Evolution is something you do.

"...To consciously evolve is to surrender unconditionally to the truth that there is no other and at the same time to accept responsibility for what that means in an evolving universe—a cosmos that is slowly but surely becoming aware of itself through you and me." ~Andrew Cohen

Joel Makower: Two Steps Forward

I appreciate Joel Makower's ability to hold an aperspectival viewpoint on the complex issues we are beginning to confront. Much like Ken Wilber's AQAL approach that "nobody is smart enough to be 100% wrong", Makover often offers insights that are beyond value judgments and meets people "where they are".

Does this mean that some of the perspectives don't conflict with one's own values? Of course not. What it does mean however, is that one can suspend one's own perspective as the ultimate truth and realize that different people see (and are motivated by) different things, and helps to build bridges rather than battling across chasms. For instance, rather than the old business vs. environment adversarial relationship, he states:

"I've long maintained that one of the biggest mistakes that the environmental community -- and many of us -- made around climate change is relegating it to being an 'environmental issue.' It is, of course, but it's also a public health issue, a human rights issue -- and a huge economic issue."

The article/post is a review and commentary of two noteworthy articles published this month: a discussion on "competitive advantage on a warming planet" in the March issue of Harvard Business Review, and a cover story in the April Atlantic on "who loses -- and who wins -- in a warming world."

Regarding competitive advantages and risks associated with climate change, whether they be changes in landscape due to rising seal levels affecting population centers, new shipping lanes (due to melting arctic ice sheets), or potential exposure of arable land long frozen in Siberia, Makover concludes:

"...this is all so much conjecture, a bit of a parlor game for now. And whoever the real "winners" and "losers" turn out to be isn't really the point. What's significant -- at least for the time being -- is to ponder such questions. Doing so is the best chance we have of moving the climate conversation into the many arenas in which it needs to take place: beyond the birds and the trees and into the realm of people, their communities, and the economic systems on which we all rely."

Welcome to "The Future's History."

Joel Makower: Two Steps Forward

I appreciate Joel Makower's ability to hold an aperspectival viewpoint on the complex issues we are beginning to confront. Much like Ken Wilber's AQAL approach that "nobody is smart enough to be 100% wrong", Makover often offers insights that are beyond value judgments and meets people "where they are".

Does this mean that some of the perspectives don't conflict with one's own values? Of course not. What it does mean however, is that one can suspend one's own perspective as the ultimate truth and realize that different people see (and are motivated by) different things, and helps to build bridges rather than battling across chasms. For instance, rather than the old business vs. environment adversarial relationship, he states:

"I've long maintained that one of the biggest mistakes that the environmental community -- and many of us -- made around climate change is relegating it to being an 'environmental issue.' It is, of course, but it's also a public health issue, a human rights issue -- and a huge economic issue."

The article/post is a review and commentary of two noteworthy articles published this month: a discussion on "competitive advantage on a warming planet" in the March issue of Harvard Business Review, and a cover story in the April Atlantic on "who loses -- and who wins -- in a warming world."

Regarding competitive advantages and risks associated with climate change, whether they be changes in landscape due to rising seal levels affecting population centers, new shipping lanes (due to melting arctic ice sheets), or potential exposure of arable land long frozen in Siberia, Makover concludes:

"...this is all so much conjecture, a bit of a parlor game for now. And whoever the real "winners" and "losers" turn out to be isn't really the point. What's significant -- at least for the time being -- is to ponder such questions. Doing so is the best chance we have of moving the climate conversation into the many arenas in which it needs to take place: beyond the birds and the trees and into the realm of people, their communities, and the economic systems on which we all rely."

Welcome to "The Future's History."