Brilliant. But ... One marvels at the scientific knowledge humans have obtained. Our technological prowess links us around the planet through instant communication, heals horrific injury, fabricates new elements, and speeds us toward the stars. Anything seems possible. Clearly this scientific understanding has generated astonishing human capacity to manipulate our environments. The resulting technologies have made us the dominant species on the planet. We seem to do, make, take whatever we want, whatever increases our comforts and control.

Nonetheless, we continually fail to create societies that represent our professed values or to avoid damaging the biosphere to which we belong and upon which we depend. What is it we do not understand? Are we inherently deficient in some aspect of intelligence? Or are we somehow woefully ignorant about 'how the world actually works?'

Standard Knowledge -- The World is Mechanical: Our modern scientific understanding of reality, of how things are composed and events happen, has been based upon predictable cause and effect, on the deterministic "Laws of Physics." The descriptive, explanatory, and practical power of this science gave us a fundamentally mechanistic worldview. Such a logic of 'how the world works' led to the conclusion that every form and event can be reduced to material substances and predictable sequences. Consequently, there can be no such phenomena as "purpose" that guides events. Autonomous agency has no place in this view of cause and effect, not even "free will" in humans, because that would be an unpredictable causal 'force.' Certainly, notions of willful spirits, demons, gods or goddesses, are clearly impossible. Thus, archaic mythological imagination of 'spiritual agency' has been dismissed as delusion or the 'bad science' of our ignorant predecessors. That is, the world is entirely a manifestation of the properties of atoms and molecules, of the predictable ways these interact and combine. As such, given enough knowledge of material science, we should be able to fully analyze, explain, and potentially control all phenomena, all things and events. There is no ultimate mystery, nothing sacred about our existence, only practical problems 'to be solved.' This worldview seems logical and has proved most practical. Except that it has not enabled us to control either our selves or our human systems, nor to prevent them from betraying our professed values and driving the biosphere toward collapse.

New Knowledge -- The World is Self-Organizing: Though little known to the vast majority of us, in recent decades scientific research has produced a profound challenge to these deterministic assumptions about causality, thus to our mechanistic worldview. What is most broadly termed "complex systems science" examines how the various parts of systems interact and what the consequences are. This study of system dynamics has led to startling results. Some system dynamics are predictably causal, as in mechanical ones. But the category of "complex adaptive systems" (CAS) are not. This type of system has been factually shown to self-organize and self-direct its own activities in un-predictable ways. These self-induced actions can adapt the system to changes within and around it, thus promoting its continued existence into the future. CAS can manifest purposeful selective behavior that cannot be causally predicted from preceding conditions, nor fully analyzed and explained after the fact.

Such systems are most familiar in biology, from individual cells to animals. It is easy to perceive that a rabbit changes its behavior unpredictably to avoid being eaten by a fox, and that the fox acts selectively to try to catch the rabbit. But large scale CAS, such as local ecologies, human societies, and economies, demonstrate the same self-organizing, self-adapting dynamics without being discrete biological entities. For an introduction to this science you can check out Complexity Labs ( and The Santa Fe Institute .

In short, complex systems science uses the analytical tools of quantitative methodology to reveal that systems can order and direct themselves for the purpose of promoting their future existence. CAS selectively govern and change their forms in unpredictable ways that express autonomous agency. Some form of "free will" not only manifests in the CAS of humans, but in all animals and even collective societies. Consequently, such systems that do not 'behave' according to predictably deterministic principles cannot be directly controlled. Further, their self-maintaining operations are subject to disruption that can result in their sudden transformation or even complete collapse. If one system's activity disrupts that of another, the self-maintaining agency of the latter can fail, consequently causing others to fail, in what is termed "cascading failure." That is what is now happening to the ecological systems of the biosphere and even climate systems.

Understanding how system agency arises within specific systems from feedback networks, then interacts with feedback from agency in other systems, reveals the self-regulating networks of meta-system agency in larger scale systems, such as ecologies, cities, and economies. Flows of activity withing a system form feedback links among its parts, somehow driving self-organization. Subsequently, feedback networks form between systems as they interact with each other -- all in an unimaginably complex, instantaneously concurrent flow of network activity. Somewhere within the partly chaotic interactions of feedback flows, selective agency arises to influence a system's form and behavior, then arises again from the interactions of multiple systems. The biosphere is a meta-system of such interdependently interacting systems, constantly adapting to each others' adaptive behaviors. Overall self-regulation emerges from this interdependent interactivity which sustains relative continuity by forming limits or constraints on how subsystems 'behave' with the larger network. Each must accommodate to others, finding its "ecological niche," so as to support the whole while preserving its own existence. The success of each sub-system depends upon the self-regulation of the larger one it becomes part of.

Thus, what appears to be mere competition functions as cooperation. CAS systems are not "billiard balls" bouncing off of each other. They are more like players on a soccer field. Complexity at the level of the biosphere cannot arise or be maintained by mere mechanical processes alone. The domain of human systems arises similarly. Both Nature and society are far more than 'mere machinery.' The world is 'creaturely.' According to our dominant worldview, this is not supposed to be possible.

However, the science also reveals how human systems become non-responsive to feedback from natural ones. Humans systems empowered by technology can evade the constraints ecosystems would otherwise impose upon human behaviors -- at least for some period of time. And that time is running out.

Stunning Implications -- We Don't Understand The World: Why does the science of self-organizing, self-directing systems that manifest autonomous agency matter? Because it reveals a fundamental ignorance in our general scientific understanding of reality. Currently, our worldview does not enable us to perceive how system agency is the driving force of Life it self. Without an understanding of how agency in systems creates, maintains, and adapts them, we cannot comprehend how even our own human systems function, much less how these impact the self-sustaining dynamics of the biosphere. Systems science has revealed a crucial, in deed catastrophic, 'missing link' in our knowledge of 'how the world actually works.'

Similar to how individual animals learn and make selective decisions in ways that promote their survival, larger scale systems such as ecosystems, societies, and nation states act adaptively. But because this self-organizing and adaptive behavior must necessarily be unpredictable, it emerges from considerably instability. Selective agency simply cannot arise from predetermining factors. This condition turns our to be dynamically logical. By definition, agency must emerge from un-certainty, from un-decidedness among multiple potential states. Thus the dynamical activity of feedback and system response that generate selective behavior must involve disorder. Even the generation of self-organization that maintains relatively similar behavior over time is a selective act that continually emerges from instability, from moment to the moment. That makes the maintenance of relative continuity over time all the more astonishing. This fundamental role of disorder and unpredictability in CAS behavior, whether to 'maintain the status quo' organization of a system or to change it for the purpose of continued existence, reveals why we cannot predict CAS behavior accurately, nor directly access and manipulate their self-organizing operations.

So system agency must enable habitual behavior as well as orchestrate adaptive departures from it. An example is how your body maintains a certain normal temperature, yet also must be flexible enough to respond to unexpected threats and disruptions by raising its temperature to fight infection. That tension between consistent self-organizing and the capacity to abruptly re-self-organize in response to changes inside or outside the system is both a strength and a weakness. Changes within a system or its environment might result in responses from system agency that maintain its continuity, or bring about a transformation, or result in organizational failure leading to collapse. While we can influence this range of system behaviors, seldom can we do so with much certainty about subsequent responses.

Thus a complex system such as a society or nation state can operate for an extended period in a relatively consistent or characteristic manner. But, when impacted by some disruption, it might undergo an abrupt transformation to a new order, as in the case of shifts from autocratic to democratic government, or fragment into the dissolution of civil war. In this sense, systems can 'change the character' of their self-organizing agency. Changes in the character of self-organizing agency in a society can be relatively subtle, as in when one or another political party takes power through an election (Democrats to Republicans). Or it can be more dramatic, as in a shift from democratic to fascist. Distinguishing characteristics of self-organizing agency are familiarly in the the contrasting behaviors of various "corporate cultures," individual personalities, and social groups.

This 'character of agency' is evident in natural systems as well. Each species manifests a characteristic type of self-organizing, self-adaptive agency. Beavers, as a CAS, express system agency in particular ways. Orca whales have different characteristic modes of self-organizing and self-sustaining their continued existence. Yet Orcas in some regions of the planet express different modes of their agency by hunting different prey using different methods. Whole ecosystems, from deserts to alpine meadows, self-organize and adapt to changes characteristically, through the interactions of their constituent subsystems (plant and animal species) giving the whole its own agency.

There is even an element of agency in climate systems. Over time, interactions of the Earth's "geospheres" has led to self-organizing interdependencies. Aspects of what are termed the lithosphere ('rock realm'), hydrosphere ('water realm'), cryosphere ('ice realm'), atmosphere ('air realm'), and the biosphere ('life realm') have influenced each other to generate a complex system manifesting as periods of relative consistency. The weather is unpredictably variable but manifests characteristic patterns over larger spans of time, as in monsoon cycles. The self-regulation of this vast global set of interacting elements over the last 11,000 years has manifested the characteristics represented by the term "Holocene." However, the green house gas emissions of human industrial systems have now so disrupted this network of self-regulating relationships that climate systems are becoming chaotic. The Holocene, whose characteristic self-organization nurtured human evolution, is no more. We now live in what is termed the "Anthropocene"--a geological age dominated by the disruptions of human systems.

Again, this notion of agency in complex adaptive systems is a profound challenge to our standard worldview because it shows how such systems cannot be predicted nor directly controlled, yet can be readily effected by external disruptions that lead to unpredictable changes in behavior or catastrophic failure. Our ignorance of this fundamental aspect of reality not only 'disconnects' our awareness from natural systems. It also renders us incapable of understanding how our own human systems have 'wills of their own' and thus are not, in fact, 'under our command.' They are self-adapting 'forces unto themselves.' We humans have become subordinated to the self-asserting agencies of the systems we created--systems of competitive hierarchy and exploitation, leveraged by technology and fossil fuels, that do not respond to the self-regulating feedback flows of the biosphere. Thus, this 'missing link' in our understanding blinds us to how our own survival depends upon using our agency to promote that of the biosphere's -- by resisting the 'rogue' agency of our human systems. We are woefully ignorant about 'how the world actually works' -- according to our own science.

Ancient References -- The World is Spiritually Animated: The basic concept of self-organizing, self-adaptive agency in complex systems has an intriguing corollary in pre-modern or archaic human worldviews. The term "animism" indicates a cultural attitude in which humans regard the natural world as 'animated by spirits or souls.' Archaic human cultures are thought to have been almost universally animistic. From this perspective, human societies exist as 'agents in an extended field of non-human agency.' Thus, it is not only humans who direct their behaviors with purpose and express particular character, but other species, plants, ecosystems, even 'forces of nature' such as wind and rivers. Thus there is beaver spirit/agency and wind spirit/agency. Cultures deemed to have a "theistic" aspect, conceive of gods and goddesses which represent a more abstracted characterization, or personification, of 'willful agency at work in the world.' These can stand for the animating principle of a particular aspect of existence, as in the Greek goddess of the Earth, Gaia. Or, they can represent characteristics of animating agency related to particular behaviors, such as Aphrodite, goddess of love, sex, and delight.

These "personifications" of system agency in natural systems, and of more abstract archetypal behaviors that overtly mirror human character, emphasize their autonomy and offer little sense of how humans might control them. Rather, by telling stories that characterize ways systems tend to behave, some guidance is provided on how we might interact with them, when they are dangerous, or when potentially helpful to humans. In all of this, there is a sense that human behaviors are inevitably limited by the influence of these 'spiritual agents.' To offend or neglect them is to risk some sort of "blow back."

This 'spiritual imagination,' expressed variously through a great diversity of cultural mythologies, orients human societies toward the self-organizing, self-directing character of both natural and human systems. The spirits and souls of natural systems alert humans to how these have their own self-sustaining agency. The abstract gods and goddesses can serve as 'mirrors' of how human behaviors take on particular 'archetypal character.' This perspective enables humans to interact with their environments, and each other, through a symbolic psychology of complex system agency. The variously imagined 'spiritual agents' become the 'voices' of non-human systems. This symbolic representation of non-human agency 'links' human understanding into the overall self-regulating feedback networks of Nature.

One can note this attitude in the ways indigenous peoples speak about non-human systems as "all our relations," as if these were somehow 'people' one needed to respect, care for, and even be wary of offending. It links them to the non-human world in an intimate, emotionally compelling manner that produces a meaning-enhancing and even cautionary 'sense of the sacred.' In so doing, it can, in some instances, assist them to avoid disrupting their environments in ways that might threaten their own survival. Through such spiritual imagination, cultures seem to be aware of a crucial aspect of reality to which our modern society is effectively blind -- or at least has been, until the emergence of complex systems science.

The word religion actually derives from the Latin religio, translated as obligation, bond, reverence, and perhaps from religare, for 'to bind.' This derivation suggests that the archaic mythological imagination of 'spiritual agents' formed the basis of religious practices. That is, spiritual symbolism informed the religious acts of formalized rites and rituals. These then served to 'bond' or 'bind' human behavior into the overall self-regulation of the biosphere's feedback networks. Such a worldview can impose on human systems an 'obligation' to respect, even 'hold sacred,' the life creating, life sustaining, life adapting correspondence of interdependent system agencies. That is, spiritual imagination assisted societies to impose constraints upon the behavior of human systems so that these would be less disruptive to natural ones. Astonishingly, the ancients did not have systems science, yet they perceived and represented its essential concepts of agency in both natural and human systems.

Cultural Adaptation -- How to Address our 'Spiritual Ignorance?': Given the above train of thought, one might then say that the havoc we moderns have wreaked upon the biosphere is a result of our 'spiritual ignorance' (or of self-organizing system agency). We have lacked any means of perceiving how the complex adaptive systems of both the biosphere and society generate, govern, and direct themselves. Thus, we have assumed that we can simply manipulate and control them as if they were mechanical. In regard to our own systems, we tend to act as if their behaviors are only the consequence of human agency, not their own.

Science now contradicts these assumptions. Our collective interactions give rise to a meta-system, or "super-organism," the purpose of which is economic growth fueled by our individual consumer behavior. Its characteristic agency is that of a 'cancerous consumer monster' the meta-network agency of which seeks to continue and expand its existence -- regardless of our human values. In sum, our own systems are our 'mortal enemies,' not other human beings. Decades of 'tinkering' with existing systems has done nothing to alter their life-destroying behaviors. Humans must now become collectively focused on creating social and economic systems whose agency supports those of the biosphere first, or else remain competitive agents of existing systems that will destroy us all.

With the emergence of complex systems science, we now have a method of perceiving the world as self-animating, through system agency, and thus both 'beyond our direct control' and yet highly susceptible to disruption from our manipulations. We now have a perspective that could enable us to 'act in support of' the biosphere's self-sustaining agency, thereby assuring our own future survival. However, this science has been available to us for over 30 years and remains obscure, even among many professional scientists. Admittedly, it is highly technical and explores dynamical activities that are virtually impossible for our mechanically conditioned minds to imagine. This is not the kind of fully explanatory, control-enabling science we are accustomed to.

Given the arcane density of the science, perhaps the incorporation of its insights into our general society will require using it as a basis for new culture symbolism. Might we be able to address our catastrophic ignorance of system agency by somehow inventing a fact-based 'naturalistic spirituality,' made readily accessible through shared symbols? Could we reorient our worldview through a rational understanding of what systems science confirms but cannot fully explain -- by correlating that knowledge with existing traditions of spiritual symbolism? Could we generate our own versions of this symbolism that would be potent enough to 're-link' our behavior to that of natural systems and fill us with a rational 'sense of the sacred?' Might some reinvention of 'spiritual imagination' at last enable us to understand how to interact with our own human systems so that these actually operate in ways better suited to both a sustainable biosphere and our values of human rights?

Some among us feel an attraction to the notion of 'spiritual imagination.' However, from the perspective of our mechanistic worldview, anything we cannot measure, anything just 'imagined,' is not real. To generate a compelling spiritual culture we would have to ground it in the factual evidence for system agency as a kind of 'natural mystery,' beyond full explanation, fundamental to Life, yet possible to 'realistically' represent through symbols.

For more on science and spiritual agency see:

0 views0 comments

Updated: 2 days ago

What actually connects us, binds us together in profoundly meaningful, emotionally satisfying ways? Is it abstract concepts, ideas, or beliefs about 'how the world should be?' Or is it the immediate experience we have of our selves and others interacting, collaborating, co-operating?

Societies are meta-systems composed of many interacting subsystems. These include political, legal, judicial, financial, educational, governmental, health care, communication, cultural and religious systems that are networked together. From the overall interactions of these systems emerge the particular characteristics of a given social order. But all this derives from the participation of autonomous individuals who participate in those systems. Thus a society is termed an "agent based" system. Ant colonies are also agent based systems. But the self-ordering, self-perpetuating operations of human societies depend upon whether their individual agents willingly submit to the constraints of the social order. Thus the authority that social institutions exert over individuals must in some way be justified or legitimated as serving the interests of the individuals it constrains into a particular social order. Certain concepts, purposes, and values are used to generate a collective identity that the social systems supposedly represent. This has been referred to as the "social contract."

This 'glue' that holds a social order together can involve racial or ethnic attributes, religious beliefs, nationalistic identity, or specific ideals for how individuals are to be treated. The authority of most modern social systems justify their authority on the basis of "rule of law" and references to some basic "human rights" that give individuals an expectation of protection and equality. In actual practice, however, even the societies that justify the "power of the state" with the most overt claims of liberty, equality, and justice, manifest overt inequity in the status of their citizens. Individuals in Western democracies are not equally served or empowered by their social systems. Vast inequities in social, financial, judicial, educational, and political status permeate these social orders. Despite the concepts and values employed to justify them, in practice they are highly stratified and hierarchical. The many labor, and often suffer, for the indulgences of a few. Nonetheless, the majority of agents in these social orders appear to acquiesce to the authority of systems that betray the supposed basis for their existence.

There is a curious contradiction in claims that a society exists primarily on the basis of individual liberty. If a social order exists 'for the good of all,' yet is justified by the rights of its individual agents to 'do as they please' so long as their actions do not infringe upon other's right to 'do as they please,' then the basic value justifying the social order is actually that of competition, not cooperation or equality. Such an orientation to social relations necessarily leads to stratified inequality and suppresses genuine communality, in which resources, services, and privileges are equally shared.

This conundrum about how to ensure both individual liberty and communal equality has manifested in the forms of competing social ideologies, distinguished by terms such as socialism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and capitalism. However, none of the political states that claimed these ideologies as their basis and justification have generated non-hierarchical, broadly egalitarian social orders that do not contain privileged elites and a significant "under class." Once there is a formalized "state," or privately owned corporation, which asserts legally sanctioned authority over individuals, hierarchy and inequality seem inevitable. Civilization, it appears, is a con-game, in which the manipulative domination of a few is justified on the claim of benefiting the whole. Is this just 'human nature' or is it something inherent in any formalized political state system?

Perhaps it is just not possible to configure a social order that can maintain both the liberty of competitive individualism and communal equality in a civilized "mass society"--meaning one in which people are not personally connected to the majority, or "mass," of others. One might well wonder if any such social condition ever actually existed. What exactly might a mass society of communal equality look like?

Studies of behaviors associated with severe disruptions of normative social orders, such as from natural disasters, indicate that individuals will suddenly become more communally oriented. People will abruptly shift their emphasis of concern from their own competitive individual interests toward that of others and a sense of community needs when 'all are at risk.' Major disruptions and threats tend to 'bring us together,' directing the attention of individuals towards the well-being of others around them. Catastrophe tends to promote compassionate, prosocial communal behaviors even in highly stratified societies.

As Jamil Zaki, researcher at Standford University writes, "For decades, social scientists have documented two narratives about human behavior during crises. The first holds that, following disasters, individuals (i) panic, (ii) ignore social order, and (iii) act selfishly. . . . The second narrative comes from historical records. Far from rendering people antisocial and savage, disasters produce groundswells of prosocial behavior and feelings of community. In their wake, survivors develop communities of mutual aid, engage in widespread acts of altruism, and report a heightened sense of solidarity with one another. . . . In addition to being prevalent, catastrophe compassion appears to be beneficial. Prosocial behavior exerts positive effects on helpers – including increases in happiness and decreases in stress and loneliness. Following disasters, mutual aid also tracks increases in positive collective outcomes such as social connection, solidarity, and shared resilience."

Why does this happen? What changes that suddenly transforms normally remote, even contentious relationships, into egalitarian cooperation? From a systems science perspective, the normative flows of feedback are disrupted and a new network of more broadly interdependent relationships emerges. One way to phrase this is that people cease to act as competitive agents responding to the hierarchical structures of normative social networks and reorient their sense of purpose to collective, communal needs. They act 'for social interdependence' rather than for 'social advantage.' They suddenly identify even with strangers and former antagonists when all are facing similar immediate challenges and the flow of feedback becomes more 'lateral' or ;horizontal' and less 'vertical' .

What is presently occurring in Ukraine, under relentless bombings of civilian infrastructure, is a case in point. Ukrainian society had more than its fair share of divisions, inequality, and corruption prior to the Russian invasion of February, 2022. But that brutal assault suddenly triggered a reorientation of social behaviors and sense of purpose. It appears that part of this abrupt shift derives from the fact that destruction of the electrical power supply systems ensure that most Ukrainians, regardless of political persuasion, or social and economic status, are being rather equally effected. The preceding hierarchical advantages and disadvantages have in significant degree been abrogated. Any sense of superiority or inferiority, of 'us versus them' within the social system, has been profoundly dampened. The shared deprivations have connected individuals in a more horizontal network of identifications. Each person's efforts are suddenly more connected to the survival of others. It has become much more reflexive to feel that 'we are all in this together.'

Zaki notes that there is the mor common narrative about human behavior under such disruptive conditions expects people to be selfish and even criminal. But in contrast, historical analysis reveals the opposite. The first narrative can be understood as the attitude taken by normatively hierarchical, control-oriented social orders--the dominance of state power and socio-economic elites. The authority and privilege of such systems depends on stoking individual fear of disruption. But disruptions that enhance mutual identification of agents with each other actually tend to promote self-organizing prosocial behavior. Neither the state nor socio-economic elites can simply compel such behavior. Indeed, that mode of behavior threatens the very existence of the way they dominate and exploit flows of feedback in the larger system.

Ukrainian society is presently offering us all a model of a more communal social network in a "mass society." They are demonstrating that such behavior is possible when the majority are subjected to the same level of difficulty and need. This shows that inequities of wealth, power, and privilege in a social order depress such behavior. When asked 'how long can you continue to resist?' the Ukrainian answer seems to be, 'as long as necessary.' In other words, they will suffer whatever they must to care for each other, survive another day, and resist domination. They are willing to suffer and die for each other. That attitude appears to be shocking to the more individualistically competitive Western social attitudes. Indeed, some of the ambivalence in Europe about assisting Ukraine might well derive from the existing hierarchical systems fearing a threat from Ukrainian collective egalitarianism. The Ukrainians are showing us how we could behave--if we reoriented our priorities and restructured our social orders. "Glory to Ukraine."

Russian failures in accomplishing their goal of military domination in Ukraine are also instructive. Despite elements of surprise and superiority in numbers and equipment, the top-down control network of Russian command structure has proved incompetent in adapting to Ukrainian determination, individual initiative, collective coherence, localized self-organization, and tactical ingenuity. This Russian system characteristic mirrors much of our governmental and corporate systems worldwide. It illustrates our failure to act effectively in response to the well-known threats of the climate crisis.

Of course, it is unlikely that social orders not under such threat and deprivation will act similarly. Ukrainians did not choose to be in these circumstances so that they would become more communal. But this situation provides a preview of what humans collectively are facing worldwide.The accelerating disruptions of the climate crisis pose an existential threat that will soon put most of us under similar stress, whether by local disasters or the extended effects these have on distant regions. Our existing top-down, competitively exploiting systems have proven they are incapable of addressing, much less avoiding, the looming catastrophes. So bear witness now to Ukraine. And prepare for a radical shift in social order, to act collectively, cooperatively, prosocially, on your local level, as the Great Disruption breaks upon us -- when we are, at last, 'all in this together.' And then, to experience an amplification of meaning, purpose, and satisfaction.

Catastrophe Compassion: Understanding and Extending Prosociality Under Crisis

Jamil Zaki1,⁎

0 views0 comments

How to Assess the Present Moment?

The year is 2022. War rages again in Europe. Famine expands in Africa. Political systems are mired in divisive deadlocks. Autocratic governments proliferate. An energy crisis threatens economic collapse. The rich are getting absurdly richer, the poor poorer. Well, this is not new. But there is more trouble brewing--much more. Coral reefs that foster the bounties of fish in the seas are dying. Arctic ice is disappearing. Mountain glaciers that provide water to entire regions of the planet are vanishing. One third of Pakistan is submerged by biblical flooding. Ocean levels are rising at exponential rates. Repeatedly record-breaking heat waves are crippling agriculture. The Atlantic overturning meridional circulation (AMOC) that carries warm equatorial waters north and cold arctic ones south is stalling. Hurricane and typhoon storm strengths are increasing. The Jet Stream in the upper atmosphere that once regulated weather patterns is disintegrating. Desertification spreads across the Mediterranean, Africa, Asia. Mega-forest fires rage on every continent. The sixth great mass extinction of plants and animals in earth's history is well underway--at an unprecedented rate. Agricultural soils have become sterile of nutrient-creating worms and microbes from the constant application of petrochemical fertilizers. Micro plastics permeate the planetary seas.

The seven hottest years on record have all occurred since 2015. Millions of climate change refuges are on the move. One billion are estimated to be displaced by 2050--that's one in eight humans on earth. Evidently, 50 years of ecological activism, 35 of alarming climate science, and 27 years of United Nations Climate Conferences, have failed to alter our biosphere-debilitating, thus collectively suicidal behaviors.

In the words of UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, "We are on the road to climate hell--with our foot on the accelerator." That is, we are on course to not only exceed the supposedly safe limit of 1.5 degrees increase in average global temperature over pre-industrial times, but rocketing toward a catastrophic 2 degrees and beyond into "runaway climate chaos." As Extinction Rebellion co-founder, Roger Hallan, puts it, what we face is "The loss of everything. Forever." Anyone willing to seriously investigate the actual evidence gathered by climate scientists is forced to confront this stunning conclusion. Human actions are collapsing the viability of the entire biosphere--the self-regulating basis of complex Life on Earth. The situation could hardly be worse. But it soon will be.

Lest you think this is an alarmist over-statement of the moment, consider that the four hundred plus nuclear power plants around the planet depend on the reliable operations of the current industrial economy. Any serious disruption of this economy could result in failure of those power plants and the subsequent release of plutonium. Further, there are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that require maintenance to avoid degradation. Through the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have witnessed how suddenly our economic systems can be disrupted. These shocks are insignificant in comparison to those currently emerging from accelerating climate chaos and ecological degradations. The potential to leave this planet a plutonium-poisoned wasteland is the ultimate consequence of our contemporary behaviors.

Can anything be done to stave off this cataclysmic conclusion to civilization's meteoric arc? The science indicates that opportunities to fully prevent catastrophic effects have passed. Global warming to 2 plus degrees is "baked in" by the existing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The challenge now is how to mitigate and adapt to the unfolding changes in Earth systems of atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. Even if we immediately cease emitting CO2 and methane into the atmosphere we will not avoid drastic disruptions, though it would mitigate their severity and duration. Serious adaptation would involve efforts such as moving cities, creating new water capture systems, and practicing rejuvenating agriculture. Alas, potential mitigation and adaptation efforts are not being undertaken in any significant manner. In fact, CO2 emissions continue to rise. Thus the conclusion: "We are on the highway to climate hell--with our foot on the accelerator." No one on the planet will be immune to the reverberating effects of this calamity.

Why, then, if the evidence is so overwhelming, are we not galvanized to collective action in the face of this existential threat to Life as we know it? How could we possibly have done this to our blue-green planet--much less to our selves--when we had actually generated the knowledge and had the time to act otherwise? Consider that the vast majority of climate disrupting activity has been generated by the most highly educated, technologically advanced, economically wealthy, and democratically governed nations--a minority of the human population that dominates the global economy. If one plays 'the blame game,' fingers can be pointed in all directions. Yes, policy makers, governments, and corporate leaders have long been aware of our suicidal trajectory. Yes, average citizens have fueled CO2 emissions with their indulgence in consumptive appetites. Yes, insidious disinformation campaigns have obscured and discredited the science. Yes, effective action would have required imagining 'future troubles' and prioritizing those over immediate concerns.

Books could be written about 'how and where' we went so wrong. Indeed, many have been. When it comes to 'why' we have failed our selves and the biosphere so utterly, it is often stated that humans are inherently inept at acting in response to distant future events. Is this an accurate assessment of human psychology, or is it relevant primarily to our modern consumerist mentality? Is there something about Modernity's 'worldview' that predisposes our behavior toward such short-sighted appetites, resistance to our own scientific logic, and fraudulent deception?

What Went Wrong with Our Worldview?

Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans, emerged as a species around 200,000 years ago. That is a minuscule moment in the biosphere's 3 plus billion year existence. Agriculture-based civilization dates from only around 10,000 years ago. Industrial technology is but a few generations old. Humans inhabited every continent but Antarctica and used their manipulative intelligence to alter landscapes across the globe even before the industrial revolution. But once we harnessed fossil fuels, our extractive exploitations, constructive disruptions, and population growth exploded. We became "moderns"--a culture of 'the new' obsessed with 'progress,' driven by technological innovation that promised ever more power and control. Like the steam engine that carried its colonial creators around the globe, no society has been able to resist Modernity's dominion.

This 'modern' world view, facilitated by material science, is reflexively mechanistic. It perceives the world in terms of predictable cause and effect. Its analytical methodology is reductive. It leads us to assume that, with enough knowledge of how things are composed, we should be capable of manipulating and controlling all events. Whatever 'goes wrong,' we should be able to fix it--eventually. So why would we worry about problems in some distant future? We will solve them when we get there.

This supreme confidence in our ability to analyze, manipulate, and control the world (at least eventually) seemed quite reasonable, based on all the 'progress' we made with our reductive physics, chemistry, and biology. But our cherished scientific method has betrayed that confidence in recent decades. The study of what are termed complex systems, from weather to ecologies and human societies, has revealed that the world is created and maintained by self-organizing impulses in such systems. Our rampant industrial activities and manipulations of our environments have disrupted the ability of natural systems to maintain their self-regulation. We have pushed them toward "tipping points" in their operations that are leading to radical transformations and collapse. These are not 'problems we can fix.' Yet we continue to believe we can evade the consequences of our actions through yet further technological innovation and manipulation. Most revealing, we refuse to seriously consider reductions in our use of energy or levels of consumption. To do so would be tantamount to admitting that our boundless appetites and lust for power are destroying the systems of the biosphere, thus condemning our species--that our Modern way of life, our vaunted civilization, is not only suicidal but Life-destroying.

It can be argued that this is a moral or ethical issue: the greedy appetites of a minority (who produce most of the greenhouse gasses) are imposing misery and death upon the majority. From this perspective, what 'went wrong' with our worldview is that it somehow does not support the ethical values upon which Western style societies are supposedly founded. And why might that be? Perhaps because it is based not only upon a mechanistic concept of cause and effect, but also a hierarchical, competitive, 'survival of the fittest' concept of nature. Both these assumptions about 'how the world actually works' have been shown to be limited by recent systems science. The natural systems that order the biosphere, it turns out, are beyond our control and mutually enabling--effectively cooperative. It is not our science that has failed us but a mechanistic Modern worldview that can neither conceive nor appreciate the ways complex systems self-organize, self-regulate, and mutually facilitate each other. Culturally, we have not 'caught up' with what we science has taught us about 'how the world actually works.'.

To put it another way, cultural evolution leading to industrial economies made human intelligence dangerous to the living systems of the biosphere. We are a species that lived most of our history as hunters and gatherers. Not until we changed our selves into agriculturalists, generated hierarchical states, and magnified industrial technology with fossil fuels, did we become a fully 'rouge system' that violates the mutually enabling reciprocity of natural systems--not, that is, till we invented modern civilization.

From a systems science perspective, human intelligence manifests the most potent known forms of complex adaptive systems--meaning systems that self-organize, self- regulate, and purposefully adapt their operations to promote their continued existence into the future. Such systems have selective agency. Human intelligence 'super charges' this emergent capacity of feedback networks in complex systems to assert influence on their environments. However, as an expression of the inherent impulse of adaptive systems to promote their continued existence, human systems, once technologically empowered, appear unable to resist the pursuit of ever more manipulation, power, and dominion over natural ones. Our success has become our doom.

Systems science reveals a further irony to this situation. Even human social and economic systems have been shown to manifest their own agency, their own self-organizing and self-directing impulses--thus their own self-perpetuating impulses. These hierarchical, competitive, control-obsessed system networks, which our actions generated, have become 'powers unto themselves.' Even though we humans might want to change our behaviors, our systems do not. Our problem is not just the way we think but how feedback networks are configured in our societies, economies, governments, corporations, even our educational institutions. We cannot simply control these now self-directing systems. Indeed, they tend to control us. Significant changes in how they behave will require radically 're-wiring' their networks. If we desire to change our destructive behaviors, we must oppose and redirect the agency of our civilized systems We are neither collectively insane nor inherently wicked -- despite our 'wicked ways.' We are being swept along by the control-obsessed, inherently amoral systems our techno-logical impulse gave rise to -- which now 'run the world' despite our ethics. Even our personal identities are formed around these rapacious juggernauts.


We created industrialized civilization and it created our dilemma. Yet we cannot simply 'go back' to being pre-industrial societies in order to avoid catastrophe. Not, that is, unless we first 'wind down' the operations of our current systems in ways that 'defuse' their biosphere-disabling effects of pollution, environmental degradation, climate disruption, and potential nuclear contamination. We would have to use our industrial economy to undo its ravages. Again, however, we have known its effects were bringing calamity upon us for decades, yet we have not acted accordingly. So what would 'going forward' in a realistic manner look like? And what primary values could redirect our worldview so that our behaviors would actually become life-affirming rather than life-destroying?

It appears that to behave differently than we have, and are, means choosing a different worldview--one whose first principle is that human systems must be biosphere facilitating. Such a worldview would be based on systems science. But how does a person, much less an entire society, fundamentally re-configure its worldview--its assumptions about 'how the world actually works?' Well, it has happened before, as illustrated by the industrial and scientific 'revolutions.' That, however, took many decades, if not centuries--time we do not have. After all, to deliberately choose a new worldview based on systems science, a majority of us would have to attain some basic understanding of its concepts. Presently, this science is rarely if ever taught in schools and remains peripheral even to most professional scientists.

So perhaps, given the degree to which human systems are entrained in Modernity's mechanistic, competitive worldview, there is no avoiding 'business as usual,' come what may. Yet even resigning ourselves to this course could be accompanied by choosing to live our individual lives in honest awareness, bearing witness to 'all that is passing away'--perhaps forever. This is not an argument against efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ecological degradation. Rather, it is an appeal to 'facing the scientific facts,' and then acting from the impulses which arise in us as a result. 'What went wrong' with out worldview is now 'baked in' to our own systems. They are our most formidable opponents--not the individuals who appear to be 'in power.' Consequently, significant change cannot really come 'from the top down.' It would have to arise 'from the bottom up,' from small local re-configurations of attitudes and systems.

How to Inhabit This Moment?

If we are in fact among the last generations of humans to inhabit the biosphere as we have known it, perhaps the last manifestations of civilization to exist on earth, how do we inhabit our final moments in geological time? How can we choose to feel, think, and behave, that brings all our exceptional human capacities for understanding, emotional feeling, affinity, and creative expression 'into play' with our particular historical moment?

Some have described the task as creating a culture of "planetary hospice." Hospice has come to indicate compassionate palliative care for the terminally ill. Here, palliative means efforts to make a patient as comfortable as possible when there is no cure for illness that will result in death. In this approach, we become the compassionate attendants of both the collapsing biosphere and our own impending demise. This situation is rather like that of any self-consciously mortal creature. As humans, we are aware we will, eventually, die. If we live our lives honestly, this awareness can enhance our appreciation of life--of being an instance of 'being alive' and being conscious of the experience.

But, at this juncture in the history of the cosmos, we mortal humans are confronted with the possibility of 'The death of everything. Forever.'-- certainly the demise of 'the world as we have known it' within a generation. Is this thought terrifying? Is it more terrifying than the thought of our own deaths? If the thought of our own deaths does not stop us from living honestly and boldly, why should the notion of the biosphere's impending demise paralyze us?

We might here name our times 'The Age of Elegy.' Elegy is a word for a poem expressing a serious reflection or lament for the dead. 'Facing the facts' or our circumstances, we might then choose to make our primary purpose 'singing the biosphere, and our selves, into eternity.' How we live our personal and social lives could become our 'elegiac poem' in honor of that self-organizing impulse in complex systems that made the world, including the civilization that is proving to be its undoing.

It is sometimes said that gratitude and grief are intimately related. In that view, grief can enhance gratitude and gratitude can alleviate the pain of grief. The more we experience our grief the greater our capacity for gratitude. The more gratitude we experience the less debilitating our sense of loss and sorrow might become. But to plumb the depths of our grief requires expanding awareness of just what we might be 'loosing,' or have had that we shall have no more, or might have experienced but now will not. In the case of the collapsing systems of the biosphere, all the myriad interdependent complex systems of 'the natural world,' most of us are woefully ignorant of just how marvelous these actually are.

Thus, to fulfill the role of compassionate attendants to 'what is dying,' we must exert ever greater effort to understand 'the patient.' And, the more complexly we understand its actual character, its self-creating, self-adapting agency, the more we can grieve what is passing away, thus the greater our appreciation and gratitude can become. What is unique about this act of hospice is that the 'attendant' is also the 'patient'-- the presently healthy humans focused upon the degrading species and systems of the biosphere. Thus seeking to know our own personal complexity as thoroughly as possible becomes part of the hospice. Then there is the grief for younger generations, and even future ones, who will have to inhabit the escalating disruptions cascading from our recent, as well as present, behaviors.

The same can be said about our civilized systems. Biosphere-destroying juggernauts these might be. But marvels of self-organizing, self-adapting agency they are nonetheless. As such, even these monstrosities are worthy of complex understanding, awe for their terrible powers and elegant creations, grief for their passing, gratitude for enabling our knowledge -- thus our more informed compassionate attendance. This view applies to us as individuals as well. In one sense, individual humans have become monsters, gobbling and smashing their way through the interdependent networks of natural systems. Anyone who participates in industrial economies and consumer society is committing 'crimes against life itself.' Though we do not intend this devastation of the biosphere, it is a consequence of a worldview within which we are all entangled, of the systems our actions enable. It seems that most of us do 'love the natural world' in some way, despite how our behaviors have ravaged its self-regulating agency. Here we attend to a 'tragic flaw' in our own human character.

The notion of tragedy has become rather dissipated in contemporary language use. It is now applied to most any kind of misfortune. Its older sense derives from ancient Greek drama and involved a sense of fate or inevitability in human acts that lead to calamity. Thus, the tragic is not simply 'bad luck' or disaster. For the Greeks, it seems there was value in 'making art' from human error, even arrogance--as it appears inherent in human behavior. The notion of hubris expresses a kind of inflated sense of importance that leads to a disaster of one's own making. The word derives from hybristikos, translated as "given to wantonness, insolent." There is even a sense of 'offending the gods' associated with it. That thought can be understood as our Modern assault upon the self-ordering, self-adapting agency of the biosphere--the latter standing for the 'creative force' of life itself, or 'the gods.' Our 'tragic flaw' then is our inability to restrain our capacity to manipulate the world in ways that damage natural systems, thus threaten even our own existence.

If we are to honestly 'face the facts' of our historical moment, we must consciously step onto the stage of our collective tragic drama. Depending on how we choose to 'play our parts' in it, there might yet be a catharsis -- a process of releasing profound, repressed emotions that give us new meaning and understanding. This plunge into the reality of our moment has been termed "deep adaptation" by such as Jem Bendell. It is generally conceived as a "framework of resilience, relinquishment, restoration, and reconciliation to reduce harm from climate and ecological devastation."

Taking a stance characterized by honest analysis, planetary hospice, elegy, and deep adaptation has the potential to dissipate our differences, conflicts, and competition. It could foster greater meaning, purpose, emotional honesty, and genuine community. As Stephen Jenkinson, sings it, "friends are made on a dark road out of town."

Moving Forward through Analysis and Affinity, Grief and Gratitude

Taking actions that decrease our disruptions of climate and ecological systems is obviously a wise practical choice, in so far as it might improve our own future survival. It can also be part of this 'planetary hospice,' if it is done with compassionate acceptance and relieves the immediate suffering of human-induced degradatiions. That is, though such actions are unlikely to prevent a cataclysm, these can be expressions of our affinity with and gratitude for the biosphere. Reductions in consumption, ecological disruptions, and greenhouse gas emissions thus become part of 'palliative care' for the world--even part of our 'elegiac poem.' There are at least three related avenues for inhabiting our present moment in these regards.

Radical Attention: The first is to choose to pay radical attention to a convulsing world, and our experience of it. We can enhance that experience through greater understanding of 'what is passing' -- both in terms of natural and civilized complex systems. The more we know about how these create, order, and purposefully direct their operations, the more compassion, affinity, awe, gratitude, and grief we can express. Thus the more impetus we might have to live honestly and boldly in 'the times we have left.'

New Worldview : This radical attention can be amplified by gaining greater understanding of systems science, using it to challenge our habitual mechanistic assumptions about cause and effect, about 'how the world works.' When one reflects upon one's experience of self-ordering systems through the analysis and concepts of the science, one's marvel and appreciation can be greatly expanded. The knowledge systems science has given us both arises from Modernity's worldview and reveals its reductive delusions. To re-frame our experience through this science is to evolve a radically new worldview, one that connects our human intelligence with all the other complex adaptive systems whose agency collectively generates the biosphere. In this science, we can logically encounter the factual mystery of Life as its own creator.

Naturalistic Spirituality: This sense of mystery in the science of self-directing systems provides its most stunning implications. By revealing how agency emerges unpredictably from such systems, the science becomes a basis for a new, naturalistic sense of spirituality. This concept is surprisingly simple. The evidence that complex adaptive systems manifest selective agency, through their self-organizing, self-adapting networks, provides a scientific basis for the notion of 'spirit' as an animating impulse producing consequences in the physical world. This concept of spirituality is based on empirical research that demonstrates the unpredictably self-directing activities of complex adaptive systems and how that agency continually creates the biosphere. Such a worldview closely resembles that of animistic pre-modern cultures, which concluded that humans must be cautious about how their own activities effect those of the 'spirits' of natural systems. It is arguable that our Modern culture's lack of such a spiritual concept is why we are incapable of restraining our biosphere-destroying behaviors. Using our science to restore such an attitude to our culture would greatly amplify our empathy for 'all that is passing away.'

0 views0 comments