a second 1/3 be substantially reformed. These recommendations were embraced by state legislatures and within 25 years, half the schools had closed and the other half had fully embraced the scientific model. It is time for Architecture and its related professions Interior Design, Engineering and Landscape Design to commit to a wholesale reform of Architectural design education based on sustainability principles. The Boston Architectural College has a long and unique history. It has always taken an innovative approach to education. With its Sustainable Design program, the BAC has the opportunity to fully integrate its curriculum and change history. Each discipline: landscape architecture, architecture, interior design and sustainable design should share a core sustainable design curriculum that could include David Foley’s course “Sustainability as a way of thinking” and Richard Graves’ course “The Urgent and Hopeful Future of Sustainable Design” as the basis for a shared understanding, language and vision for the built environment. Each discipline could come together with the other BAC disciplines to form an Integrated Team to create an integrated design, thesis or research project in order to meet their Capstone requirements. Each team should be created with gender and ethnicity in mind, with a minimum of 1/3 of team members being of the same gender and 1/3 of team members representing ethnic minorities. Social research has uncovered that females do not bring a separate viewpoint to a group unless 1/3 of the members are female. The same is true for non-white ethnicities. A different voice begins to be shared, seen and heard when there are enough members to be safely heard. Along with a shared curriculum of sustainable principles, each discipline should share leadership education. This education should go beyond skill building and into self- development. Self-awareness, self-management and an understanding of adult stages of self development (Spiral Dynamics for example) are key to effective leadership of multi-disciplinary groups, working with diverse cultures, and communicating with groups with very different perspectives, values and motivations. Integral Leadership Consultants like Richard Hames, Walter Link, Bill George and Janet Drey work with multi-national corporate leaders in self-development, including contemplation practice for self-awareness growth. Design education should do the same with its students. Bill George, Harvard School of Business professor and expert on Leadership development insists what is key is: “Gaining awareness of oneself – our motivations, our destructive emotions, our crucibles, and our failings – is essential to being an effective leader. Based on my research into leaders, I have found the greatest cause of leadership failures is the lack

  40  

of emotional intelligence and self-awareness on the part of leaders. I cannot name a single high-level leader who failed due to lack of IQ, but am aware of hundreds of leaders that have been unsuccessful due to their lack of emotional intelligence (EQ). The destruction of organizations caused by their shortcomings is staggering” (George, 2010).

We need leaders in the built environment fields that are both deep and broad. Beyond their own deep expertise in design, they must have knowledge outside their own field in: anthropology, biology, economics, group dynamics, depth psychology to name a few if they are to effectively change the current paradigm around building and their approach to land and materials use. They must also develop Emotional Intelligence and an awareness of their own stage of development. The field must have a shared and common vision and a fierce intention to operate from it. In short, the field needs what medicine received in 1910 with the release of the Flexner Report, a devastating call on the profession to reform. Medicine is called upon “To First, Do No Harm”. Bill Reed and others call upon the field of architecture and design to build net zero as a minimum (do no further harm) but to go further and to build restoratively, to regenerate the eco-system with each project and educate while you do so. As with Education, So with Practice The second major reform in medicine began in 2001, with the release of the Institute of Medicine’s report “Crossing the Quality Chasm”. If the first report was calling on medicine to pursue objective, scientific study more rigorously, the 2001 report focused on the dark side of complexity and the focus on sub-specialization within medicine. It described thousands of deaths and millions of harmful mistakes annually to patients across America, due to overly complex systems, with too many parts and a failure to communicate effectively between them. The result is a patient divided into organ parts, overseen by separate specialists who rarely communicate and rarely consider the effect of their individual recommendations on the patient as a whole. Does this not bear a strong resemblance to the way architecture is currently practiced? The current medical reform is focused on improving patient health outcomes, redesigning medicine to work in Integral teams of multi-disciplined professionals, each with a unique view point, and a primary care provider acting as facilitator, integrator and communicator with the patient. Isn’t it time that Architecture and its sisters and brothers in design also adopt a focus based on health? Health of their clients and users of their built environment, health of the community the building is placed in, the health of the surrounding eco-system and the health of the planet by building with local, renewable materials, at net zero standards, with a commitment to habitat protection. A doctor, who commits malpractice, or who fails to follow medical standards of care, comes up before a state board and if egregious enough, has his license suspended temporarily or permanently. The same is true in law. It is way past time for the design professions to have the equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath: “First, Do No Harm”. It is time for a complete reform of the design professions. All associations should adopt a set of shared standards and principles whose foundation is sustainability and to be held to it by the International Code Council, The AIA (American Institute of Architects),

  41  

Architecture Research Institute, IACC, ASID (American Society of Interior Designers), Council for Interior Design, IIDA (International Interior Design Association), APLD (Association of Landscape Designers), ASLA (American Society of Landscape Architects), LDA (Landscape Design Association) and others. A designer who uses red list materials, creates a toxic indoor air environment, a landscape architect who colludes with a builder or owner to strip vegetation, remove wetlands, destroy habitat, plant non-native, water hungry or invasive plantings is committing design malpractice. We could go further and say they are committing planetary genocide. At the very least, a landscape architect should do no harm, but the standard should be restorative and regenerative landscaping. At the very least, an interior designer should ensure a non-toxic environment, but the standard should be a healthy environment that increases natural light, learning, productivity, alleviates depression, decreases symptomology of ADHD, and brings joy and beauty and a sense of community. At the very least, an architect should design to net zero standards but the standard should be higher: designing for human scale, designing with a sense of place, designing in harmony with the surrounding built and natural environment, designing to create community, and designing to welcome Biophilia back into our lives. Designing to bring joy, nature and beauty back to the built environment. With each new mega-storm there are left, miles of devastation. The impulse is to rebuild as it was, to rebuild in a hurry, to rebuild without thought to our opportunity for regeneration and resiliency. The design and architecture fields have an opportunity to join with city and regional planners and create a template for building with resiliency. Building must cease to be an individual endeavor and green building practices must stop being part of a long ala cart menu: green roof instead of granite counter tops or high performance glass instead of an atrium, but instead become the way we design and the way we build. Restorative and regenerative landscape design must not be an option for the enlightened but the way landscape design is practiced, always and everywhere. Interior design must have a basic foundation: Good Interior Air Quality. The creation of a healthy house or work place for the inhabitants is the minimum, but a restorative and regenerative standard would bring in natural light, natural ventilation, Biophilic design and use of style, color and materials to Improve health, serenity, community and reattachment to nature. While architecture has begun to make small steps toward “integral design” and LEED certification is increasingly desired in the field by both architects and the public, each is woefully inadequate for the severity of the times. Integral design must become the accepted standard, with engineers, architects, interior designers, and landscape designers forming a core team with a shared vision and a shared underlying foundation of sustainability principles. The team must be consciously chosen to represent gender parity. The team should be able to expand to include anthropologists, biologists, hydrologists, social activists and cultural adepts depending on the project. David Orr’s set of three Design Principles provides one Integral Sustainability vision to use as the way forward in redesigning the build environment disciplines. They are as follows:

Three Design Principles:

  42  

1. “You must see design as a large and unifying concept — quite literally the remaking of the human presence on Earth. Design in its largest sense has to do with how we provision ourselves with food, energy, materials, shelter, livelihood, transport, water, and waste cycling. It is the calibration of human intentions with how the world works as a physical system and the awareness of how the world works to inform our intentions. Design as a large concept means, in Wendell Berry felicitous words, "solving for pattern," creating solutions that solve many problems. When you solve for pattern you will also have created resilience, which is the capacity of systems to persist in a world perturbed by human error, malevolence, and what we call "acts of God." And by solving for pattern you are also likely to learn the virtues of reparability, redundancy, locality, and simplicity.

2. Second, you will need a standard for your work, rather like the Hippocratic

Oath or a compass by which you chart a journey. For that I propose that designers should aim to cause no ugliness, human or ecological, somewhere else or at some later time. That standard will cause you to think upstream from the particular design project or object to the wells, mines, forests, farms, and manufacturing establishments from which materials are drawn and crystallized into the particularities of design. It will cause you, as well, to look downstream to the effects of design on climate and health of people and ecosystems. If there is ugliness, human or ecological, at either end you cannot claim success as a designer regardless of the artfulness of what you make.

3. Third, as designers, you will need to place your work in a larger historical context — what philosopher Thomas Berry calls, your Great Work. No generation ever asks for its Great Work. Our Great Work, however, is not one of fighting wars, but of extending and speeding a worldwide ecological enlightenment that joins human needs and purposes with the way the world works as a biophysical system. Your Great Work will be no less demanding and no less complex than that of any previous generation. But in outline it is very simple. Your Great Work as designers is to:

a. Stabilize and reduce all heat trapping gases b. Make a rapid transition to efficiency and renewable energy c. Build a world secure by design for everyone...a world in which

every child has a decent home, food, water, education, medical care

d. Preserve the best of our history and culture e. Enable us to see our way forward to a world that is sustainable and

spiritually sustaining” (Orr, 2007).  An Aside I recently interviewed and hired a small contracting company in Rockport, Maine for a renovation project. Brenan, the co-founder of the Black Bros. started the conversation by saying that he is a green builder. He went on to say that it was not optional; it was the way he built houses. If that wasn’t what I was looking for, he could give me the

  43  

names of plenty of builders who build irresponsibly. He reported that his business is doubling each year, and while he had to travel to do it, it was worth it. Surely, if a small company in Maine can make the commitment to build responsibly, so can others.

“ In many ways, the environmental crisis is a design crisis. It is a consequence of how things are made, buildings are constructed, and landscapes are used. Design manifests culture, and culture rests firmly on the foundation of what we believe to be true about the world.” Sym Van Der Ryn

It is time to change our worldview to one that is integral, time to adopt as the basis for design practice the principles of sustainability as articulated by leaders in the Sustainability Movement like Jason McLennan, Bill Reed, John Lyle Tillman, and David Orr and time to hold design professions to the very highest standards of planetary regeneration. It is time for a renaissance that rejoins us to our eco-system and planet and to one that re-chants the world.

  44  

Biographical Note

Valli Genevieve Geiger comes late to the design field, but considers it the rounding out of the circle. She began her professional career with a BSN in nursing, practicing emergency medicine, community health and hospice. She returned to school, completing all coursework for dual Master’s Degrees in Public Health and Public Administration, except for thesis. She moved into public policy and became interested in the larger frame for health, working on public health issues and medical care system reform, including serving on the Maine Cardiovascular Council, the Maine Practice Improvement Network, and the Maine Multi-Payors Demonstration Project. Valli returned to graduate education, receiving a Certificate in Integral Theory from Fielding University and the Integral Institute in 2005. In 2009, Valli was accepted into and completed the competitive Hanley Center and Institute for Civic Leaderships 9 month Health Leadership Development Program. Leadership and creating effective change, remains a passionate interest. From there it was an easy jump to grow curious and concerned about not just health for humankind but health for the flora and fauna we share the planet with. In 2011, Valli was accepted into the School of Sustainable Design and has now completed the Boston Architectural College’s Master’s in Design Studies. She is currently building a Net Zero house for herself and her husband.

  45  

Bibliography: Reference List

1. Alexander, Christopher. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York, Oxford University Press.

2. Beck, Don Edward & Christopher C. Cowan. 2006. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

3. Benyus, Janine M. 1997. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Harper Perennial.

4. Bryson, Bill. 2003. A Short History of Nearly Everything. New York: Broadway Books.

5. Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.

6. Diamond, Jared. 2005. One Island Two People Two Histories: The Dominican Republic and Haiti. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. 229-357. New York: Penguin Books.

7. Drey, Janet. 2010. Contemplative Leadership in Organizations. In Contemplation Nation: How Ancient Practices Are Changing The Way We Live, ed. Mirabai Bush, 343-360. Kalamazoo: Fetzer Institute.

8. Edwards, Andres. 2005. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. BC: New society Publishers.

9. Flexner, Abraham. 1910. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: Report to The Carnegie Foundation For The Advancement of Teaching. New York: Carnegie Foundation.

10. Gilligan, Carol.1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

11. George, Bill. Reflections on Mindful Leadership Retreat. Blog Post on August 18, 2010. http://www.billgeorge.org/page/reflections-on-mindful-leadership-retreat (accessed November 10, 2013).

12. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2002. The Tipping Point. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

13. Grossman, Michelle. 2010. Contemplative Practice in a Frantic World. In Contemplation Nation: How Ancient Practices Are Changing The Way We Live, ed. Mirabai Bush, 183-188. Kalamazoo: Fetzer Institute.

14. Hames, Richard David. 2007. The Five Literacies of Global Leadership. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

15. Henry, Michael, Maxime Beguin, Fabrice Requier, Orianne Rollin, Jean-Francois Odoux, Pierrick Aupinel, Jean Aptel, Sylvie Tchamitchian, Decourtye, Axel. 2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Science 336, no. 6079 (April). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.abstract (accessed November 12, 2013).

16. Hester, Randolph. 2010. Design for Ecological Democracy. “Particularness: Bioregional Distinction: Topographic Typologies & Willful Water” pp. 145-160. Boston: MIT Press.

17. IPCC Report: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uoa9GSggI20

  46  

18. Kellert, Stephen, Judith Heerwagen, and Martin Mador. 2008. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

19. Kelly, Sean, PhD. 2010. Coming Home. Great Barrington: Anthroposophic Press, Inc.

20. Link, Walter. 2010. The State of Contemplative Practice in the USA and Globally: Integrating Contemplative Practice and Leadership Development in Diverse Sectors of Society and Around the World. In Contemplation Nation: How Ancient Practices Are Changing The Way We Live, ed. Mirabai Bush, 323-342. Kalamazoo: Fetzer Institute.

21. Living Building Challenge. Living Building Challenge V2.0, http://ilbi.org/the-standard/version-2-0 (accessed September 12, 2013).

22. Lovin, Amory. Letter to the Aspen Mayor’s Council, January 15, 2013, http://westernriversinstitute.org/?page_id=792 (Accessed September 13, 2013).

23. Lyle, John Tillman. 1994. Regenerative design for Sustainable Development. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

24. McLennan, Jason F. 2004. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Bainbridge Island: Ecotone Publishing.

25. Meadows, Donella. Dancing With Systems, http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Dancing.html Adapted from previous printing in Whole Earth, winter 2001 and The Systems Thinker, Vol. 13, No. 2 (March 2002).

26. Merrill, Alexandra. 2013. Linking Theory With Practice, Linking Content to Process. Unpublished Manuscript.

27. Nordhaus, Ted and Michael Shellenberger. 2005.The Death of Environmentalism. Grist: A Beacon in the Fog, January 14. http://grist.org/article/doe-reprint/ (accessed 11/12/2013).

28. Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Upheavals of Thought. Cambridge: University Press. 29. Nussbaum, Martha, Interviewed by Astra Taylor, Examined Life, Documentary

Film, 2008. 30. Orr, David W. 2007. The Designer’s Challenge. Center for Ecoliteracy.

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/david_orr_challenge.html (accessed October 3, 2013).

31. Orr, David W. 2004. First Principles. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 32. Reed, Bill. 2007. “Living Systems Approach to Design,” Keynote at the 2007 AIA

Convention, http://www.integrativedesign.net/images/Living_System_Design.pdf 33. Reed, Bill. 2006. “Shifting Our Mental Model – “Sustainability” to Regeneration”.

www.integrativedesign.net 2006. 34. Reed, Bill. 2008. “Evolving The New Role of Development: Healing Places to

Heal a Planet.” Regenesis Group. 35. Pink, Daniel. 2005. Right Brain Rising. In A Whole New Mind: Moving from the

Information Age to the Conceptual Age, 1-27New York: Riverhead Books. 36. Pink, Daniel. 2005. High Concept High Touch. In A Whole New Mind: Moving

from the Information age to the Conceptual Age. 48-53. New York: Riverhead Books.

37. Pope Francis. 2013. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis to the Bishops, Clergy, Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World. File:///Users/innrneuf/Desktop/Philosophy%20&%20Nature/Evangelii%20Gaudiu

  47  

m,%20Apostolic%20Exhortation%20of%20Pope%20Francis,%202013.webarchive (accessed December 2, 2013).

38. Schwartz, Tony. 1996. Foreword to A Brief History of Everything, by Ken Wilber. Boston: Shambhala.

39. Scranton, Roy. 2013. Learning How To Die In The Antropocene. NY Times. November 11.

40. Senge, Peter, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur and Sara Schley. 2010. The Necessary Revolution: Working Together to Create A Sustainable World. New York: Broadway Books.

41. Shiva, Vandana. 2002. Water Wars. Cambridge: South End Press. 42. Tarnas, Richard. 2006. Cosmos and Psyche. New York: Penquin Group. 43. Tarnas, Richard. 1991. The Passion of the Western Mind. New York: Ballantine

Books. 44. Taylor, Sunaura, interviewed by Astra Taylor, Examined Life, Documentary Film,

2008. 45. Terrapin Bright Green. 2012.The Economics of Biophilia: Why Designing with

Nature in Mind Makes Financial Sense. 46. Wheatley, Margaret. 2002. Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to

Restore Hope to the Future. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishing. 47. Wilber, Ken. 2001. A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business,

Politics, Science and Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala. 48. Wilber, Ken. 2007. One Vision. Boston: Shambhala. 49. Wilber, Ken & Jacob Needleman. 2013. Two Faces of Wonder. Audio discussion

of Dr. Needleman’s book: “The Unknown World: Notes on the Meaning of the Earth.” IntegralLife.org. April.

50. Wilber, Ken & Barrett Brown. 2012. Conscious Leadership for Sustainability: How Highly Conscious Leaders Are Engaging the Problem of Sustainability. Audio discussion of Barrett Brown’s PhD thesis on Integral Theory and Environmental Leadership. IntegralLife.org. March 17.

51. Wilber, Ken & Richard David Hames. 2010. The Five Literacies of Global Leadership. Audio discussion of Richard Hames’ bookIntegralLife.org June 2.

  48