• home
• news
• readingroom
• blog
• thought as passion
• links
• contact

H.B. Augustine is a junior undergraduate student at Denison University studying Philosophy and Communication. He has started a publishing organization called "Integral Publishing House" - contact him at august_h@denison.edu if interested in publishing Integral material.

Integral Politics

An Introduction to Integral Economy

Henry Augustine

The Purpose of Economy

Along with government and education, the economy is among the most important elements in any given society. Because of its importance, we will examine Integral economy sufficiently more in depth just as we have examined Integral government and will examine Integral education. In this section, we will analyze the notion of economy and will come to see its True definition. Next, we will analyze the dominant modes of production pertaining to Red, Amber, Orange, and Green societies. Afterward, we will be sufficiently prepared to consider the specific structure and significance of Integral economy. Lastly, with the notion of Integral economy in mind, we will consider what the future of economy is in the decades and centuries to follow. Let us now begin by attempting to decipher just what the purpose of economy is.

The purpose of economy has to do with trade, Certainly. What is trade? Trade is the process of exchanging commodities or things. What is the point of exchanging commodities or things? The purpose is to benefit the individuals involved in such an exchange. Trading began with the emergence of human rationality, as this allowed our race to comprehend the notion of trade in the first place. As rationality evolved and increased, so did the complexity of things being exchanged. We can see that trading began with the exchange of things most immediately practical or useful, such as food and clothing. As human intelligence improved, so the complexity of economic production altogether increased. In short, the intersubjective acknowledgement of potential commodity reciprocation gave rise to the initial traces of what we mean by “economy.”

During a given exchange, both individuals place a hypothetical yet agreeably accurate value to the things being exchanged. For example, say a person wishes to trade a supply of meat he or she has gotten for some amount of clothing someone else has made. As we know, there is such thing as an “unfair trade.” Imagine that the supply of meat consisted of a single salmon, while the amount of clothing consisted of an entire outfit. Most likely, the person who made the outfit would contend that it is worth more than is the salmon alone. Why would he or she most likely contend such a thing? He or she would most likely desire or expect to receive more in exchange because, as noted, the outfit is worth more. Yet what does it mean for something to be worth more than something else is?

Smith tells us that a thing's value is determined by the amount of labor needed to produce it. If we apply this economic principle to the given scenario, then we can see why the person who produced the clothing believes that they are worth more or have a higher value than the salmon is or does. The clothes required far more labor to be produced than did the fish to be caught. Therefore, the clothes have a proportionately higher value than does the fish. Therefore, in order for the trade to be fair, it is necessary that the person selling the meat give more in order to balance the general amount of labor pertaining to both sides of the exchange. In addition to seeing value as determined by industry, let us also see it as determined by usefulness or practicality.

We can regard something and its respective worth if we consider just how useful or practical it is to the individual or to society in general. Furthermore, we can agree that something can have much value in that an ample amount of labor was devoted to producing it but, simultaneously, it can have little value if it has little direct application to any individual or to any societal phenomenon. Ultimately, what matters is a thing's direct application, its usefulness, or its practicality. In the case of the meat-clothes trade, perhaps one salmon for one outfit is a fair trade after all, given that the person selling the clothes is desperately in need of the fish. Though unlikely, the significance of the latter is that two commodities do not always have to share the same value in labor should they share the same value in function. Something else that we may consider in analyzing economy and its purpose is the significance of specialization.

Economy or trade is not possible at all, if there is no specialization at all. What we mean is that – for instance – if everyone in a community were a farmer, then there could not be an exchange of anything but farming goods. Put differently, the more specialization that a community contains, the more (economic) dynamism that results. For every commodic need, there is a corresponding economic need – meaning a particular vocational specialization imperative for some individual or group to fulfill. If there is a mutual need for masonry, then there is an economic need for someone to specialize in masonry and to serve as such. Perhaps we can agree that another way to view the purpose of economy (this time more specifically) is to account for the diversity of commodic needs by implementing a pertinent diversity of specialization. Let us review all that we have thus examined.

We have seen that the economy is the system involving the constant exchange of commodities. A commodity exists in the first place because it is desired to be possessed – or, at least, it is believed that it is desired to be possessed. There is a whole range of commodities in terms of complexity, beginning with the most basic mutual needs or desires and ending with the least basic mutual needs or desires. We can regard how much something is worth – its value – by accounting for how much industry went in to produce it as well as, and perhaps more so, by accounting for how useful or practical it is to others. Economy ultimately allows individuals to specialize in various forms of production and contributing to society. What is the ultimate purpose of economy, then? The ultimate purpose of economy is to allow people to possess or experience the things that they need or desire. With the latter initial definition in mind, it is now necessary that we analyze the notions of “need” and “desire” in order to gain a better understanding of their relation to economy.

If we are to understand the difference between a need and a desire, then it is necessary that we first consider its connection to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We can categorize needs into various types, ranging in terms of complexity. For instance, the most basic needs are purely physiological, and are therefore the least complex. In contrast, though, we can see that needs such as belonging and esteem are not essential for the body alone to survive. However, belonging and esteem are Certainly still needs – they are just more complex than is what is exclusively physical. The core is more complex than is the body; therefore, its needs are more complex than are those of the body. Likewise, the soul is more complex than is the core; therefore, its needs are more complex than are those of the core. Still, though, what do we mean by the difference between a need and a desire?

Needs and Desires in Economy

The difference between a need and a desire is relative, doubtless, and it is meaningless specifically relative to the economy. Relative to the economy, it does not matter whether something is a need or a desire. Instead, what matters relative to the economy is that something is a need or a desire. If someone supposedly needs something, or if someone supposedly desires something, then this automatically requires, or invites, a particular economic specialization to address it. Certainly, cinema – for instance – would seem as though it were not a need. Yet cinema is a major economic player or factor. Why is cinema such a player or factor? Cinema is a significant economic component because it is a perceived need. People judge that they “need” cinema, to whatever extent, and so they desire to experience it. Enough individuals share such a perceived need or desire. Thus, cinema requires an area of economic specialization. Plato touches on this notion of economic specialization as induced by a variety of perceived needs.

As we have mentioned, Plato first considers a Utopia consisting of the bare minimum for a small community of individuals to live. In this particular society, the first two levels on Maslow's hierarchy are met. Is there anything wrong with this environment? For Plato's brother, Glaucon, there is Certainly a problem considering the number of individuals who could not cope with such a simplistic living. Perhaps philosophers such as Plato live so rationally and ascetically that there is no need for them to experience relatively extravagant things beyond the realm of physiology and safety. However, philosophers such as Plato live ideally. If we are instead to think practically, and to judge how the masses will live or be inclined to live, then we can see that such simplicity will never resonate. In this sense, we must structure (the) society on as many perceived needs as we can conceive that we believe will resonate with any significant number of common individuals.

If there is a common perceived need to drink alcohol, then it is economically necessary for there to be individuals whose profession is to produce alcohol. If there is a common perceived need to eat hamburgers, then it is economically necessary for there be individuals whose profession is to produce hamburgers. If there is a common perceived need to smoke cigarettes, then it is economically necessary for there to be individuals whose profession is to produce cigarettes. Perhaps we get the point. In short, we can apply the gist of Plato's societal principle to our view on the economy and its purpose, by acknowledging that a significant common perceived need always requires a proportionate degree of economic production.

As we know, the economy has not always served so many perceived needs as it does today. Obviously, the economy has not always existed. However, in the economy's childhood, we can see that the number of perceived needs and professions to accompany them was greatly smaller than is the case relative to the current context. We have already accepted and discussed the Idea of a Family Tree of Truth; now let us do the same except pertaining to perceived needs, profession, and production.

Imagine that the “economy” begins at the top of this hypothetical structure with foraging as a mode of “production.” Foraging eventually becomes horticulture as we move a general level down the system. A new level of complexity illustrates the variety of perceived needs, professions, and modes of production pertaining to this particular stage. As we continue moving down, we can see that – like the Family Tree of Truth – we move in tandem with the degree of evolution marking the economy. We saw that the True purpose of government is not to keep society from entering into a state of chaos but is rather to allow for the most efficient evolution of our species as possible; so we can see that the True purpose of economy, in a more refined sense, is to sustain an optimal mean between two extremes.

In any economy, the kind of minimalism mentioned by Plato and the kind of excessivism evident in today's consumer culture are two economic extremes that we ought to avoid – and which violate the True purpose of economy. Let us first inspect why economic minimalism is an extreme to avoid. We ought to avoid economic minimalism primarily because of intelligence, because of amusement, and because of diversity. Beginning with intelligence, we can see that economic minimalism accompanies a general stage of intelligence that is significantly lower than is the dominant Orange meme dictating the whole of global economic affairs. Put differently, economic minimalism can only correspond to a society and economy that has no greater intelligible capacity to see past simplistic modes of production falling under the first two needs of Maslow's hierarchy. In short, economic minimalism for a predominantly Orange society is to horse-based transportation when airplanes are available. The second reason against economic minimalism has to do with amusement.

What we mean by the latter term is that an economy centered on the basic survival needs, and nothing more, is significantly less enjoyable than is one centered on more complex (perceived) needs. We can agree that this second reason is just as much if not more self-evident as is the first. Lastly, the amount of diversity present in the human condition today cannot afford economic minimalism. There are too many people, from too many backgrounds, with too many unique specializations, for the economy to be centered on physiological and safety needs solely. For these three primary reasons, we can agree that economic minimalism Certainly violates the purpose of economy, and is one of the extremes existing outside the golden mean we ought to achieve. Looking at the other extreme existing outside this mean, let us now see why economic excessivism violates the purpose of economy.

We should avoid economic excessivism primarily because of the environment, because of mindset, and because of aesthetitude. Economic excessivism is detrimental for the natural environment for nearly obvious reasons. We can see today that should economic excessivism continue to dominate, the environment will cease to allow human life and flourishing possible. Furthermore, the damage that we cause to the environment by consuming far more than we replenish violates ethical conduct to the animals forced to suffer because their natural habitats have been so negatively affected. Moving along to the second reason, economic excessivism conditions a large proportion of its participants to have a selfish and unnecessarily competitive mindset.

When the economy is centered on taking significantly more than it is centered on giving, this means that its participants are as equally centered on taking significantly more than they are centered on giving. We can see, then, that not only does economic excessivism hurt the external natural environment, but it also hampers the internal humanic persona. In addition to naturalistic reasons, there are also psychological reasons why the economic status quo is extreme and inferior. Finally, this status quo is extreme and inferior not from ethical and practical standpoints, but also from an aesthetic one. Economic excessivism consumes a significant amount of Beauty in addition to a significant amount of natural resources. This final reason is again self-evident and requires no further explanation just as any given fact or idea, such as geocentricism, requires no further explanation. Now that we have analyzed both economic extremes, let us briefly consider just what the golden mean lying between them would be.

An optimal economy would acknowledge which perceived needs are legitimate and which ones are not before engaging in any sort of communal exchange. For instance, the perceived need to have a mobile phone for the purpose of communication is, arguably, what we would label legitimate, while the perceived need to visit a strip club is, arguably, what we would label illegitimate. Having sorted through all perceived needs and having deciphered which ones are legitimate and which ones are not, the economy and its people would then be able to have a much firmer grasp on how it ought to be structured in order to achieve the golden mean.

Furthermore, this particular system would do nothing to take away from the natural environment, from the collective mindset, and from common subjective aesthetitude. Consumption and production would do nothing to harm the state of natural equilibrium and would allow nonhuman species to flourish and not to experience suffering whatsoever. Furthermore, consumption and production would not emphasize such so much, that it would induce a majority of humans to have such a negative, selfish, and competitive mindset. Lastly, consumption and production would not create a society so lacking in terms of aesthetic quality and overall pleasantness. An optimal economy would moreover allow everyone to participate and to flourish as equally as everyone else.

Economic minimalism does not allow anyone, really, to participate and flourish as best as possible, just as economic excessivism allows only a small few to participate and flourish (and not even necessarily as best as possible). Let us compare optimal economy to a game in which everyone participates and experiences a great deal of positive excitement. Unlike a boring game in which no one experiences this sentiment, and unlike an exclusivistic game in which only a minority experience “such,” this particular system allows for the best positive excitement for every single participant. We need not see specifically what this optimal economy would be like, as that is to come with our detailed and sufficient explanation of what economy relative to the Turquoise meme will be. Before seeing Turquoise economy, though, it is necessary that we first see what Red, Amber, Orange, and Green economies have shown themselves to be. We can begin with Red.

Past Economies

Red economy is the closest to a state of nature that civilization can be. Red economy only allows the ruling elite to experience any sort of wealth. This wealth, though, is not even wholesome. Rather, the wealth that the royal family and nobles possess in a Red society is primarily physical and hence limiting in that it disallows them from experiencing any of the higher pleasures associated with any of the higher holonic components. The drawbacks of Red economy, then, are that only a minority experiences any kind of pleasure, while the majority conversely suffers. Moreover, the pleasure that the minority experiences is but a fraction of the totality of pleasure potential for humans to have. Let us now briefly review Amber economy.

Amber economy is still hierarchical and oppressive, except unlike Red economy, the collective is emphasized over the individual – self-sacrifice takes precedence over self-expression. There is virtually no more economic diversity and opportunity in an Amber society than there is in a Red society. The only advantage that the former has over the latter is that the oppressed majority may feel more empowered and significant than before because their identity and wellbeing is far more contingent on that of the greater society to which they belong. Moving along, we can see a significant turning point when Amber becomes Orange, especially within the economic sphere.

Orange economy, though it results in a hierarchy, is far different from Amber and Red economy in that it is not meant to be hierarchical. In fact, this particular economic stage of development does away with the notion of hierarchy altogether. Furthermore, Orange economy differs from Amber, and relates to Red, because it emphasizes the significance of the individual and self-expression over the significance of the collective and self-sacrifice. The advantages of this system are that it gives much more opportunity to each individual because meritocracy and industry replace aristocracy and title. However, because Orange economy stresses individuality, autonomy, and competition above all else – regardless whether it regards democracy, equality, and justice – this creates a societal condition not so different from what we see in Amber and Red economies. Let us finally see Green economy as far as how it differs from all its predecessors.

While Green as such stresses democracy, equality, and justice as its Orange precursor and counterpart does, it instead relates to Amber and differs from Orange and Red because it emphasizes the collective and self-sacrifice. The common symbolic economic organization of Green is not the corporation and industrial entrepreneur, as it is for Orange, but is instead the self-help group, the charity foundation, the nonprofit association, as initiated and run by the social entrepreneur. The only drawback of Green economy is its extreme prioritization of the collective and self-sacrifice over the individual and self-expression. As we know, the optimal economy lying within the golden mean naturally lies between the two extremes of pure individuality and pure collectivity. Now that we have briefly familiarized ourselves regarding the dynamics of these four primary and distinct modes of production, which have marked and still mark current society, let us delve into our primary task of this particular discussion by considering specifically what Turquoise or Integral economy must be.

Profession in Turquoise Economy

We will begin by seeing that Integral economy will recognize the importance of economy and profession in the first place. Economy is important because profession is important. Why is profession important? Profession is important because it allows the individual to express himself or herself, while it simultaneously allows this person to contribute to the greater whole. Expressing oneself but contributing nothing is as inferior to contributing something but not expressing oneself at all. Furthermore, profession is significant because it allows the individual to exercise his or her unique self, as aligned with the soul, just as any other holon such as a white blood cell exercises its unique self, as aligned with its soul.

The purpose of the Universe is for there to be distinction, no doubt. The purpose of distinction is for there to be growth. Growth is only possible if there is activity. What would the World be if there were experience and awareness of such, but zero activity – only static existence? Certainly, activity is intrinsically necessary, just as growth is intrinsically necessary, just as distinction is intrinsically necessary, just as the World is intrinsically necessary. Because activity is intrinsically necessary, this means that holons such as human being must engage in activity and appreciate the experience of such. Profession is the way through which humans are able to engage in activity and to appreciate it. Profession is the way through which humans are able to be who they are as relative individuals and to become who they are meant to be by following their respective Path of Destiny.

We can regard profession in one of two ways. We can see profession as the necessary role each individual must undertake in order to sustain the economy and human existence altogether. We can also see profession as the necessary role each individual must undertake in order to experience Fulfillment. We can regard profession from a relative, purely societal standpoint, and we can do the same except from a teleological, purely psychic lens. While both ways of viewing profession are legitimate, we can agree that the latter teleological version is deeper and more awesome than is the former societal one. People must engage in profession in order to support the economy and society overall, but – more importantly – people must engage in profession because it is their intrinsic duty and because it brings Happiness in so doing.

Economy is important, naturally, because profession is important. Economy as such is contingent on profession. Therefore, the significance of economy is contingent on the significance of profession. If profession is transcendentally necessary, then economy is transcendentally necessary. Just as we compared someone and his or her profession to some holon of far lesser degree, e.g. a white blood cell, so we can do the same for economy. The economy is the system that is the totality of all professions and their respective contributions to culture and society, just as the “economy” relative to the human body is the system that is the totality of all cellular functions and their respective contributions to experience and the coordination of processes theoretically responsible for such experience. Now that we have seen the importance of economy and profession, let us see why it is True that there is a right profession for everyone, and that it is significant for each person to practice and exert this particular specialty.

As we have already seen, everyone has a soul – an identity as a relative individual. The soul is the essence of the individual and his or her persona. The soul determines who that (relative) individual is and what his or her purpose is. Every soul is different from every other soul by virtue of the intrinsic order of everything. Every persona, therefore, is different from every other persona by virtue of the intrinsic order of everything. Every persona, every soul, complements one another to contribute to a system that is ineffably awesome. We might as well call this system the economy. However, what we mean by “economy” seems to have far too contextualized of a denotation and connotation behind it. Let us reconsider another definition of economy.

Rather than “the societal system in which people exchange produce,” let us see the economy as “the Kosmic system in which each soul expresses itself via its respective persona, or circumstances, in order to allow for the greatest harmony and communion with every other soul.” Certainly, the latter is a much different version of the economy to which we had perhaps previously been accustomed. In this regard, the economy is the way that each individual can become that which it is meant to be. The latter definition of economy is also the prescription to economy we should recognize. In other words, we should no longer perceive the economy in such a 1st-tier lens. Let us instead perceive the economy as far as what it is worth in Truth.

In this economy, everyone has a right profession because everyone has a soul. Each soul has a Destiny. “Destiny” is a term corresponding to the aesthetic level on the spectrum of knowledge; we can regard it in other terms simply as “purpose,” “function,” or “duty.” However, these last three words perhaps do not evoke the same kind of awe that “Destiny” rightfully does. Purpose is one thing; Destiny is another. Function is one thing; Destiny is another. Duty is one thing; Destiny is another. The sentiment that a persona experiences when it recognizes its Destiny is one of pure appreciation – it is priceless, timeless. It is funny that the economy, as most people see it, at least, should be so full of prices and so caught up in the current time.

As the persona realizes its True identity as a relative individual or soul, then it draws nearer toward expressing itself and living its life as it is meant to be. Consider someone who we would undoubtedly agree is “living his or her Destiny.” Consider Anthony Robbins. Robbins, perhaps the most successful motivational speaker of all time – or at least relative to our time –, is someone to whom we can point and acknowledge that he is doing precisely what he is meant to do. He is being precisely who he is meant to be. He is becoming closer and closer toward God. Why should we point to Robbins and give him this kind of credit? Let us not see this issue so much in terms of name and status exclusively. Instead, let us see the issue in terms of what Robbins (naturally because of his name and status) represents as an actual human being.

Robbins represents someone who appreciates his or her life because of what he does. How can we appreciate what we do with such a degree? We can appreciate what we do with such a degree when we realize that what we do is in accordance with why we, as a soul, exist in the first place, and why we have the obligation to express ourselves in such a way. Robbins represents someone who comprehends the meaning of life, which is obviously to live. Yet it is so empty of an assertion to say, “The meaning of life is to live.” What does it mean, “To live?”

To live is to appreciate the awe of Fulfillment. Fulfillment, as it consists of both the self-actualization of the soul and the self-transcendence of the Self, is what must be beyond the realm of self-actualization only. What is it to be self-actualized if everything is still atoms in a void? What does it mean to be so successful if there seems to be so little meaning behind everything other than oneself and one's achievements? Surely, self-actualization demands for the persona to look beyond itself and to see why the soul exists with which to begin. When the persona, as the soul, realizes why it exists with which to begin, then, and only then, does it start to live its life in such a prolonged state of fluency and wonder.

Certainly, everyone has a right profession. Certainly, each profession is meant to complement that soul via its persona in order to do what is so necessary and fortunately so aligned with such Goodness, Beauty, and Truth. Certainly, the totality of these self-expressions or professions is what we ought to mean by the “economy.” Perhaps we have a better grip, now, on this third, less contextualized definition of the economy. When we see the economy in this way, when we look beyond the way that we have been conditioned so long to think of it, then we see the necessary, intrinsic connection between God, the soul, the persona, Destiny, profession, and the economy. Plato's views on justice implicitly contribute to this discussion on the nature of the economy.

Platonic Justice

In Plato's Utopia, the economy and society overall are in an optimal state when everyone does what he or she ought to do best. Everyone meant to be an artisan is an artisan. Everyone meant to be a warrior is a warrior. Everyone meant to be a philosopher is a philosopher. Beyond this simplistic overgeneralization on the ways that economy and society should operate, we can see much Truth behind what Plato tells us. In Plato's Republic, everyone does his or her duty. However, it is significant we note that “duty” and “Destiny” are not necessarily synonymous for Plato. If it is the duty of an artisan to be an artisan, then let him or her be that; however, if this disallows him or her to experience Fulfillment, then all is not lost because he or she still does what is best for society overall. Let us take the gist of Plato's account and consider its significance relative to what Integral economy will be.

First, let us see that in this economy, everyone will be centered on Turquoise at least cognitively. Unlike Republic, there will be no set proportion of Red citizens, Amber citizens, and Orange citizens. Rather, everyone will be Turquoise. However, even though everyone will be Turquoise, naturally there will still be a considerable degree of variation. Some individuals are inherently more intuitive than others are. Some individuals are inherently more practical than others are. Some individuals are inherently more creative than others are. Because of this natural internal variability, each person is better suited to perform some task better than others are. If everyone in society did what he or she was better suited to perform, then society overall would be the best that it can possibly be for the fact that – returning to Plato – everyone does what he or she is meant to do.

Perhaps some readers may object to this association with Plato's theory of justice in that we cannot compare society to something such as the human body – since the latter is natural while the former is apparently constructed. Plato Certainly dares to make this comparison with his city-soul analogy. However, as McIntosh tells us, it is fallacious to assert that human artifacts, e.g. society, are simultaneously natural holons. What constitutes a human artifact? A human artifact is something that humans create, such as a chair, wheel, or sword. Apparently, we cannot say that a chair, wheel, or sword deserves the same holonic status as does an atom, bird, or human. Likewise, we cannot say that society in general deserves the same holonic status as, say, this planet. Let us see why Plato's city-soul analogy, and our adopting it, is perfectly legitimate – and that it is definitely illegitimate to claim that a) human artifacts are not holons and that b) society itself is not a holon.

As we have seen before, there is ultimately no difference between ideas and Ideas. Everything that occurs naturally is, in the end, an Idea existing somewhere hypothetically on the Family Tree of Truth. We can make a practical yet still ultimately relative distinction between ideas and Ideas just as we can do the same between something that seems undoubtedly “cold” and something that seems undoubtedly “hot.” Likewise, we can make a practical yet still ultimately relative distinction between human artifacts and holons. Both these things occur naturally, we can see. We must first define what we mean by “naturally,” though.

If we take “naturally” to refer to the physical Universe existing independently of human affairs, then McIntosh is correct and we cannot say that human artifacts still constitute holons. However, if we take “naturally” instead to refer to everything that arises within the Universe as such, then human artifacts, ultimately, still count as holons. Moving along, though, let us see that society is not nearly “as much” of a human artifact as it is a necessary and natural result of or complement to the definite holon that is this planet.

Relatively speaking, Earth is Certainly a holon. Earth arose naturally, before the existence of humans and therefore independently of human affairs, so we can attribute the same status to it as we can attribute to any other non-artificial (literally) holon. Let us regard Earth as we would regard a human being. As we have seen, we can thus regard humanity overall figuratively yet literally as the central nervous system of the macro-organism that is this planet. The central nervous system of any human is a necessary and natural phenomenon or function, essential for the existence and identity of this individual. Along these lines, we can agree that humanity, of Earth, is also a necessary and natural phenomenon or function, essential for the existence and identity of this planet as a whole. Humanity is no coincidence. Humanity is meant to exist – just as any coherent organ is meant to exist. Perhaps we have a better understanding, now, as to why society is just as meaningful, necessary, and natural as are the humans comprising it.

Let us see humanity in terms of the LL and LR quadrants. In this case, we are regarding our species collectively as a group of individuals, as opposed to individually as a coherent unit. Now, we can perceive or understand this group of individuals in terms of its interior dynamics – or culture – and we can perceive or understand it in terms of its exterior dynamics – or society. We cannot assert that culture is an unnecessary or unnatural phenomenon. In the same lens, we cannot assert that society – the objective correspondent to culture – is an unnecessary or unnatural phenomenon.

Culture is a macrocosm of individual human interiority, just as society is a macrocosm of individual human exteriority. Perhaps we can agree now that there is nothing wrong with Plato's city-soul analogy. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with our adopting this explanation of and application to society and using it to describe the significance of the economy. As today's economy clearly indicates, though, we are far from seeing the kind of condition marking Plato's Utopia. Because the economy, and thus society, is not in its ideal state, this means that governmental regulation is necessary. We have already briefly seen why regulation can be, and often is, imperative on behalf of an economy's respective authority. Let us now defend economic regulation sufficiently more so in depth, using the following analogy as our guide.

In Defense of Economic Regulation

Let us compare the economy and its current unsatisfactory state to a body suffering from cancer. We can equate the current economic state to a state of cancerous activity because Certainly, the market and its dynamics cause a large number of people participating in it to suffer. A cancer begins affecting only a relatively tiny portion of the body. This area becomes infected and proceeds to infect everywhere around it and – slowly but surely – the cancer invades and spreads throughout the rest of the body. Cancer operates exponentially, in terms of momentum. Similarly, we can see that these principles of exponentiation and momentum apply directly to the behavior and nature of the economy (or at least the economy today).

Because capitalism today dominates, the well-known phrase rich get richer, poor get poorer for the most part holds True. The fact that those on top of the economic food chain are more inclined to keep doing better, and that those not on top are more inclined to keep doing worse, relates to the behavior and nature of cancer in that it, too, has to do with exponentiation and momentum. If the cancer is left untreated, then it will continue spreading to the rest of the body until it cannot go on any longer and dies. Likewise, if the economy is left untreated, then the gap between the rich and poor will continue to increase exponentially, however gradually, until it “dies.”

What we mean by the economy “dying” is that it and everyone in it will experience a serious depression – which, as statistics and economists alike suggest, is not so far away. Given the current economic dilemma we are in, we can agree that it is necessary for government to regulate still if not more so than it already does. The purpose of such regulation is to spend more money on things that will improve culture and society for future generations. If government spends a significantly greater amount of finance on improving education, then – theoretically and likely eventually – government will no longer need to regulate at all because, hypothetically, if everyone were to be exposed to an excellent, effective education, then everyone would be suited to contribute positively to the economy and to society as such. As is the case for Integral government, Integral economy will undergo three distinct phases. The first phase will require a great deal of governmental regulation in order to change other societal dynamics and aim them in the direction of Integral Utopia.

During the time of Integral Utopia, regulation will (most likely) not be necessary whatsoever. If everyone acted as a responsible economic agent, then the economy would experience a state of balance and harmony, flow and success. Regulation exists in the first place in order to direct the economy and society toward such an ideal state. Therefore, if such a state were already to exist, then there would be no need to continue regulating to achieve what is already the case. Just as all the cells in a body are predisposed to act one way and one way only, with one function and one function only, so is each individual predisposed or Destined to have one career and one career only, one economic role and one economic role only.

Of course, these careers or roles can manifest themselves in a variety of positions or separate jobs. What matters, though, is that each career or role will encompass one, and only one, general area of specialization. If everyone recognizes this particular general area of specialization suited for himself or herself and if this person engages in a vocation aligned with such specialization as best as he or she possibly can, then the economy will operate as fluently and successfully as a perfectly healthy body would operate. Just as a perfectly healthy body, or body in general, sustains itself via the exchange of appropriate nutrients to fuel each cell and organ, so Integral economy will sustain itself via the exchange of appropriate capital to “fuel” each individual and nation-state. However, it is necessary that we clarify just what we mean by “capital,” in this case.

An Integral Approach to Capital

In today's society, capital refers to wealth, and wealth most often denotes “stuff.” In other words, capital means something or some material possession. Because capitalism emerged from the Modern worldview, this made capital a strictly materialistic phenomenon. As we know, Modernity emphasized the exterior over the interior, the objective over the subjective, and the individual over the collective. Because of Modernity's infatuation with the physical Universe and with an atomic view of such, i.e. seeing the World as consisting of coexisting individuals as opposed to collective processes, this made capitalism the most sensible (literally) mode of production.

In The Wealth of Nations, for instance, Smith argues that wealth (or capital) equates to material existence alone. Whoever has the most resources or things is accordingly wealthiest because this individual has the most of what constitutes the basic constituent of Modern economy. Why do things take such precedence over ideas, in this case? Things take precedence over ideas for Modern economy because things took precedence over ideas for Modern philosophy.

Modern philosophy sought to separate itself as far as possible from Premodern philosophy. Whereas Premodernity emphasized the significance of the Above, of the celestial, of religion, of intuition, of ideas, Modernity, instead, emphasized the significance of just the opposite – of the Below, of the terrestrial, of science, of sensation, of things. Because things win over ideas for Modernity, in this sense, this means that only things can have any sort of practical value or capital. An idea means nothing, in terms of potential cash-value, unless it in fact has any potential cash-value – meaning it has the potential to translate into something and to affect the (physical) world in some concrete, noticeable, measurable fashion. James' pragmatism is perhaps the quintessence of this economic way of seeing things.

For James, all that matters in the realm of philosophy is how much cash-value a particular idea carries. This pragmatism is indicative of and derivative from the common Western, and especially American, method of rationalization. This method of rationalization is strictly consequentialist – not necessarily from an ethical standpoint, but Certainly in terms of an all-encompassing, general scope. In other words, someone's intentions mean virtually nothing if no results accompany them. The consequences, the effects, the results, are omnipotent for the Modern economist. Because the latter are solely measurable in terms of physical existence, this means that nothing beyond physical existence can have any sort of value because it is not (directly) measurable.

Just as the Premodern economic view emphasized ideas (and only some) significantly over things, and just as the Modern economic view emphasized things (again only some) significantly over ideas, so it will be fitting and necessary for the Integral economic view to regard the significance of what transcends and includes both ideas and things, things and ideas. With the latter in mind, let us now consider a new definition of capital and wealth, on which Integral economy will rudimentarily be founded and with which it will rudimentarily operate.

For Integral economy, capital, or wealth, or value, will be based exclusively on to what level something corresponds. What does something, whether an “idea” or “thing,” ultimately benefit? For what is something ultimately beneficial? What is the purpose of something's existence? Does the thing (which again denotes something material or immaterial) ultimately benefit the (level of) body? Does the thing ultimately benefit the (level of) heart or mind? Does the thing ultimately benefit the (level of) soul? Does the thing ultimately benefit the (level of) Self? In this regard, Integral capital will still be consequentialist in the sense that a thing's use matters. However, this use is not necessarily to be attributed solely to a physical thing.

A thing such as a loaf of bread ultimately benefits the body, as we can agree. In contrast, though, something such as a book not only has the potential ultimately to benefit the body, but it also has the potential ultimately to benefit any other holonic component. A book can benefit the heart, no doubt – it can make a person emote better. Furthermore, a book can benefit the mind – it can make the individual reflect clearer. Moreover, a book can benefit the soul – it can bring the one who reads it closer toward self-actualization. Finally, a book can benefit the Self – it can bring the one who reads it closer toward self-transcendence. The question to ask, with regard to the particular book, is, “Which holonic component does this thing ultimately benefit most?”

Most likely, the book is more valuable than is the loaf of bread because the latter only benefits the body, and for a very limited amount of time. On the other hand, even if the book were only to benefit the body, it would most likely benefit the body potentially everlastingly. Perhaps the book informs the reader how to take care of the body most effectively, such as what Chopra's Perfect Health does. In the latter case, we can Certainly see and agree that such a book is significantly more valuable than is the bread. Now, let us compare a book instead devoted to explaining the principles of formal logic (e.g., Russell's Principia Mathematica) to a book devoted to teaching the individual how to attain spiritual enlightenment (e.g., Tolle's The Power of Now).

The question here to ask is, naturally, “Which book is most valuable?” In order to answer this question, we may apply the same Integral economic principle and ask, “To which general level of reality or selfhood does each book pertain?” We can agree that Principia Mathematica corresponds to Smith's intermediate level of mind, for somewhat obvious reasons. We can furthermore agree that The Power of Now corresponds to Smith's infinite level of spirit, again for somewhat obvious reasons. Therefore, because Tolle's work is in accord with the (level of) Self and because Russell's work is in accord with the (level of) mind, this means that the former carries more value or capital than does the latter because it aligns itself with a higher level of reality and selfhood than does the former. We can see, then, that capital, with regard to Integral economy, will emphasize the immaterial much more so than it will emphasize the material – though the material Certainly will not be forgotten or shunned.

For Integral economy, the immaterial will matter significantly more so than the material will matter because Modern economy has already achieved a significant amount with the material. In addition, Modern economy – in achieving so much with the material – has shunned a great deal of the immaterial to such an extent that the world, for the most part, suffers from one massive neurosis. Certainly, Integral economy will operate more so on teaching than on doing, more so in terms of the exchange of ideas as opposed to the exchange of things.

The individuals who are already at an Integral level of comprehension and functionality will be the Andrew Carnegies and J.D. Rockefellers of tomorrow – except these people will not be known for making millions of dollars for themselves, but instead for showing millions of individuals the way. Aside from this emphasis on the significance of the capital marking the immaterial, we may still be wondering just how the material will play a role within Integral economy. Let us now see just what this role will be.

As we have already mentioned, it will be necessary to recognize which perceived material needs are a legitimate economic factor, and which ones simply are not. The most significant thing to ask when considering the legitimacy of such an item is, “What indirect effect will this particular entity have on culture and society as a result of the direct effect it will have on the individual, or group, exposed to it?” If the effect results in a better global culture and society, then we can see the perceived material need as a legitimate economic factor. If the effect does not result in a better global culture and society, then we can see the perceived material need as an illegitimate economic factor. Let us consider several examples, in addition to the ones that we have already seen.

Imagine something such as a videogame in comparison to something such as a horror film. Both of these things are material commodities – and both of them are Certainly perceived needs, since they are not necessarily essential for survival or for health. What purpose does the videogame serve – what use does it have – what will its cultural and societal effect be? Likewise, what purpose does the horror film serve – what use does it have – what will its cultural and societal effect be? Perhaps we can agree that both the videogame and horror film relate in that they serve the general purpose of entertainment. However, we can also agree that perhaps while the general purpose is congruent, the effects of each item will be quite different.

Let us pretend that the videogame is a multiplayer tennis module, while the horror film contains far more gore and violence than it contains content or substance. We can see that the effects of the latter will be far more negative than will be the effects of its counterpart. The videogame will not have any negative cultural or societal effects – no more than a game of hearts or basketball will have. On the other hand, the horror film most likely will have whatever degree of negative cultural and societal effects mainly because of its containing so much negative content. Granted, some horror films may serve a practical purpose while still containing much gore and violence. Perhaps the story aims to inspire its viewers to act more caringly or justly than they already do, or to be grateful for their lives more so than they already are. However, something that clearly does not serve such a practical purpose, while still containing such negativity, is something that is an illegitimate perceived need and thus an unnecessary economic factor.

There is nothing wrong with a perceived need such as the videogame as long as its users do not abuse it (i.e. obsess over it) and as long as they do not place it on a higher pedestal than it inherently is or deserves (i.e. consider it as having or deserving the same status as, say, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality). The purpose of the videogame is for entertainment. Moreover, the kind of entertainment that this item serves is relatively more advanced or sophisticated than is the kind of entertainment that a game of cards serves. Aside from this particular instance with regard to our considering the role and significance of material capital in Integral economy, let us examine yet another example again involving the discernment between a legitimate perceived material need and an illegitimate one.

Consider the economic status of two kinds of automobile – a Prias in comparison to an SUV. Let us ask ourselves again, “What indirect effect will each particular entity have on culture and society as a result of the direct effect it will have on the individual, or group, exposed to it?” Certainly, an automobile is a legitimate perceived material need, for the sake of more efficient transportation. However, perhaps some automobiles are far more legitimate economic factors than are other automobiles. Perhaps the Prias is far more legitimate than is the SUV; perhaps it is the other way around. In order to decipher a) if one is more legitimate than the other is and b) which one falls under this category, let us attempt to see what cultural and societal effects the Prias will have and what cultural and societal effects the SUV will have.

First, we can see that the Prias is more fuel-efficient than the SUV is. Second, we can see that perhaps the Prias is more pragmatically symbolic than the SUV is. What we mean by the latter is that the Prias is arguably symbolic of environmental awareness and friendliness. Furthermore, the SUV is arguably symbolic of just the opposite – of environmental ignorance and disregard. Certainly, the environment is important in relation to both culture and society since humanity exists alongside it and depends on it, just as the central nervous system exists alongside the body and depends on it. Now that we have considered the benefits of each automobile, let us instead consider their potential problems.

This time beginning with the SUV, we can likely easily agree that its potential problems are, in fact, significantly more real than they are potential. SUVs hurt the environment far more than they help it. Furthermore, in terms of symbolism, these machines again represent environmental ignorance and disregard as opposed to awareness and friendliness. We can conclude, then, that the Prias is as much more of a legitimate economic factor as it is as much more practical relative to global culture and society than its counterpart is. Overall, we can conclude this section on assessing material capital in Integral economy by applying the principle asking what something's indirect effects will be based on the direct effects it has on the person or group exposed to it. At this point, though, perhaps we may even be skeptical as to why there still will be a material focus at all in Integral economy. Put differently, why concern ourselves over what pertains only to the level of body?

Material Production and Consumption in Integral Economy

In order to justify the continuation of manufacturing and exchanging material entities throughout Integral economy, let us return to the hedonistic life philosophy of Epicurus. For Epicurus, as we know, the best possible life is one that consists of a perfect balance in terms of pleasure. This balance consists of one between all kinds of pleasure, and it consists of one moderating the overall degree of these kinds in order to achieve a sort of “top-of-the-bell-curve” effect. We can adopt Epicurus' life philosophy and apply it to Integral economy. Integral economy will be structured in such a way as to allow for the most pleasurable life possible for each individual. Of course, the meaning of life is not solely to attain pleasure. However, if it is in the power of Integral economy to maximize pleasure for all its citizens, then so be it. Eating fresh chocolate cake it better than is eating stale chocolate cake, just as eating stale chocolate cake is better than is eating nothing at all when one has not eaten for several days.

The proportion of material commodities sold will be in direct accordance with the amount of such to which citizens will expose themselves. The latter may seem like a rather obvious economic fact – but it is still worth considering further in depth. If, for example, the top of the “pleasure bell curve” for most individuals involves consuming alcohol one night per month, then the effect on Integral economy will be twofold. First, Integral economy will sell alcohol in the first place. Second, the amount of alcohol that is sold, and the price for which it sells, will be based on the supply and demand of citizens in accord with their decision to consume it one night per month. Consider a perceived material need in addition to alcohol – say, music.

If, for the majority of citizens, the top of the pleasure bell curve for music involves listening to such at least once per day, then the legitimacy of music as an economic factor will naturally be far higher than will be that of alcohol. Because music in this case is more valuable than is alcohol, this means that its supply and demand will be greater. Therefore, the amount of music sold and the price for which it is sold will be greater than will be the case for alcohol. The significance of Integral economy's dealing with perceived material needs is that the way in which it does so is to be founded on the volitional wisdom of its citizens as opposed to their impulsive submissiveness. We should now distinguish between volitional wisdom and impulsive submissiveness and their relationships to Integral economy and Modern economy, respectively.

Let us begin with what we mean by “impulsive submissiveness.” Impulsive submissiveness connotes what we most likely take “hedonism” to mean. Often, when we hear that a person is a hedonist, we see him or her as succumbing to his or her immediate whims. This individual, for example, smokes cigarettes excessively, drinks alcohol whenever the desire arises, and eats unhealthy food without any regard for its consequences. This particular hedonism, this impulsive submissiveness, is characteristic of Modern economy and especially of the recent 20th century – the Age of Consumerism. Because of this common tendency for the average consumer to give in to his or her impulses without rationally judging whether they in fact amount to the top of the pleasure bell curve, this has resulted in a supply and demand indifferent to or at least far from the way that it ideally ought to be.

Supply and demand ought to be in direct accordance with the top of the pleasure bell curve. As we know, just because dessert is pleasurable does not mean that it is most pleasurable to eat it for every meal of the day. Likewise, just because something such as alcohol is pleasurable does not mean that it is most pleasurable to drink it every night of the week. Yet those individuals victim to impulsive submissiveness do not recognize this philosophic Truth. The economy under such an internal disease has become too distant from what it could and should be – not under impulsive submissiveness but instead under volitional wisdom, the common denominator of Integral economy and of the Integral Era as such. Let us now see what we mean by “volitional wisdom.”

Volitional wisdom is the kind of discerning ability that most philosophers, we may daresay, are so fortunate as to possess. Volitional wisdom is the capacity to know what pleasures and the amount of such allow one to experience the top of the pleasure bell curve. Volitional wisdom is the cornerstone of True hedonism – of philosophic hedonism, namely Epicureanism. Epicurus knows which pleasures are Good and Beautiful and which ones are not at all. Furthermore, he knows how much of these pleasures equate to the golden mean or perfect amount in order to maximize the overall experience. This kind of wisdom is essential for Integral economy because economy in general is meant to be structured along with the top of the pleasure bell curve. An economic system that does not operate in this fashion is by definition inferior to one that instead does. Now that we have distinguished between impulsive submissiveness and volitional wisdom and their respective relationship to Modern and Integral economy, let us see how money for Integral economy will be different from that for Modern economy.

Money in Integral Economy

Money is a constructed symbol meant to indicate how much value or capital something theoretically carries. As we have seen, the value or capital that something carries is determined generally by its use to society, and specifically by to what level it evidently corresponds. Whereas money for Modern economy corresponded, and corresponds, to the Modern definition of capital (as we have already inspected), money for Integral economy will instead align itself with the Integral definition of capital. In order to determine how much value everything will have, it will be necessary first to evaluate everything, meaning each commodity, systematically. During this process, the old value that each commodity previously had will be disregarded entirely and will be reinvented not as pertaining to Modern capital but rather as pertaining to Integral capital.

For example, before Integral economy will be established, all top economists worldwide will meet. Before these individuals discuss any economic matters, though, they will first be Integrally informed – in terms of the fundamentals of Integral as such (AQAL) and in terms of the fundamentals of Integral economy (the purpose of economy, the definition of capital, the method of assessing it) in itself. With all the latter in mind, these people will evaluate each major economic factor and will assign a new value to it, combining rational practicality with holistic insight. In addition, money under Integral economy will be universal.

We have seen the advantage that the European Union has from universalizing its currency with the advent of the Euro. This advantage pertains to a world-state only. Imagine the kind of benefit each world-state, nation-state, state, county, city/town, community, and individual will reap should the Integral world government ensure that there is only one form of currency and that this monetary novelty be used by each person regardless of location or background. Just as a world government is necessary as humanity and Earth becomes more globalized, so universal currency will be imperative for us to adopt and exploit. On the other hand, just as the notion of there being a considerable emphasis on material commodities in Integral economy may have seemed strange, so it may seem unnecessary or unfitting that there should be money in an Integral economic system. In response, let us defend the use of money even during the Integral Era – or at least throughout its first two phases.

Money will be necessary for Integral economy because even if each individual is a responsible economic and moral agent, this does not mean that we should automatically disregard the concepts of value and possession altogether. To disregard value and possession would be to disregard the significance of the individual and of individuality itself, which simply is not Integral. Value and possession will still exist at least throughout the initial establishment of Integral economy, because it will be necessary still to account for practicality. Ideally, value and possession would disappear and everything would be owned by everyone. However, practically speaking, the latter is far less plausible and effective than is keeping value and possession while not obsessing over them. The problem lies within the obsession over value and possession – not within the existence of value and possession in themselves. It will be necessary, though, for us to regard the economy not nearly as seriously as a number of humans do now.

In other words, it will be necessary that we regard the economy in much more of a carefree and playful lens as opposed to such a competitive and serious one. The economy is meant to be a game in which everyone has fun. As of today, though, the economy is a “game” in which only a select few “have fun.” With the economy as of today, the select few dominating this game compulsively hoard all the “points” (money) and do not allow anyone else to experience the joy of being able to spend such on new things. The purpose of money, after all, is not to save it – but is rather to spend it. An economy in which a small percentage of individuals save far more than they spend is not only morally wrong, but it is also economically erroneous.

Let us think of the economy as a gigantic system of tubes filled with marbles. These tubes are structured in all kinds of shapes and sizes in conjunction with each other. Throughout each tube are a number of containers, which can be opened or closed depending on the decision of whoever controls them. The purpose of this relatively strange contraption is to allow the marbles to move freely and fluently throughout the tubes, to create the spectacular image of a device independently sustaining itself and continuing to operate because the marbles themselves continue to move from section to section. However, in contradiction to this purpose, a significant number of the containers are opened far less frequently than would allow all the marbles to move as optimally as possible. When these containers remain shut, some number of marbles buildup behind it, which eventually causes a number of other areas to become inactive. Perhaps we have some grasp as to what this analogy signifies in relation to the economy and its purpose.

The entire structure represents the economy. Each tube represents a particular area of profession. The marbles represent money. The containers represent each individual as a member the economy. Ideally, the marbles would flow from one tube to another and not buildup and cause everything behind them to stack and remain static. However, as we can see with the current economic state, the marbles are stacking and remaining static. The economy is not nearly as fluent as it could and should be. If each individual allowed the flow of capital to stay optimal and natural, then there would be no need for such an economic revision. Yet the latter clearly is not the case.

How should the rich, today, atone themselves and bring the economy closer to its ideal condition? Sheer spending is not necessarily the answer. If Bill Gates were to spend all of his assets on new houses, cars, boats, planes, and so forth, then this would likely create more (environmental) problems than it would create (economic) solutions. The best decision someone such as Gates can make is to give a significant portion of his fortune away to charity. Charity is a practical option because it intends to use the money it receives to fix social problems that would not be fixed otherwise. The question looming, of course, is, “How much money should Gates etc. donate to charity?”

This question invites us to question further as far as what an ideal financial living is. How much monetary wealth is enough? Without a doubt, the monetary wealth that Gates has is far more than enough. Perhaps we can incorporate the principle of the golden mean into this inquiry and see that the optimal amount of monetary wealth lies within the mean between the extremes of “Absolute richness” and “Absolute poverty.” It is far more difficult to convey just what this mean is in terms of numbers and names; instead, the task lies within the individual to determine whether his or her monetary wealth does in fact correspond to such.

Naturally, this person must be centered morally at least on Green – for we have seen the economic and social effects of individuals who possess a relatively great deal of monetary wealth but who are centered morally below Green. Someone who is centered morally at least on Green, though, is capable of knowing and understanding, and grasping to some satisfactory extent, what the mean is. One objection to the significance of this mean, though, might be that it is impossible for everyone to possess this same amount of monetary wealth. Let us now see why it Certainly is not impossible for everyone to possess the same amount of monetary wealth itself corresponding to the optimal, golden mean of such.

Certainly, some nations are conventionally wealthier than other nations are – their GDA per capita is greater. Let us imagine that nation X is significantly wealthier, from a Modern economic standpoint, than is nation Y. Let us represent the sum of nation X's overall wealth with the number 1,000 and let us represent the sum of nation Y's overall wealth with the number 500. Let us imagine that both nation X and nation Y have 250 citizens. If we were to divide the overall wealth of each nation so that each citizen was to possess an equal amount of such, then we can agree that each citizen of nation X would have 4-wealth while each citizen of nation Y would have 2-wealth. In this sense, each citizen of nation X is twice as wealthy as is each citizen of nation Y.

Pretend, however, that we were to introduce yet another country – nation Z. Nation Z, too, has 250 citizens, except its overall wealth instead equates to 2,000. We can see that each citizen of this particular nation has not 2-wealth, and not 4-wealth, but rather has 8-wealth.

In addition, pretend that the golden mean of monetary wealth just happens to be 8. Therefore, nation Z is an optimal place in which to live because each citizen possesses this perfect amount.

The purpose of this thought experiment is to demonstrate the plausibility of a country's allowing each citizen to be optimally wealthy. The deciding factor of this discussion is whether there can be a limit as to how much overall wealth a country as such can have. Let us agree that wealth is attained through industry. Implicitly, then, the theoretical limit to how much wealth a country can have is determined by the theoretical limit of the amount of industry its citizens collectively can do. Therefore, the more appropriate question for us to ask is, “Is there a limit as to how hard an individual can work?” Of course, there must be some limit as to how hard an individual can work. However, this limit is likely far greater than most people conceive of it to be. Going further, though, we may ask ourselves yet another question implicitly connected to the one we have just asked.

First, however, let us agree that how hard someone works, how industrious he or she can be, is itself determined by how motivated he or she is. Again, is there is a limit to how motivated an individual can be? Granted, there must be some limit, by virtue of nature. Still, this limit is likely far greater than we might suspect it to be. Try to grasp how motivated someone such as Benjamin Franklin was for life in general. Acknowledge all that humanity has achieved ever since the beginning of civilization. Certainly, some individuals must have been extremely motivated in order for us to advance from Mesopotamia to where we are today and to where we are likely headed. Imagine a world in which every person is as motivated as Franklin was. How much more likely would it be for each individual to possess the mean of monetary wealth given the latter is the case? Doubtless, the possibility of our race and namely the economy achieving such an optimal state is directly contingent on how motivated each person is to achieve it. Some readers may still object and assert that economic discrepancy is essential for anyone at all to be wealthy. Let us now see why this objection, too, is false.

The premise for this particular objection has to do with the notion, “There is no black without white…no Good without evil…” Similarly, apparently we cannot have wealth without simultaneously having poverty. The fallacy of this objection stems from the fallacy believing equal and optimal distribution of wealth to be utterly impossible. Yet we have already seen why equal and optimal distribution of wealth, even without governmental regulation, is possible given that everyone is motivated enough to work hard enough to achieve such wealth. In addition to this objection, however, perhaps readers may question how Integral economy will even be able to sustain itself. After all, the human population continues to increase exponentially – thus increasing consumption, hence decreasing the availability of natural resources and deteriorating the quality of the natural environment in general. With the latter in mind, let us see how and why Integral economy will be perfectly sustainable and in harmony with the environment around it.

Environmental Sustainability with Integral Economy

First, Integral economy will acknowledge that the environment always takes precedence over the economy. In other words, the environment is more important than is the economy because ultimately, the economy – for the most part, at least – depends on the environment. Consider all the natural resources on which the economy depends. From where do all these resources come? These resources come from nothing other than the environment. Without the environment, not only would the economy be impossible, but (human) life in general would be impossible, too. Because of the importance of the environment and the precedence it takes over the economy, this means that the economy will operate allowing the environment to sustain itself and flourish – and not vice-versa.

The question, “How many trees do we need in order to have enough wood for the economy?” in this case is incorrect. Rather, the correct question will be, “How many trees can the economy consume while still allowing the environment to sustain itself and flourish?” In order to understand this concept better, consider the following analogy. A couple wishes to stay together throughout graduate school because they know that they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. Therefore, in deciding which schools to attend, they will not necessarily go to the ones that would otherwise be their top choices. Instead, the two will go to the one a) to which both have been accepted and b) that is their top choice out of all the others to which both have been accepted. In this scenario, the dictating factor for their decisions is not what they would have chosen had they not been in a relationship. The dictating factor is what they would choose to keep them in such a relationship. We can regard the economy and its relationship to the environment in a similar lens.

For this reason, economists – namely those leaders belonging to the Department of Collective Objective Affairs – will consult with ecologists – namely those leaders belonging to the Department of Individual Objective Affairs – in order to make economic decisions. The ecologists will specialize in studying the environment as a singular unit that transcends all of its parts. This unit is essential to understand in order to understand the state the economy is in and the direction that it is headed, in addition to the direction that it ought to be headed. In addition to the above, the economy will also need to consider the role of the human population size apropos the effect that the economy will have on the environment.

As experts have theorized, the largest human population that would still allow the environment to sustain itself and flourish is roughly one billion. Currently, the human population is nearly seven billion. In order to deal with this population problem, parents in countries that proportionately contradict the ideal world population must be limited to having a set number of children. An example of a country that already employs this policy is China. Once population is sufficiently reduced – which will take however many years – individuals will have the responsibility of having a number of children, e.g. two, that would still allow for a population of no more than roughly one billion. Even with a population of one billion, though, we may still be wondering how the economy will be able to allow the environment still to sustain itself and flourish.

An example of something that contributes to this optimal sustainability is vertical farming. Vertical farming is a method of agriculture that grows crops inside relatively tall buildings. The purpose of this method is to increase the number of crops grown while reducing the amount of space (horizontally speaking, that is) needed to contain them. Vertical farming exemplifies a creative solution to a problem that previously did not have one. We could take the general concept of vertical farming and apply it to a number of other natural resources.

For instance, we could build a number of skyscrapers instead devoted to “vertical lumber.” With the creative method, we can take any given environmental problem, resulting from a particular natural resource that is a major economic factor, and conceive of a way to address it effectively. Advancement in scientific research will be a necessary complement to all this. With science, we can potentially fix all environmental-economic issues by finding a way to maintain the economy along with the environment on which it depends.

As was the case for Integral government leader intelligence tests, we need not explicate on these matters very specifically. As long as the economy during the Integral Era is aided by holistic scientific research and as long as the economy recognizes the importance of the environment, then we have nothing about which to be concerned. Now that we have addressed all these potential objections to the Integral economy we have just described and explained, let us take time to visualize how awesome such a system will be once it has been successfully established and once it is thoroughly flourishing.

The Beauty and Future of Integral Economy

We have seen that the economy is “the Kosmic system in which each soul expresses itself via its respective persona, or circumstances, in order to allow for the greatest harmony and communion with every other soul.” When we regard this system esoterically rather than exoterically (just as we could do the same for religion), then we are able to acknowledge how awesome it is and the potential it surely has to become. Imagine an economy in which every member practices the career that is the most Good, Beautiful, and True expression of his or her soul and respective Destiny. Imagine each individual is as motivated as the most successful and accomplished individuals throughout history have been. Imagine that the quality of living for each person, each family, each community, each town/city, each county, each nation-state, and each world-state continues to augment gradually throughout time. Imagine how incredible this potential reality actually will be.

As a different method of attempting to grasp the splendor of such a reality, let us embrace the following analogy. On a Beautiful, sunny summer day, a group of individuals gathers together to play a game of, say, volleyball. The group decides not to play for the sake of winning, and so they do not keep score at all. Instead, these people simply play for the sake of playing. Each member is quite skilled at this particular sport and, in addition to this, he or she is an exceptional teammate. The group continues to play amidst the quasi-celestial scenery, appreciating the autonomy, the communion, the toil, and the fun. Let us perceive Integral economy in tandem with the significance of this analogy.

Integral economy will be an epic game, many more times greater in measure, in terms of sheer awesomeness, than the described game of volleyball. This system will allow each persona to become its respective soul through its daily practices and through its lifelong vocation. Because each individual will experience Fulfillment, to whatever degree, this will elevate the collective level of Happiness throughout humanity to an extent that we likely could never have imagined – that is, until now, now that we have been introduced to the Integral paradigm and the Vision naturally accompanying such remarkable novelty. At this point, we may ask ourselves, “Given all that we can expect and prescribe for Integral economy, what can we imagine the relatively distant future to be for humanity – say, 500 years from now?”

Although we cannot know precisely what the future namely 500 years from now will be, we can definitely speculate with some confidence as to what will be the case. Likely, the sum of human wealth will continue to increase exponentially, as it has been doing ever since the beginning of economy. During the time of Mesopotamia, for instance, was the sum of human wealth – at least pertaining to that particular group – more or less than it is today? We can agree that the answer is less. During the time of Modernity, between the 17th and 19th centuries, was the sum of human wealth more or less than it is today? Again, we can agree that the answer is less. Human wealth continues to expand and improve as time passes and evolution progresses.

The quality of living that was reality for even royalty three thousand years ago is arguably inferior to the quality of living that the middle class experiences in today's context. Based on statistical probability, we can agree that the quality of living for each person 500 years from now will be so significantly higher than is the case today that to imagine it or even attempt to grasp its inevitable actuality is nothing less than astonishing – at least for someone capable of understanding and appreciating such exponential improvement. In addition to the quality of living continuing to expand and improve exponentially 500 years from now, we can imagine that the diversity and availability of professions will have evolved in equal accord.

We have already seen that profession as such has evolved since the beginning of economic activity. “Profession” began with the division of hunters and gatherers. Today, there is such an array of professional options that to claim that there will not be an even greater number 500 years from now is more fallacious than it is qualified. Even if the number of professions does not (significantly) amplify, we can Certainly agree that the kinds of profession will be far different from what we see today. By virtue of evolution, profession as such will continue to change and differentiate itself. In addition to all the latter, we can furthermore agree that human activity will no longer remain exclusive to this planet alone.

Again, based at least on statistical probability in terms of technological improvement, we can infer that our race will be able to venture well beyond this solar system and to visit other sentient planets in other distant areas in space light-years away. We can perceive this likely fact macrocosmically in relation to what has been the case throughout the evolution of economy and the rate of globalization. Put differently, we can acknowledge that – to begin – 7,000 years ago, the greatest economic and social community extended no further than the boundaries of each particular civilization and at best, to the immediate civilizations adjacent to it. Civilizations, however, eventually merged to become empires, and so the communal boundaries expanded in accordance with this particular territorial expansion.

Empires, later, discovered civilizations existing across entire continents. Thus, the maximum economic and social community extended past civilizations and empires, past regions and continents, thus becoming multicontinental. Still, though, the multicontinental community evolved to become the global community, beginning in the 19th century and solidifying in the 20th century. This holonic economic and social evolution, though, does not merely end with globalization – for we can see globalization microcosmically just as we can regard “regionalization,” and “continentalization,” and “multicontinentalization.” Following these “izations,” the next necessary holonic step is for humanity to experience “multi- solar system- ization,” which will entail contact between our race and this planet and other races existing on other planets.

As we can guess, the next step after multi- solar system- ization is the ization of whatever major holonic level comes after solar systems. Astronomers speculate that this next level encompasses galaxies, but perhaps there is something or somethings in between, of which we are not yet aware. The point we are making, nonetheless, is that the economy and exchange of any kind will, 500 years from now, very likely involve contact with “alien” species in different solar systems, at least. Having considered all this, we may now conclude this examination of Integral economy.

Conclusion

We began this inquiry by recognizing the purpose of economy in the first place, which is to allow for the exchange of commodities. Commodities, in this case, can be both material and immaterial, though they have kept to the former much more so than they have to the latter. We reviewed all major economies preceding that which corresponds to the Turquoise meme (Red, Amber, Orange, and Green economy). With regard to Integral economy itself, we have seen that capital will be determined by how useful something is to culture and society, but more specifically, by to what level that thing – material or immaterial – most generally corresponds.

People will recognize that “economy” is the system allowing each persona to express its soul via its most practical function relative to global culture and society. With Integral economy, everyone will experience Fulfillment – everyone will be Happy. With Integral economy, the sum of human wealth will continue to improve exponentially throughout time. Furthermore, with Integral economy, professions will continue to evolve and diversify. Moreover, contact with races from different solar systems will most likely ensue. Let us now inspect the third, final, and perhaps most significant major component of Integral Utopia and of the Integral Era in general: Integral education.