SWIMME: Could you say a bit more about what you mean by "constructing the habitats"?

BECK: Well, when I talk about habitats, I mean the social, political, and economic habitats or life conditions that will facilitate new levels of psychological emergence in individuals and cultures. The system of Spiral Dynamics uses the image of a spiral to describe the underlying developmental process through which individuals and cultures progress, with each upward turn representing a meme—the worldviews or value systems within us that form in response to changing life conditions. [For more information about Spiral Dynamics, see www.wie.org/spiraldynamics] My late colleague Clare Graves identified eight memes or levels of development through which both individuals and whole societies pass, and we use colors to differentiate these stages in the Spiral Dynamics model. These fundamental core patterns, although expressed in different ways in various cultures and subcultures, are common themes across humanity, all over the planet. And only by understanding these deeper value-system currents does it become possible to develop more realistic big-picture views and craft practical and appropriate solutions to real problems.

The idea would be that we gently, if possible, and sometimes with tough love when necessary, assist humans to emerge through these layers and levels. A good example of how this can work would be Singapore, where they built a pretty rigid authoritarian system (blue), which most of us would see as unnecessarily punitive. But that's how those folks are dealing with their life conditions, which include five volatile ethnic groups (purple-red) that need that structure. And now they need to move to the next level and create a more scientific, rational system (orange)—in other words, create "Singapore, Inc." and begin to compete more openly in the global economy. So you can begin to see how, as the life conditions problems are solved at one level, the next political/social/economic package becomes necessary, which then makes possible a movement to the next level. And because different cultures are at different levels on the spiral, there are different futures for different folks. What's next for Singapore would be something that's history for us. And the future of the third world will have to be second world Singapore-type authority before either first world autonomy or postmodern sensitivity become an option.

SENGE: I agree strongly with what both Don and Brian have said. And I think what I would focus on is that we have to recognize the crisis as collective. For example, there's not a single individual on the planet who could eliminate a species, if he or she tried. And yet, collectively, we do a splendid job of that, without even making the slightest effort. The collective is how our actions are mediated through the network of institutions that has come to span the globe. It's very important to keep remembering that this crisis is not the result of individual action; it's the result of collective action. So the very first step in thinking about what sort of responses are commensurate with the nature of the crisis is to see that the responses must also be collective.

COHEN: And what form would you see those collective responses taking?

SENGE: Well, while I don't think it's sufficient to say that big corporations are the key, I do think that they are an important element, and perhaps the highest leverage element. The reason I say that is twofold. Firstly, they span boundaries in ways that nations don't. The nation-state is becoming increasingly anachronistic in the world today. I mean, even crime is global, let alone the more important dynamics at work in the world. And the institution that comes the closest to spanning boundaries is the large multinational corporation. Secondly, it's still growing, as a totality, and is, in some sense, less constrained than states or governmental institutions. The problem is, of course, that the traditional, formal role of the multinational corporation is to make money—that's all it has been held accountable for officially. It has no history of having to have any responsibility at this scale, commensurate with its impact. But what multinational corporations can do is set standards. The quality management revolution has had a huge impact on business around the world, but it's really because a small number of companies said, "This is the standard that we're going to meet, and everyone else has to meet it." I could easily imagine developing the capacity to consciously set standards on the social and environmental impact of probably twenty major multinational corporations, and it would be very hard for smaller organizations to ignore those standards.

So once again, I don't think multinationals are sufficient in and of themselves—please don't mishear me. But in terms of responding to our crisis, the key elements are awareness and capacity. I really believe we all, individually, have an intrinsic sense of responsibility. For example, we all feel a natural sense of responsibility for kids, even if they're not our own—that's biological. But we don't have that same sense of responsibility at the level on which our actions are having an effect. So I think if we're looking at building our capacity to respond to this crisis, we need to access the collective institutional capacity to be aware, and then access our natural intrinsic sense of responsibility.

COHEN: Now I'd like to go into some of the questions I mentioned earlier. In light of everything you've all just laid out, it's obvious that in order to meet this crisis, human beings will have to evolve to a higher level of consciousness and a deeper level of maturity. Do you think that the religious traditions in their current forms are equipped to help us recognize, come to terms with, and respond to the dramatic nature of the changing life conditions that we're in the midst of?

SWIMME: Well, firstly, I think that the religious traditions were, generally speaking, set up to accomplish things that were different than what this crisis is demanding. So for the most part, they are not focused on this, and most of them don't recognize the crisis even now, in the terms in which one would want it to be recognized. But they just were not designed for that; they weren't about this crisis. This is new; it's never happened in the history of the world.

At the same time, there are resources within all of the religious traditions that are, I think, essential for our moment. It's not as if we can just throw them over. I think they do provide crucial insights and practices. But they have to be, in a certain sense, shaped and transformed to be appropriate.

BECK: I agree, and I think the question is: What level of religious system are we talking about? I think this is also what Brian was implying. Because when you say "religion," I tend to think in terms of the levels of development or memes out of which those religions arose. For example, many of the great traditions arose out of a mythic, absolutist, authoritarian meme (blue). And maybe, because of very conservative elements, some of them will never be able to see this big picture and therefore will not be able to change. Yet, they are very important because they help people and cultures to make a particular developmental shift, out of a lower level (egocentric or red) into a higher level (absolutist or blue). They understand that transition better than anybody, but they are not going to understand anything beyond that. So for example, some of these conservative religious systems are clearly addressing the needs of a lot of people, even Americans, especially many coming out of so-called minority communities. And if we can see the value of that, and at the same time say to those in these traditions, "Beware of becoming a closed system," then we've done ourselves a great favor. So how we understand the verticality or developmental importance of these expressions of religion, or spirituality, is the key element.

SENGE: What's the word you're using, Don, "verticality"?

BECK: Yes. When I say "understand the verticality," I mean, see the importance of different spiritual forms at different stages of development, rather than what many people do, which is to discredit earlier forms. The shift that we need to bring about is from embracing a single expression of religion and spirituality to recognizing the evolutionary flow of religious experiences. If we can do this, I think the whole spiritual community can play a major role in the kind of transformation that is needed.

SWIMME: Right. If we can bring forth the central ideas from each tradition that are helpful, it would really be an amazing contribution to the transformation we're in. I love the way Don put it, that some of these traditions are absolute experts at various aspects of the developmental transitions that are required. If we can bring those into play in our current context, it could be very powerful.

COHEN: Yes. And it is indeed enlightening when one recognizes that human emotional, psychological, and spiritual evolution is part of a vast, complex developmental process—a process that we are all, individually and collectively, participating in. The fact that the religious traditions have played such a pivotal role in that process is foundational in looking into the question of how the past and present are going to meet the future.

Peter, I'm curious what your response to this question would be because with regard to what you were saying earlier, it occurred to me that the religious institutions span even greater boundaries than a lot of the multinational institutions that you were speaking about.

SENGE: That's absolutely right.

COHEN: So, they are potentially, I suppose, in a position to galvanize an enormous percentage of humanity to respond to this crisis, if they were predisposed to do so.

SENGE: That's a very good point. But I think it's going to be very difficult. Institutions are very much bound up in their history. And at least the major traditions we probably all think of when we say "boundary-spanning major global religious institutions," with maybe to some degree the exception of Buddhism, historically were certainly not global in their thinking.

Their roots are, to a high degree, tribal. Islam is probably the most compelling example of this. Muhammad, for instance, did a great deal to teach women, and bringing women in as teachers was one of his major agendas. But within a hundred years of his death, the tribal leaders, who inherited his teachings, had made sure to eliminate that practice in no uncertain terms. And that's pretty much the case with most contemporary religions: they have very strong tribal and ethnic identities.

So for me, the more relevant issue today is the deinstitutionalizing of religion. In all kinds of different settings, people are having what you would call "religious experience"—connections, deep connections with one another, deep connections with life, deep connections with the transcendent—but not in a religious context! And I think that's really important. I think there's going to be a new religious sensibility that develops in the world—just as I believe that there will be a new science—and it will escape the limitations of religious institutions.