Ode regularly invites a well-known activist, author, thinker or entrepreneur to pen some thoughts on a topic of his or her choosing, to which you can respond. The only guidelines--be inspiring and provocative.
Modern World Economy is Not a Living System
Unfortunately, "the world economy" is not based on living systems, albeit, it was surely given much impetus by Darwinism (and Spencers' handy coining of "the survival of the fittest"). In fact, the Ivy League schools, funded by the railroad magnates & their kin, embraced Darwinism enthusiastically as the scientific rationale for their machinations.
How wonderful it would be if your concept of living systems, as holarchies, comprised of holons, imbued with consciousness, could have the same effect on world economy that Darwinism did on the industrial revolution! But "world economy" is like an all-engulfing unconsciousness, ruled by corporations - the definition and freedom of which is freaky and noxious and unaccountable. There is no one in charge; it's a Thing without proper identity (like the nasty spirits in Madeleine L'Engle's Time Trilogy). Corporations, and thus "the world economy," are a logical consequence of Cartesian mechanics - which played such a profound role in the development of scientific materialism, of which Darwinism is, supposedly, the proof.
I wish you had given more of yourself to this Roundtable. I find your statement ingenuous. Are you surprised that "the world economy violates the fundamental organizational principles of all living systems"? You sound burnt-out to me. I want to take up your cause, but your statement only, really, elicits from me, a "tsk, tsk, tsk" from the Chorus.
Tell me, how do you think this enormous problem is to be addressed? And what are you trying to do about it? But first, please define "modern world economy" and "the fundamental organizational principles of all living systems." I think only then can a lively, meaningful Roundtable happen.
Sesame, I appreciate your intentions, but I don't believe that your characterization of "survival of the fittest" has anything to do with Darwin's work, which was revealed the processes of natural selection. In fact, Darwin was intensely humanistic and had nothing to do with the concept of "social darwinism."
I highly recommend that you look at a recent book by Riane Eisler, entitled "The Real Wealth of Nations." In it, she helps to set the historical records straight - just as she did in her classic work, "The Chalice and the Blade." It is most difficult to begin solving problems without understanding their nature and how they arose. Lashing out at Charles Darwin is hardly helpful, since his work may well contain vital elements to understanding who we are, as human beings.
As for your views of the modern corporate form, I strongly agree that it is inherently dysfunctional. The original companies chartered by governments had a very strict limitation on their duration and on the purposes they were allowed to pursue. I suspect that the modern corporation, traced back to the Roman Empire and much later expanded greatly in America, was modeled more closely after the power and perpetuity of the Catholic Church.
posted by Earon on 9/14/2007 12:19 am