By Chris Thomson
Learning to Survive and Thrive in the Emerging Global Paradigm
Summary
All the signs are that we are right in the middle of the transition from
one global paradigm to another. The one we are leaving is often called
“modernity”. The one we are entering does not yet have a name. But we already
know enough about it to be sure that it will profoundly affect all aspects of
our lives. If we wish to survive and thrive in what will be a very different
world, we need to learn how to navigate the transition. This will mean major
systemic changes in all our socio-economic institutions. It will also mean
major change in each one of us as individuals.
The End of Modernity
It is not generally known that the current global paradigm, modernity,
has many of its roots in my home country, Scotland. There was
a time when Scotland punched well above her weight in thinking and creativity.
Many things that we now take for granted had their origin in Scotland. The
list is long – television, refrigerator, microwave ovens, tarred roads,
pneumatic tyres, golf, the steam engine, radar, modern banking, antisepsis,
antibiotics, quinine, the fax machine, ATM machines, genetic cloning,
logarithms, iron bridges, and many other things. For reasons that need not
concern us here, Scotland
used to be the most inventive country in the world.
Scotland’s
inventiveness is relatively well known. What is not so well known is that much
of the intellectual basis for the modern world was developed in Scotland,
during the Scottish Enlightenment (roughly 1740-90). Of the personalities
involved, Adam Smith and David Hume are the best known, but there were many
others who made important contributions, such as Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson and
John Millar, as well as notable pioneers in medicine, science, education and
civic life. It is difficult for us today to appreciate just how influential
Scotland used to be. Indeed, Scotland’s
intellectual leadership was so powerful that Voltaire was moved to write: “...we
look to Scotland
for all our ideas of civilisation.”
Of course, the Enlightenment was by no means
confined to Scotland,
but I think it is useful to look at Scotland’s contribution because it
helps us to see what the Enlightenment gave to the world. Scotland was
very active in the development of modern economics, modern medicine, modern
science, modern education, modern technology and modern government. To express
this another way, the Scotland helped to give us modernity - the set of ideas,
beliefs, values, institutions and practices that have shaped, and continue to
shape, the modern world.
Few would deny that, for a long time, modernity
made life better and easier. It raised the material living standards of many;
it increased life expectancy; it enabled us to address many forms of ill health
that had gone unaddressed before; it brought education to the majority; it
vastly increased our knowledge of the physical world (i.e. science); it has
given us a lot of very useful technology; and, in theory at least, it allowed
many adults to participate in the big decisions that affect them. All in all,
we have much to be thankful for. Any criticism I am about to make must be tempered
by my belief that there are many aspects of modernity worth retaining. The
bathwater must go, but the baby must stay!
Although modernity brought us many good things,
something has gone very wrong. We have just come through the most destructive
century in human history, with major wars on nearly every continent, in which
over 100 million people were slaughtered, and with more damage to the planet
and the biosphere than ever before in human history. And the present century
has not begun well. As the 21st Century gets under way, wars are
raging on three continents, inequality within and between nations is very high
and rising, mental and emotional illness are epidemic, the financial system is
in permanent crisis, and nature and the planet are more seriously threatened
than ever.
There is a growing sense that modernity has
outlived its usefulness and that the benefits it still brings are now greatly
outweighed by the problems it causes. The economics, medicine, science,
education and politics ushered in by the Enlightenment served us well for a
long time but, in some important respects, they are no longer fit for purpose.
What we have long assumed to be the main solution to our problems - modernity -
may have become one of their main causes. While it is true that many of us are
materially richer, we are in some important respects poorer. We have more money
and things than we ever had, yet how many of us are truly happy? We receive
more schooling and training than ever, yet greed and superficiality are the
hallmarks of modern culture. We have more technology and scientific knowledge
than ever before, but we struggle to use them wisely. And although we continue
to call ourselves “democracies”, many of us wonder what the point of voting is
when the outcome of elections can be determined in a few marginal
constituencies, when there is little to distinguish the main parties, when big
money determines policy, and when leaders ignore the people’s views on major
issues, such as war. Since it has been, and still is the dominant global
paradigm, modernity must be seriously implicated in all these problems.
The time has come to replace modernity with a set
of ideas, beliefs, values, institutions and practices that are appropriate to
the very different conditions of the 21st Century. The time has
come, in other words, for a Second Enlightenment that will take us beyond
modernity to a new paradigm, and provide us with an economics, a medicine, an
education, a science and a politics that are better suited to the conditions of
today. But what will these be, and how will we create them? In an attempt to answer these pressing
questions, I am going to ask not what modernity has given us, but what it has
taken away from us.
Unintended Consequences
At the very heart of modernity is a set of core
beliefs that is, effectively, the worldview of modern science. I think it fair
to say that these beliefs are as follows:
The universe and everything in it,
ourselves included, is physical. All
those things that seem to be “non-physical”, such as consciousness, can
ultimately be explained in terms of the physical
The universe and everything in it is
essentially a lifeless “machine”…a
very sophisticated machine, but a machine nonetheless. We human beings and the
universe can best be understood as “mechanisms”
Matter is
primary
and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is a product of matter, and not
the other way round. For example, consciousness is understood to be an
“epiphenomenon” of the brain
We human beings do not exist before conception or after the death of
our body
Causality is upwards. This means
that “ultimate reality” is at the sub-atomic level and that all other levels,
including our everyday experience, are secondary derivatives of this
The universe has no intrinsic meaning. On the contrary, it is full of
“chance” and “chaos” and “randomness”
Religious and spiritual traditions may be useful as a moral compass, but they are
no basis for “real facts”. The only real facts come from science.
Although we might not realise it, these beliefs
have become so powerful and influential that all metaphysical, religious and
philosophical claims that contradict them tend to be rejected. This has
effectively devalued and marginalised many important discussions and much
potential knowledge. And it has, to a significant extent, relegated religions
to the role of providers of a moral compass. The strange thing is that the
classic science worldview persists despite profound discoveries in physics,
cosmology and biology that suggest that the universe is anything but a machine,
that “chance” may lie only in the eye of the beholder, that the universe is
rich in intrinsic meaning, and that some aspects of the human being may survive
the death of the body. The “near death experience”, for example, has been
extensively documented. Yet if,
as science continues to insist, the universe began suddenly for no reason (the
“Big Bang”) and life on this planet emerged by chance, then the world that
science wants us to believe in must itself be totally meaningless. The fact
that this statement, as part of that world, must also be meaningless is little
consolation!
In my view, then, one of the big unintended
consequences of modernity has been loss of deeper meaning. Although it is true, of course, that
religion provides a sense of meaning to many people, it is equally true that
many others are struggling to find meaning in their lives. Some are lucky
enough to find it in their work. For too many, however, work is a meaningless drudge,
often poorly rewarded. By
removing deeper meaning, modernity has unwittingly created a vacuum. Many
people feel that something big is missing from their lives. They may not be
able to put this into words, but they feel an empty space inside them that
cries out to be filled. They experience this in many ways, such as anxiety,
discomfort, insecurity, despair, or a sense of pointlessness. Understandably,
they try to fill the emptiness, and they do this in a huge variety of ways.
They eat too much, they drink too much, they shop until they drop, they watch a
lot of television or play a lot of video games, they rush around too much (no
surprise that being busy is regarded as a virtue today), or they use sex, drugs
or alcohol as pain-killers. These behaviours, worrying in themselves, often
lead to other problems, such as alcoholism, obesity, addiction, depression, and
anti-social behaviour. So long as there is a vacuum of meaning, people are
likely to resort to desperate means to fill it.
If I seem critical of science, that is not my
intention. Science has given us a great deal and will no doubt continue to do
so. What I am talking about here are the unintended consequences of what
science has become, and of the paradigm it spawned (modernity). Another of these
consequences is loss of wisdom. But what do I mean by this? As Martin Luther
King once pointed out: “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We
have guided missiles, but misguided men.” We know how to create wonderful cars,
planes and mobile phones, but we do not know how to use these and other
technology wisely, in ways that cause no damage to ourselves and the planet.
Indeed, many of the big problems of our time – such as climate change,
pollution, and stress-related illness – can be traced back to the unwise use of
technology. This is what I mean by loss of wisdom. We have lost much natural
wisdom, common sense, if you like, because we have devoted too much of
ourselves to one kind of progress – economic and technological – and not enough
of ourselves to another kind – spiritual and ecological. The consequences of
this imbalance are plain to see.
With the decline of wisdom and common sense, “experts” in science and
economics have become today’s high priests. As a result, we pay too much
attention to them, forgetting Bernard Shaw’s perceptive observation: “An expert
is a person who knows more and more about less and less, until, eventually, he
knows everything about nothing.” In the modern world, the “truths” of experts
outrank all other “truths”, and we have become overdependent on them. This
dependency has extended into other areas of our lives too. One of the hallmarks of modern societies is their increasing dependency
on business, government and experts for goods, services and knowledge that, in
many cases, individuals and communities would be better providing for
themselves. As a rule of thumb, dependency is unhealthy and self-reliance is
healthy. Although we sometimes think of indigenous tribes as “primitive”, the
fact is that they are self-reliant, empowered communities. They are living
cultures, rather than vicarious cultures. They do things for themselves, rather
than having things done for them. They recognise the central importance of
basic human capacities, such as caring, growing their own food, cooking,
healing, educating, creating, and entertaining, and would not dream of having
these things provided as commodities and services by government and big
business.
I believe that modernity has had one other big
unintended consequence, and that is loss of ecology. The few societies
around the world that have retained wisdom and deeper meaning at the centre of
their lives know just how important it is to live in harmony with each other
and with the planet. How many of us can put our hands on our hearts and say
that we truly live in harmony with each other, let alone the planet? On the
contrary, the modern world has made many of us feel desperate and insecure. It
is little wonder that we engage in frenetic activity, such as work, shopping
and travelling, when we should be finding ways to live gently and simply, with
ourselves and with the world around us.
Modernity and Economic Growth
When we add together loss of meaning, loss of
wisdom, and loss of ecology, there is not much left going for us, apart from
making money and spending it. This is almost certainly why we live in an era of
unprecedented materialism. For many
people, acquiring and consuming material things must seem like the only
meaningful thing left for them to do. Our economics, our politics, our
medicine, our education, our science and our culture have become steeped in
material values and beliefs and the behaviours that flow from these. It is
surely significant that schools and universities have become little more than
training centres in how to participate in the economy, while hospitals in the
USA and elsewhere are often referred to as “profit centres”. We are paying a
high price for our obsession with material things, as we exploit and damage
each other and the planet. Meanwhile, it is short step from materialism to economism, one of the more recent and
toxic additions to modernity.
Economism
is the tendency to view the world through the lens of economics, to regard a
country as an economy rather than as a society, and to believe that economic
considerations and values rank higher than other ones. Economism is clearly
evident all over the world these days and is a powerful influence in business,
political and media circles. It is an extremely narrow way of seeing the world,
and it prevents us from seeing whether we are making genuine progress. We
assume that if there is more money and economic activity (economic growth),
things are getting better. In reality, they might be getting worse and our
devotion to economic growth and money is probably one of the main reasons for
this. Since the pursuit of economic growth has become such a central feature of
modernity, I make no apology for discussing it at length.
There is an almost universal belief that economic
growth is highly desirable. China,
for example, is thought to be doing “very well” simply because its economy has
been growing rapidly in the last two decades. This fact trumps all other
considerations, such as human rights, corruption, pollution and breathtaking
inequality. Indeed, the belief in economic growth runs so deep that it has a
quasi-religious feel to it. Any serious questioning of it is seen as heresy in
government and business circles. The truth is that there is nothing intrinsically
desirable about economic growth. It simply means that more money was spent this
year on goods and services than was spent last year. It does not tell us
anything about the desirability or quality of these additional goods and
services. It does not tell us anything about the human, social and
environmental costs of providing them. It does not tell us anything about
income distribution and social justice. Most important of all, it does not tell
whether we are getting happier, wiser, and healthier and more fulfilled, which
is surely the point of it all.
The
principal measure of economic growth – GDP (Gross Domestic Product) - treats
the good, the bad and the ugly as if they were all good. So long as money
legally changes hands, it counts towards GDP. If there is more crime to be
dealt with, more divorces, more pollution to be cleaned up, more illness to be
treated, and more debt being incurred, then all of this counts towards economic
growth. In fact, nothing boosts growth more than a war or a natural disaster.
GDP gives us the impression that things are going well when they may be going
badly. There are several good alternative indicators, such as the Genuine
Progress Indicator (GPI). In essence, this subtracts the costs of economic
growth from the benefits, to give us a truer picture of progress. It is
significant that while GDP in all western countries has been rising more or
less consistently in the last 50 years, GPI has been falling or static since
the late Seventies. Adopting a more accurate flagship indicator would be a
major step in the right direction. Meanwhile, it is worth examining the main
arguments normally made in favour of economic growth.
The
advocates of growth tell us that if GDP is not moving, we have “stagnation”,
and that if it is declining, we have “recession”. These are both emotive terms.
Yet, there is surely nothing wrong with a society that is not consuming
excessively. And there is surely nothing wrong with a society that actually
chooses to spend less money on some types of goods and services. Imagine a
world where people walk and cycle more, where there is less divorce and less
crime, where people take more care of their health and need less medical
treatment, and where there is more self-reliance and cooperation. In such a
society, there would be less spending on goods and services. But, in
conventional terms we would be in “recession” and considered to be doing badly,
such is the Alice
in Wonderland world of topsy-turvy values we have created for ourselves.
Then
there are those who constantly remind us that less spending leads to
unemployment and the closure of businesses. In the short term this is often
true. But it is worth pointing out that what we regard as “stable levels of
employment” is based not on sustainable
production and consumption, but on excessive production and consumption.
That excess cannot continue forever. It is causing too many problems, including
record levels of personal debt. That is unsustainable. It is much better to
spend wisely and moderately and work out the consequences of doing so.
Finally,
many people believe that economic growth is a kind of universal panacea. They
believe that if we have problems – poverty, inequality, unemployment,
injustice, disease, crime, whatever – then all we need is more economic growth
and the problems will eventually disappear. In fact, the opposite appears to be
true. Far from being a universal panacea, economic growth may be a universal
problem because, in one way or another, it seems to be at the root of much ill
health, crime, social breakdown, inequality, and environmental degradation. As
Clive Hamilton points out in
his book Growth Fetish: “Growth not only fails to make people
contented; it destroys many of the things that do. Growth fosters empty
consumerism, degrades the natural environment, weakens social cohesion and
corrodes character. Yet we are told, ad nauseam, that there is no alternative.”
Real Meaning of
Sustainable Development
Of
course there is an alternative. It is sustainable development. But it is not
the kind of sustainable development that many people seem to have in mind.
Contrary to widespread belief, “sustainable development” does not mean economic
growth, while keeping a weather eye on the environment. Growth means “getting
bigger”, but development means “getting better.” These are two very different
things. Of course, we have to sustain and enhance the natural environment, but we
also have to sustain the other systems that sustain us, namely our health and
the fabric of society. Just as the natural environment is under serious threat,
there can be little doubt that health and society are under just as much
threat, yet this is rarely mentioned in the sustainability debate. If we take
the view that “development” means “making things better” and that there are
several things we have to sustain, then the concept of sustainable development
begins to look very different. It can be redefined as:
Sustainable development is the development of people, communities and
planet in ways that sustain the three vital systems that sustain all of us –
our health, the fabric of society, and the natural environment
Expressed in this way, it stands in stark contrast to economic growth,
which is increasingly identified in public consciousness with exploitation and
diminution of people, communities, nature and planet.
To
be fair, economic growth itself is not the only problem. It is the set of
values and pressures that lie behind it. As a society we seem to value money
and things more than we value people and nature. And many of us feel under
constant pressure to perform and compete and consume. Such values and pressures
wreak havoc on our health, our families, and our communities, not to mention
the planet. Whatever else it does, economic growth does not bring health,
happiness, wisdom and meaning. And trying
to use economic growth to solve problems is like trying to put out a fire by
throwing petrol on it. It is true that some things have improved over the
years, but there seems to be an increasingly high price to pay for this. For
example, we have more speed, but less time for reflection; more choice, but
less satisfaction; more competition, but less sense of being at ease; more
schools and universities, but less education in the true sense; more doctors
and hospitals, but less health; more communications, but less listening; more
public services, but less self-reliance; and more police and prisons, but less
security.
Signs of Emergence
There are many compelling signs that we are in a
transition to a completely new paradigm. These signs fall into three broad
groups – death throes, deeper currents, and new institutions.
Death throes
When something is dying, it sometimes becomes more
active than ever, almost as if this extra burst of activity will prolong its
life. This seems to be happening to modernity right now. Faced with great
uncertainty and a succession of serious crises, many people are becoming more
materialistic than ever. In a situation where it is abundantly clear that
rampant consumerism and the drive for yet more economic growth are putting
unsustainable pressures on people and the planet, government and business
leaders continue to advocate even more consumerism and even more growth. When
set alongside the sudden popularity of atheism, modernity does seem to have
acquired a new lease of life. However, I believe that this is simply its death
throes.
It is clear with all those with eyes to see that
humanity and the planet are in serious crisis. By any standards, we have
unprecedented problems in the world today, in terms of their seriousness and
their global reach. The list is uncomfortably long, but it surely includes:
1. All the planet’s life-support systems are in decline – i.e. clean air, clean water,
forests, topsoil, aquifers, fisheries, wetlands, biodiversity (World Resources
Institute)
2. The climate is changing dangerously
4. Mental and emotional illnesses are at record highs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111202/ns/health-mental_health/t/global-study-finds-mental-illness-widespread/)
6.
We are running out of energy, in more senses than one
7.
Unemployment
is epidemic – in a world where so much useful work needs to be done. In several
African countries the unemployment rate is over 80%
8.
Global and national crises and problems have become the norm, rather than the
exception. Of course, we have always had problems and crises, but their
seriousness and frequency seem to be increasing.
Although we may feel that our problems are too big and too difficult to
solve, one thing is very clear – we are the cause! All our problems are caused
by our behaviour. It is not as if we do not try to solve them. We do, on an
immense scale. In fact, it must be significant that the problem solving
industry is now one of the biggest in the world. Just think how many people are
involved these days in problem-solving jobs. These include doctors, nurses,
police, social workers, therapists, coaches, counsellors, and lawyers, authors
of self-help books, and many local and national government workers. And they
include people who work in the thousands of NGOs across the world. The more we
think about, the more people appear on this list. A very large number of people
in the world today rely for their income and job security on a huge and
predictable supply of problems for the foreseeable future. It begs the interesting
question of what they would do in a problem-free world.
All these signs suggest to me that modernity is on
its last legs.
Deeper Currents
Just as modernity has its roots in the now outdated
classic science worldview, the new emerging paradigm seems to have its roots a
new, very different worldview. However, this worldview is not yet well known.
The great majority of those who, one way or another, are engaged in new
paradigm activities are doing so, not because they are trying to put a new worldview
into practice, but because they know that things cannot continue as they are,
and that fundamental change is needed. That said, there is clearly a fresh
energy in the air, and presumably this reflects the more accurate picture of
reality that the new worldview presents. I am acutely aware that you may find
some, or all, of the ideas outlined below unlikely or even impossible. The fact
is that all of them are supported by solid scientific evidence. In essence, the
new world view is:
The
universe and everything in it, including us, consists of energy, and nothing but energy. Although all things consist of
energy, energy itself is not a thing. It is simply the inseparable combination
of order and movement. This permits it to manifest in physical forms, as well
as non-physical forms. In other words, the universe, and ourselves, are both
physical and non-physical at the same time
The
universe is an organism, not a
mechanism. As with all other organisms, it is alive, it grows and changes, it
is able to sense, and it is here for a reason. As an organism, the universe is
likely to be conscious and intelligent in ways we have yet to fathom
Because
the universe consists entirely of energy (i.e. order-movement), there is no such thing as inherent disorder,
chance, randomness or chaos. We continue to believe that there is, only because
we do not yet have the information or perspective to see the order and meaning
inherent in everything
Everything,
whatever its size or nature, is connected to absolutely everything else. This
includes us too. Some of this connectedness
takes time – e.g. light and other electromagnetic radiation. Other forms, such
as gravity and “non-locality”, take no time at all - connection is
instantaneous, regardless of distance. So interconnected is the universe that
everything in it owes its very existence to the existence of all other things.
Again, this includes us. This is one of the powerful implications of Mach’s
Principle, which says (without actually saying so) that all matter exists only
because all other matter exists. Another implication of the Principle is that
everything influences, and is influenced by, everything else. It is the
“butterfly effect” on a cosmic scale
Since
there is no inherent chance in the universe, life on this planet can be no accident. It happened for a reason
that is somehow connected to the deeper meaning of the universe. The fact that
we human beings may not yet know the reason or the meaning is no reason to
negate them
Consciousness is primary, and matter is secondary.
This means that matter is the result of consciousness, and not the other way
round. This is supported by the concept of “implicate order”, first developed
by David Bohm. Quantum physics strongly suggests that our familiar, everyday
world is an “explicate order” that is underpinned and constantly informed by a
deeper, invisible order that is uncannily similar in nature to consciousness
One of
the many consequences of this, especially when set alongside the nature of
energy, is that we are “beings of
consciousness” who temporarily clothe ourselves in physical bodies. This
lends much weight to the growing evidence that we exist before birth and after
death
Causality is downwards as well as upwards. This
means, to give one example, that because we are “parts” of planet Earth, we are
also part of its meaning and purpose, whatever they turn out to be. And
“reality” is at all levels, and not just at the sub-atomic, as used to be
thought
Given all
the above, there may be much more to spiritual
traditions than we thought. They probably contain important knowledge of
mankind and the world that, until now, science has denied itself
This is, I believe, a reasonable summary of the
emerging worldview. However, it is far from established, not least because many
scientists do not subscribe to it. They are unwilling or unable to see the
implications of the revolutionary insights and discoveries that have taken
place in the last 100 years. So, it is only a minority of scientists who
subscribe to all, or most, of these beliefs. That said, the trend is
undoubtedly in the direction of this new worldview, and that is largely because
so many non-scientists are embracing it in one way or another. They do this as
part of their spiritual or personal or ecological development
New Institutions
There is no doubt that modernity has given us a
lot, but it has come at a price. There are many who believe that the price is
too high. Individuals, communities and organisations all over the world are
therefore finding their own ways to go beyond materialism and bring meaning,
wisdom, spirituality and ecology into their lives. As they do this, a new kind
of economics, a new kind of healthcare, a new kind of education, a new kind of
science, and a new kind of politics are being created, from the ground upwards.
It is impossible to predict exactly what they will be, but they are already
looking something like this…
The new
economics will be about enhancing people and planet, rather than exploiting
them. At the heart of the new economics will be a new central purpose for
humanity, and a radically different understanding of the meaning of “progress”
and “wealth”. This will bring with it new kinds of relationships, and new kinds
of businesses
The new
healthcare will be about self-reliance, common sense and healthy living. It
will treat the whole person, rather than the disease. Medical treatment may
become the exception rather than the rule, because the main focus will be on
staying healthy
The new
education will be about bringing out the best and uniqueness in each
individual, rather than schooling them to believe certain things and to behave
in certain ways, which is what often happens today in our schools, colleges and
universities. At the heart of the new education will be the development of
wisdom, spirituality, meaning and ecology
The new
science will be about two things: using the whole of the human being to
explore the world; and, as we go beyond materialism, focusing as much on the
non-physical aspects of the world as we now focus on the physical
The new
politics will be about the return of power to people and communities,
rather than having power concentrated in the hands of politicians and the very
wealthy. At the heart of the new politics will be two ideas - the idea that
most power stays at the local level, where it belongs, and the idea that
everyone has something useful to say and contribute.
None of this is to suggest that we throw the baby
out with the bathwater. There are many aspects of modernity worth retaining.
For example, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with market economics. What
is wrong is the values and culture that have come to inform it. And there is
nothing intrinsically wrong with modern medicine. What is wrong is its belief
that it can address the whole
spectrum of health problems, when in practice it is good at addressing only
parts of the spectrum, such as mechanical repair, emergency intervention and
infectious diseases. It is the same for modern education, modern science and
modern government. Each has useful aspects that are worth preserving, but each,
in its current form, is causing at least as many problems as it purports to
solve. It is worth adding that the problems caused by modernity are exacerbated
by politicians who, with few exceptions, are wedded to modernising, which is modernity in the form of government policies.
The problems caused by modernity, such as climate
change, stress-related illnesses, gross inequality, overpopulation, and social
disintegration, will probably just get worse so long as modernity remains the
prevailing way of understanding and doing things. We will be able to solve the
big problems of our time only when we replace modernity with a set of ideas and
practices that are kinder to us and to the planet. None of the above will be
easy. People will not willingly give up the habits of a lifetime, and many in
power will resist tooth and nail. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves,
engaging in the kinds of changes I have suggested here will be the most
difficult thing we ever do. Transformation may seem attractive in theory. In
practice, it can be messy and painful! Yet if we wish to survive and thrive in
the new paradigm, we will have to equip ourselves to do so.
Navigating the Transition
Unless you are familiar with the new world view and
paradigm, or are actively engaged in some form of personal or social
transformation, you probably fall into one of three categories: (a) you have
little or no idea that the world is changing fundamentally; (b) you know it is
changing, but you do not think you have to change; (c) you know you have to
change, but you are not sure how to. In the first case, you are in for a big
shock. In the second case, you are in for a lot of work on yourself. And in all
three cases, I hope that you find what I am about to say helpful.
I have chosen navigation as a metaphor because
it contains the essence of the skills and knowledge that you will need, to be
able to survive and thrive in the new paradigm. These are, in my view, (i) a sense of direction, (ii) knowledge of the deeper currents,
(iii) being adaptive and responsive, (iv) economy of effort, and (v) your
natural intelligence.
A Sense of Direction
You have to know where you want to go, and you
have to know that you are on course. This is not as straightforward as it might
seem. Typically, we are not very clear where we want to get to, and our
“indicators”, which should tell us whether we are on course, leave much to be
desired.
One way of expressing our direction is to ask
what our “central purpose” is. There
can be little doubt that the current central purpose of humanity today is
material growth. For nations, this is perpetual economic growth. For
businesses, it is ever increasing profits. And for large numbers of
individuals, it is having more money and things. Although economic growth has
been useful in some respects – it raised the living standards of billions of
people – it is well past its sell-by date, because it now brings more problems
than benefits. It is clear that we urgently need a
new central purpose. This
is no idle matter. The central purpose of any system, be it a society, a
company, a health service, a tree or a colony of ants, determines everything
about that system, because all aspects of the system have to serve the central
purpose. It is a little known fact that the most effective way to change any
system is to change its central purpose. If, for example, the main purpose of a
business is to make as much profit as possible, then everything about the
business will be in service to money, and all other considerations, such as
society and the planet, will be secondary. But if its main purpose is to
provide excellent services to its customers, then it will be a very different
business and it will attract very different people to it.
Similarly,
if we wanted to fundamentally change a national health service, then we should
change its central purpose. Looking around the world at various national health
services, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the central purpose of
all of them is “to provide medical services”. This explains why nearly all the
money and energy is channelled into medical treatment (doctors, drugs, nurses,
hospitals, surgery), and it is why the people with the highest status in the
system are those at the top of the medical profession. If, however, the central
purpose was “to maintain the population in good health”, then money and energy
would be put into very different things. Medical treatment would be a last
resort, not a first resort, as it so often is today. And there would probably
be no concept of high status people!
It
is clear that many of our major systems today (economic, political, business,
education and health) are just not working. They are producing more problems
than solutions. We urgently need systemic change. Just to be clear, this does
not mean trying to make current systems function more efficiently. That would
be reformation. It means replacing
them with completely new systems. That would be transformation.
Imagine how different things would be if the central purpose of society
was to develop people to their highest potential and to care for this planet as
if it really mattered. If this was our central purpose, our lives would change
completely, as would the way we work, the way we govern ourselves, and the way
we relate with each other. It
would be a very different world. There is
important work to be done here, in developing and promoting a new central
purpose.
As to how we get there, I will be
saying a few things about this in a moment. However, it should be clear that
the means should be the same as the ends. Paul
Ekins expressed this beautifully in his book “Wealth Beyond Measure” (Gaia Books: 1992)
“Many enlightened
capitalists, and socialists who connive with them for the sake of economic
growth, believe that solving the problems of production will lead people, once
they have enough, to turn towards the higher things of life: beauty, spirit,
art, love. They are wrong. Making the market the principal instrument of human
development has transformed it - in the form of shopping - into society’s
principal cultural expression. It is no use changing the goals from economic
growth to basic needs or sustainability, for example, if the means, the
economics, remains the same. It is the means that determine where we end up.
The challenge is not only to decide on another destination…but also to design
an economics, and a development process to go with it, that is as sustainable,
participatory, equitable and satisfying as the end that is in view.”
Clearly,
making the means the same as the ends implies many things. One of them is
“leading by example”. Many
people in positions of power and influence do not know how to lead. For them,
leadership consists in “do as I say, not as I do.” This is why people across
the world have lost trust in business and political leaders. If they hope to
regain trust, leaders will literally have to lead the way, from the front. If,
for example, they are asking people to tighten their belts and accept
austerity, they must first tighten their own belts at least as much as they
expect others to. Leaders will have to be the change, rather than just talk
about it.
Deeper
Currents
When
we try to understand things or try to solve problems, we rarely go deep enough.
The link between loss of meaning and problem-causing behaviours, which I
mentioned earlier, should make us stop and think. In our attempts to solve
problems, we do not go far enough back along the “chains of causation”. More
often than not, we treat the “symptoms” rather than the causes. Although
they might deny it, many people and organisations try to solve their problems
by addressing the symptoms rather than the causes. This is neither effective
nor sustainable in the long run. Treating symptoms may make things seem better
for a while. It may even give the impression that the problem has been cured.
But if the causes are not addressed, the problem will return, often worse. The
analogy with medical treatment should be obvious. It is rare that we identify
and treat the deeper, root causes of ill health, which might turn out to be
cultural, emotional or spiritual in nature.
We deal with ill health, poverty, crime and pollution as if they were
the problems themselves, when in fact they may well be symptoms of things going
wrong at a deeper level. They probably reflect a deeper malaise. We may not
fully understand the deeper malaise, but if we want to solve these things once and
for all, we will eventually have to deal with it. Crime, for example, is typically addressed by
recruiting more police, building more prisons and imposing tougher sentences,
all because criminal behaviour is seen as the problem rather than as a symptom of
something deeper. The same is true of health policy. The main focus is on the
medical treatment of symptoms after people have fallen ill. That is an
extremely costly and inefficient way of doing things. It would save a lot of
time, money and suffering if our main focus was on promoting good health and
preventing people from falling ill in the first place. And if people did slip
through a better health promotion net, it still makes more sense to identify
and treat the underlying causes of illness. Meanwhile, comparatively speaking,
we continue to spend negligible sums on promoting health and preventing
illness.
What is true for crime and illness is equally true for other problems,
be these at the organisational of societal level. Prevention is better than
cure, but if you have to cure, make sure you are addressing the root causes.
Having said this, the symptomatic approach is undoubtedly appropriate when the
symptoms have become life threatening or otherwise intolerable. But we should
remind ourselves that it is we who have allowed them to reach that point.
The “symptoms approach” to solving problems is ineffective in the long run
because:
- It is the most expensive way of trying to solve
problems, partly because it waits until they get serious, but also because
addressing symptoms tends to be technocratic, managerial and legislative
in nature, and these can to be very expensive, inefficient ways of doing
anything
- It creates dependency on experts and
thus discourages self-reliance. That is unhealthy and disempowering, and
it discourages people from taking responsibility to behave intelligently
- It is unsustainable in the long run,
because the problems inevitably return, sometimes in another form, so long
as their causes remain unaddressed
- It makes the problems
seem to be the fault of others,
rather than raising the possibility that you and your organisation may be
part of the problem
- It requires a lot of people. Just
look, for example, at the huge industries that “health” and “security” have become
In
contrast, the “deeper causes” approach wins on all counts:
1.
It is more effective, because it gets
to the underlying causes.
2.
It is less expensive in terms of
money, time, effort and other resources, because it is based on simple common
sense and thoughtfulness, and may not need much technology or legislation or
management.
3.
It is empowering and healthy, because
it encourages people to be self-reliant and knowledgeable and to take
responsibility for their own lives.
4.
It is sustainable in the long term,
because the symptoms (i.e. the “problems”) will not keep on recurring.
5.
It puts you at the centre of the equation,
because it forces you to examine the consequences of your own behaviour and
that of your organisation.
Of
course, the reality is that many of us are resistant to this approach, for
understandable reasons:
Concern
about job security
– although they might deny it, people are probably aware at some level that
their current way of doing things (the “symptoms” approach) will guarantee a
steady and large supply of problems to deal with for the foreseeable future.
Can you imagine doctors, lawyers and police wanting to work themselves out of a
job?
Distrust of simplicity – some people are unable
to accept that seemingly complex, intractable problems can have simple
solutions. Yet the simple way is often the most intelligent way.
Sense of meaning – there is undoubtedly a
sense of meaning and purpose that comes with working in perpetual crisis mode.
This is no small thing. People need meaning and purpose in their lives. It is
interesting to note the rise in prominence and status of the “emergency
services” in the last 25 years or so.
Unwillingness to go deeper – the deeper causes
approach necessarily involves asking uncomfortable questions about oneself and
about society. For example, are we currently part of the problem rather than
part of the solution? Many people do not want to go out of their comfort zone
The ways we measure “progress” and
“success”
– people often think that they are successfully dealing with problems because
of they way they understand and measure “success”. Things may seem to be
getting better (e.g. GDP is rising) when in fact they are getting worse
All of these are difficult, complex issues that people need to work
through before they are likely to be willing to deal with deeper causes. They
may need help to do this.
If we are serious about solving our problems – be they societal,
organisational or personal – we have to ensure that we are addressing their
deeper, root causes, however uncomfortable this may be for us. That will not be
easy. A lot of us will resist or find sophisticated arguments to convince
ourselves that we are doing the right things. But, the fact is that we will
solve the problems of the modern world only when we adopt a different approach.
Better to adopt it sooner rather than later.
Adaptive
and Responsive
There are three trends in the world today that
affect everything we do, as individuals and as organisations:
1. The world is increasingly interconnected,
not just in the obvious ways - e.g. telecommunications and transport, but in
less obvious ways too - e.g. values, hopes and ideas.
2. The world is increasingly complex –
in the special sense that it is becoming more difficult for us to understand it
3. The pace of change itself is
increasing. That brings with it a new set of challenges
There was a time, not so long ago, when the
world was much less connected, much less complex, and much slower than it is
today. Change happened at a more leisurely pace, and most individuals and
organisations interacted with the world in a particular way, known as “predict,
command, and control”. That may have worked in some circumstances in the past.
It certainly does not work today. If we hope to survive and thrive in today’s
very different world, we must learn to “sense, adapt, and respond”.
Predict
Many people still see the world essentially as
a machine, whose behaviour can be predicted as if it really were a machine. So,
if you want to know what is going to happen in the future, you simply
extrapolate from the present. Although many people have abandoned the idea of
the world as a machine and replaced it with the idea of the world as an
organism, which does not easily lend itself to quantitative, mechanistic
understanding and prediction, many have still to learn this, which may be why
they often fail to spot what is coming their way and end up in trouble.
Command
They apply the mechanistic perspective not
only to the external world, but also inwards, to the organisation itself, for
example. It, too, is often regarded as little more than a machine, in which
people are basically cogs. Just as a machine does what you expect of it when
you give it the appropriate commands, so does the organisation. The commands
come from the top and are passed down the hierarchy. That leaves very little
freedom for intelligent creativity on the part of those whose role it is to
receive and obey commands. This has the effect of keeping the intelligence and
creativity of the organisation to a minimum. Not surprisingly, mistakes are
made, opportunities missed, and many in the organisation feel restricted and
frustrated.
Control
If you believe that you are accurately seeing
the world (and predicting the future), and that you are effectively commanding
the organisation to act in response to what you think is happening in the
world, the only other thing you need to do is to try to control as much as
possible of the world. You can do this, for example, by controlling suppliers,
and retailers, and prices, and consumer preferences, and the regulatory
environment (by influencing the legislators). This is what many businesses and
organisations still try do, often while simultaneously preaching the virtues of
competition and freedom from control! Yet the fact is that world is simply not
controllable, and people seem to respond best to minimal control.
The predict-command-control model can usefully
be thought of as “organisation-as-machine” interacting with “world-as-machine”.
It is a model that no longer seems to work, if indeed it ever did.
A very different model has begun to replace
it. The new model flows from the recognition that:
Many things in the world
are unpredictable
People can be trusted to
exercise their natural intelligence and creativity
Not much of the world can
be controlled
Sense
We in the West are not accustomed to being
highly attuned and sensitive. It is just not part of our culture. These are
qualities that are often associated with Eastern cultures. In practice, it
means being sensitive, open and aware in ways that we are not used to. It means
being able to recognise the significance of something long before that becomes
obvious to others. It means being sensitive to the “tides and currents” of the
world, including those that are still small and apparently insignificant. And it
means being aware of the subtle and taking the subtle seriously. However, an organisation can “sense” only if
its people are open and sensitive and if its culture is equally open and
sensitive. “Sensing” is considerably more useful than prediction in this
complex, interconnected, rapidly changing world, for two compelling reasons.
You notice much more, and sensing gives you much more accurate information than
quantitative, mechanistic prediction.
Adapt
The ability to adapt and go with the flow is
also an Eastern characteristic. Martial arts in their pure, unwesternised forms
are about adapting rapidly and wisely to constantly changing situations. The
martial arts expert is trained not to respond in a “painting by numbers” way to
any given situation, but to respond flexibly to the uniqueness of any
situation, by training himself or herself to be sufficiently sensitive and open
to do so. Applying this idea to an organisation, when it senses a situation or
the future, it does whatever is necessary to adapt intelligently to that
situation or future. It does not try to resist or change the situation or
future, as happens under the predict-command-control model. Instead, it bends
to the wind rather than being broken by it. It is open to the possibility of fundamental
change, however uncomfortable or counterintuitive that might seem at the time.
Just to be clear, sensing and adapting have
nothing whatsoever to do with bullet points and formulaic processes. They are
states of mind, which have to be acquired over a period of time. Some people
may find this difficult, but the benefits of being sensitive and adaptive are
immense, both to the individual and to the organisation.
Respond
This is what you do, once you successfully
sensed and adapted. You may decide not to respond at all, because sometimes the
appropriate response is no response. However, if you do decide that some action
is appropriate, you action will be proactive, rather than reactive. In
other words, you will be the courageous leader, as distinct from the
conservative follower. That can make all the difference.
In essence, the new model is
“organisation-as-organism” interacting with “world-as-organism”.
Clearly, there is a lot to this, because it
implies new mindsets, attitudes, beliefs, values and structures and behaviours.
But here is some idea of what “sense, adapt, and respond” tends to look like in
practice:
Better sensing
Paying attention to
unconventional information
Learning
to see through the eyes of others
Being
able to adopt different viewpoints
Paying
attention to things that, at first sight, might seem insignificant
Getting
yourself into “sensing mode”
Adapting effectively
Being aware of anything –
in you and in the organisation – that blocks change…it could include limiting
beliefs, fears and prejudices, restrictive structures and processes,
unrealistic expectations
Being able to distinguish
between reformation (superficial, temporary change) and transformation
(deep, lasting change)
Knowing that any outer
change must be matched by corresponding inner change
Avoiding box-ticking at
all times!
Responding creatively
Leading by example – as
an individual and as an organisation
Understanding
that “innovation” goes far beyond technology
Having
a very clear, shared central purpose
Encouraging
and valuing initiative and creativity in everyone
Economy of effort
Very skilled people often seem effortless.
They make difficult things seem easy. We sometimes refer to this as “being in
the zone” or “flow”. I like to think of this as the “law of reverse effort”.
And I see it as part of a powerful movement that is taking root all over the
world. That movement is sometimes called “less is better”.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that “more is better” has
become one of the strongest beliefs in the world today. It influences what we
think, say and do. At the national level, it is reflected in the overwhelming
importance given to economic growth. At the business level, it can be seen in
the desire to maximise sales and profit, and in the imperative for businesses
to keep getting bigger. And at the individual level, many people continue to
believe that having more money and things will make them happier.
The fact is that in this fast-paced world today, we do too much, we want
too much, we say too much, we rush too much, we try to control too much, and we
expect too much. Being “busy” is seen as a virtue, so we do too much.
Advertisers take advantage of our weaknesses and keep us in a state of constant
dissatisfaction, so we want too much. We email, text, and talk on the phone as
if the world were about to end tomorrow. We go too fast, when going a little
slower might bring benefits right across the board. We often put too much
effort into things, when easing up might give us better outcomes. We try to
control too much, with the result that things are getting more and more out of
control. And, despite the finite limits of this planet and our own time and
energy, we always expect more.
The belief that “more is better”, and the behaviours it generates, is
proving disastrous. The big problems of our time can all be traced back, one
way or another, to the powerful belief that “more is better”:
The planet’s life support systems
are in decline, because we overuse and abuse them. We do this because we do too
much and want too much
The climate is changing dangerously
for precisely the same reasons
Inequality is high and rising,
because a “more is better” economy creates big winners and many losers
Mental and emotional illnesses are
at record highs, because people are under immense pressure to work longer and
harder, and to shop more and more, and because they feel there is no real
meaning to this
Corruption and dishonesty are
epidemic because people want even more than they already have, and think they
can do this by cutting corners and being dishonest
Crises and problems have become the
norm, because “more is better” has caused major systemic failure in our
socio-economic institutions – economics, finance, business, government, health,
and education
It
is very clear that this state of affairs is unsustainable and that something
big needs to change. If, as it seems, the belief that “more is better” is at
the root of these problems, or at least a main cause, then it is time to
replace that belief with something very different. Try replacing it with its
opposite – “less is better”. Just stop for a while and try to imagine how your
life, and the world, would be if the following were true:
Ø You
do less,
but you would “be” more. This means that you would feel less rushed, quieter
inside, probably more alive, and more engaged. You would be a human being,
rather than, as is so often the case these days, a human doing
Ø You
want less,
but you enjoy more – because you are focusing on the quality of things and experiences, rather than the quantity
Ø You
say less,
but you communicate better. You make fewer calls and use fewer words, and you
speak less often, yet you are able to touch people and influence them, because
you give them the space to listen to you. This may give you fewer “friends”,
but at least they will be real friends
Ø You
rush less,
but make better progress. All of us can think of examples when we are in great
haste, but this seems to get us there no faster
Ø You
make less effort,
but get better results. By “easing up”, you bring into play the “law of reverse
effort”, which is well known to the best practioners of Judo and Aikido
Ø You
stop trying to control everything. By doing so, you allow things to happen more naturally.
This makes things easier and more successful
Ø You
expect less,
yet, surprisingly, you start receiving more. This is because when you drop your
expectations, you automatically allow more things to come into your life
Although
all the above is clearly applicable to your personal life, it is equally
applicable to businesses and other organisations. Here are a few things for you
to think about if you work in any kind of organisation:
It is possible for you to achieve
much more by doing less. This seems counterintuitive and strange, but it is
true
It is possible for you to improve
your communications, by using fewer words and speaking less often. By creating
this “space”, people will start to listen to you
It is possible to make real progress
(in any sense you want) by slowing down and by applying the “law of reverse
effort”. Again, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, yet it has
repeatedly been proved to be true
By stopping some of the redundant
controls you have in place, your people will become much more creative and
effective. In other words, give up control to gain control.
Your
natural intelligence
As
a species, we do not behave nearly as intelligently as we could do. The gap
between our intelligence potential (what we could be) and our intelligence
reality (how we actually behave) has to be a significant reason why we cause so
many problems. So, the big question is: what can we do to close the gap? The
short answer is: a lot. But first we have to understand what intelligence is,
because there are many misconceptions about it.
The
most widespread misconception is that our level of intelligence is fixed
throughout our lives. In fact, this is simply not true. Our intelligence grows
when we learn from experience. And it grows when we acquire new skills or
knowledge. This much is well known, or least it should be. Much less well known
is the fact that we can train our intelligence, by working on it in a
structured way. When we do this, it can change our lives.
Another
misconception about intelligence is that it means being “brainy” or “clever” or
“intellectual”. It does not! While mental intelligence is obviously important,
it is just a small part of the very wide spectrum of human intelligence. That
very wide spectrum covers the whole range of our abilities. In addition to
mental intelligence, it is also about how well we know and use our body
(Physical Intelligence); how well we manage our feelings (Emotional
Intelligence); our ability to know without knowing how we know (Intuitive
Intelligence); how good we are at cooperating with others (Social
Intelligence); and how deeply we understand and relate with ourselves the world
(Spiritual Intelligence). If, as many organisations now acknowledge, there is a
good case for training people in emotional intelligence, then there is an even
more compelling case for training people in the whole range of their
intelligence. The benefits of doing this are too numerous to list, but I hope
that what I am about to say gives you a sense of them.
When
we meet highly intelligent people, we are usually impressed. There is something
compelling about the way they look, the way they speak, and even the way they
move. They tend to be economical in their use of words and their use of energy.
They seem to be able to get things done without really trying. And it is
reassuring to have them around, because they always know what to do when
something goes wrong. We feel good when we are in their company, because they
are cheerful and friendly, but also because they seem to understand us at least
as much as we understand ourselves. If we were able to look inside highly
intelligent people, we would see that they are acutely sensitive to the world
around them. They notice a lot and miss very little. And we would see that they
are masters of their feelings, and are able to tune into, and empathise with,
the feelings of others. They have exceptionally good minds, which enable them
to think clearly, and see, at a deeper level, why things are the way they are
and how they are likely to be in the future. They have learned to trust their
intuition, and they have learned to transcend many of the conventions and
beliefs that restrict human development and creativity. They are very obviously
mentally and emotionally intelligent, but it goes far beyond that. Everything about them is intelligent.
And we have a sense that everything they do and say makes the world a better
place.
All
this is significant, because it means that highly intelligent people excel at
an exceptionally wide range of things, including the things that are valued by
organisations and by society in general. For example, they make good leaders,
because they have a clear vision and because they are good at inspiring and
encouraging people. They are very effective communicators, because they think
clearly, but also because they know how to reach out and touch people. They are
good at solving problems, because they know, at a deep level, why things
happen. Better still, they are good at anticipating and avoiding problems. They
are good negotiators, because they are empathic and understand people. They are
economic in their use of time, energy and resources, which is good news for any
organisation! They are excellent at scanning the future – they see what is
coming more clearly and sooner than most. They tend to be creative and rich in
new ideas, because their minds are open and flexible. They are authentic –
there is no contradiction between what you see and who they really are. For
example, they stand up for what they believe when there are pressures on them
to conform. And, just as important, they are a pleasure to be with. On all
counts, they are priceless assets to any organisation or community.
Of
course, I recognise that all this may sound too good to be true. It is rare that
we come across the kind of people we are talking about here. But there are good
reasons for this. We live in an age of extreme specialisation, with a strong
emphasis on technology and on the skills and knowledge that can be used
profitably in the economy. In such circumstances, intelligence, in the sense I
am speaking about, is rarely discussed, let alone taken seriously. Yet if an
organisation trained its people to be more intelligent, it would bring benefits
right across the board. For example, it would be a healthier, happier
organisation, because well-rounded, developed people tend to be happier and
healthier, but also because they are a positive influence on all those around
them. The organisation would be more economical and effective, because this is
how highly intelligent people behave. They really do get things done quicker
and better! And it would be a more responsible organisation, socially and
environmentally, because highly intelligent people would tolerate nothing less.
All in all, the organisation would be much more attractive – to its
stakeholders, to the public, and to NGOs – and this would bring valuable
benefits, financial and otherwise.
It
is worth pausing to think through the implications of this. Typically, a
business or other organisation trains its people skill by skill, subject by
subject, and this may be appropriate when the skill or subject is very
specialised or technical. There is, however, a strong case to be made for a
“one-stop training”, in which many skills and qualities can be developed at the
same time. This is exactly what intelligence training is designed to do. It
seeks to improve the full range of intelligence in a balanced, integrated way. In practice,
this involves “removing impediments”, and improving awareness, understanding, capacity, and competence in each of the
six intelligences (physical, emotional, mental, intuitive, social and
spiritual). This needs a little explanation.
Removing impediments
There
are many factors that stop us from being as intelligent as we could be.
Arguably, the most important are poor health, fears and anxiety, emotional
patterns, a cluttered mind, limiting beliefs and prejudices, and being in a
rush. If we are able to remove any or all of these, we automatically become
more intelligent.
Awareness
The more
conscious we are of what is happening inside us and in the world around us, the
more intelligent we are. It is as simple as that. Working on our awareness
enables us to see and hear more, and to feel more. We notice more things, but
we also notice more about the same things.
Capacity
This is what we are able to do at present, as well
as what we could do in the
future if we decided to do it and learned how to do it. When our
capacity grows, we are able to do more things, not only because our range of
skill increases, but also because we find the courage and will to do things
that we resisted doing until now. Because you have the knowledge and skills to
do more things, you are more likely to act intelligently.
Understanding
This is how well we understand ourselves, others and the
world. If we work on ourselves to increase our understanding, many things that
did not make sense before will start to make sense. For example, we will
understand at a deeper level why problems occur and what to do about them.
Competence
This is a measure of our wisdom and effectiveness. As we
grow in competence, whatever we do and say will be more effective and
influential than before. We do things better, but also do better things!
Just to be clear, when you become more intelligent, it does not mean that you
will suddenly be able to understand obscure philosophy or solve complex
mathematical problems. And it does not mean that you will be able to compose
like Mozart or paint like Rembrandt. But it does mean that you will be wiser
and more effective in your life and work and that you will be more likely to know when and how to act (or
not act!) in any given situation. You will find it easier to relate with
people. And you will have a much clearer idea of who you are and what you want
to be and do in life. Being more intelligent means that you and your life will
improve in many ways and, just as important, that you will improve the lives of
those you come into contact with. Of course, there is much more, but this is
the essence of it.
From everything I have said, I hope I have conveyed the crucial point
that “intelligence is as intelligence does”. There is absolutely no point in
being intelligent in theory, if your behaviour does not reflect your potential.
You either behave intelligently (your actions and your words), or you are not
intelligent. It is as simple as that. Being intelligent means only one thing –
you act wisely, in ways that enhance people and this planet.
Afterword
I am aware that I have taken you through many issues at some speed. My
purpose here has simply been to give you an overview of the situation, as I see
it, as well as a sense of what I believe you will need to do, if you wish to
prosper in the world that is emerging.
