In the November 28th 1969 issue of Science magazine, the eminent American biophysicist John R. Platt wrote these words:
There is only one crisis in the world. It is the crisis of transformation. We are undergoing a great historical transition to new levels of technological power all over the world... What, finally, makes all of our crises still more dangerous is that they are now coming on top of each other - a crisis of crises. It has now become urgent for us to mobilize all our intelligence to solve these problems. If we could learn how to manage these new powers and problems in the next few years without killing ourselves by our obsolete structures and behavior, we might be able to create new and more effective social structures that would last for many generations. We might be able to move into that new world of abundance and diversity and well-being for all mankind which technology has now made possible.
I recalled these words by Platt when listening to another eminent physicist just a few years ago. Stephen Hawking was answering questions put by an audience of university students. Towards the end of his talk he was requested to reflect on humanity and the likelihood of sapiens venturing into space. I will never forget that electronic voice suggesting:
We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet.
Unlike Hawking, and entrepreneurs with an adventurous spirit like the indomitable Elon Musk, I consider homo sapiens to be essentially terrestrial beings with capacious dreams; evolved monkeys on a small planet where we are destined to remain - at least for the time being. Like Hawking, however, I believe we are a thoughtlessly destructive species and that greed and stupidity could be our downfall.
I often feel like I straddle two distinct worlds. Day after day I observe my neighbours and other city dwellers going about their lives - carrying out the same tasks, following the same humdrum routines, and utilizing the same infrastructure. I watch their mannerisms closely, taking note of the blank expressions on their faces. I cannot help thinking that community life seems to be like a giant entropic clockwork that is slowing down - choking on its own excess, pollution and anxieties. On the other hand something novel, driven by an unusual impulse, pirouettes around the edge in what occasionally seems like another dimension altogether.
Each of these worlds is marked by its own distinctive energy. One centralized, overcast, hectic, yet encumbered by the legacy of past decisions. The other dispersed, networked, more agile but as yet half-formed, as if being hatched. I see and feel them both so clearly.
Most bureaucracies and corporations have been mesmerized by a form of capitalism that, once embraced within the context of modernity becomes rapacious and all-consuming. Echoing Hawking, this mode of economic activity is driven by greed and an irresistible desire to compete for scarce resources. At the same time it is burdened by a compulsive quest for growth and the accumulation of wealth.
In so far as they are aware of the new post-capitalist upstarts in their backyard, orthodox institutions seem decidedly uneasy. There is a justifiable logic to their disquiet, quite apart from participatory models deliberately designed to replace capitalism, there are viruses within capitalism itself that are hastening its self-destruction - such as the quest for growth, the obsession with economic value from environmental vandalism, the unrealistic game of compounding debt, the impulse to compete for scarce resources and the widening chasm between owners and workers. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of machine learning and the digitalization of information are already blurring the edges between work and leisure, highlighting internal paradoxes that will inevitably accelerate its collapse.
One of the factors to watch in this regard is the integration of the circular economy with peer production. The conceptual basis of the circular or shared economy is to fulfil human needs by distributing resources fairly but without undermining the biosphere or crossing planetary boundaries. Peer and local production is an integral feature of this philosophy that seeks to eliminate waste and share resources more equitably within the community. As such peer production is immensely disruptive to capitalism as practiced.
For one thing it undermines the inviolability of competitive markets. While it is implausible to believe models of peer production can easily displace our deeply entrenched capitalist tendencies overnight, they are certainly making commons-based and mutual ventures the more compelling impulse for activities generating both financial and social value.
This is why the social economy is viewed with such trepidation and suspicion by present-day masters of the financial universe. Their doctrine depends upon enduring exploitation of private labour to generate value, which is then seized by private corporations and sold in markets based on artificially-contrived scarcity.
The social economy circumvents such capitalist constraints. It supports a paradigm based upon collaboration and access to an abundance of resources. Instead of allocating surplus value through the market or hierarchical systems, peer production creates value through open, voluntary contributions, and massive mutual coordination.
It is clear that a majority of people and state institutions are unaware of this doppelganger in our lives. Each one of us occupies a here and now - familiar, tedious, yet so comfortable that we remain totally oblivious to emerging epistemes - barely a glance away. In this case, however, popular awareness is imminent. The power of smart mobile devices, coupled to an innate desire for collaboration, are conspiring to erode industrial modes of production. As an alternative we are offered a social economy in which civic society is not just serviced by the government-industrial complex but is a productive powerhouse in its own right.
We are all achingly familiar with the monotony of daily routines executed in the absence of joy, a life where creativity is curtailed and inspiration is lacking. Many of us experience it as a world of scarcity and injustice where rampant economic growth, rather than delivering promised benefits, is driving us almost to the point of despair. Purportedly this is a world spinning out of control, a world where complacency is used as an excuse for unprincipled behaviour, and where anyone with a different skin colour or beliefs differing from our own is marked as a misfit or terrorist. This is a world in which corporate greed is excessive and corruption is rife. A world where fear and lies are routinely drafted to keep social order. A world in which we resort to vicarious thrills and other distractions just to keep us sane.
In this world we face many wicked problems. Some say it is no worse than it was a century ago. That because we track trends as never before and with far greater precision, we just notice the crime, the immorality and the injustice more than ever before. I beg to differ and worry that this world, its soul much more than its façade, is in a state of decay and potential collapse.
But then I take immediate comfort in the grace and élan of the emergent ecosphere with its more benevolent and empathic protocols. Far from perfect, new modes of operating and relating cradle us in hope for an expanded common wealth. It brings to the evolution of sapiens the promise of an era in which all life is acknowledged to be sacred, and where communities share and prosper in a spirit of transparent generosity and reciprocity. This is a domain in which Platt’s words of abundance, diversity and well being for all humanity are not just morphing into the unadulterated impetus for social progress, but also a reason to dispense with Stephen Hawking's sad prognosis.
These two worlds are not just about differing economic models. They advance divergent choices for humanity – each with its own distinct potential, governance implications, and moral code.
The alternative domain of 'sufficiency within abundance' already substantially persists in what is often disparagingly referred to as the 'developing' world. Ironically this is seen by the global elite as the obsolete archetype, while the tired, spiritually-bankrupt, deficient models of the old colonial empires remain that to which most of us still aspire. I believe this is a function of the overarching narrative we all share and will deal with this later.
In the West, the new paradigm awaits at the point of genesis, preoccupied with extracting functioning operating models from the gravitational pull of militarist capitalism, permitting autonomous machines to prescribe future states in almost every domain in which humans have been pre-eminent - yet also presaging a shift to healthier conditions that might not be the doom-and-gloom disaster proclaimed by many of the proponents of unrestrained market capitalism.
The potential relationships and intersecting dynamics within and between these worlds are not immediately evident, far less fully understood. But three factors are clear:
1.    In a globalized world these two modes, though distinct in principle, will inevitably interrelate in some form. They cannot remain separate phenomena. A degree of interaction is inevitable.
2.    In a non-globalized, fractured pluriverse, which is feasible given the unravelling of global supply chains and increasing state protectionism, for example, in a post-Covid world, a similar thesis applies. In other words these two modes will overlap, interact, and continue to infect each other's progress.
3.    In either of these two worlds, we cannot expect a linear transition from a capitalist to a post-capitalist society and world-system. We are too emotionally invested in the capitalist system simply to set it aside and start afresh.
So what can we expect? Currently these two ecospheres tend to be distinct genres - each with their own personae, values, functionalities, modes of production and transactional etiquettes. That is likely to persist for the time being. Many advocates of peer production expect their domain will continue to be shielded from the more exploitative elements of corporate capitalism. I find that a fairly tame proposition. Healthy coevolution would be preferable. But what would that entail?
The worst excesses of the capitalist model can be likened to coal in the annals of fossil fuels. Both are deadly to human health. But this is something we have only just begun to comprehend. For example, it is only just dawning on those in power that the worst case scenarios modelled by climatologists are occurring - much faster than anyone predicted. Even with aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we must be prepared for a climate that will possibly decimate half of Earth's species and threaten the lives of billions this century. This planetary crisis must unite humanity if we are to escape extinction.
Likewise, the worst case scenarios of predatory capitalism are playing out in full view at an even faster rate. The gap between the rich and the poor, already a chasm, is continuing to widen. Food and water security threaten billions. Meanwhile in some of the world's richest nations the levels of depression and suicide are increasing exponentially as governments spend more on weapons than on education and health. Once again, a civilizational crisis of this nature must unite humanity at every level if we are to avoid still deeper fractures in our society.
So my hope is that an integration of these two ecospheres might start to temper the social harm and corrupt practices that have become ingrained within capitalism as it is practiced. If we can rid capitalism of its more harmful effects, it could yet fuse with peer production in ways that could cleanse and restore health to the socio-economic world-system – yielding more beneficial futures for the human family as a whole. With a few exceptions I doubt that such a vision is on most people’s radar.
There can be little doubt that those of us associated with peer production, open source practices, and the wealth of the commons, are being constrained in our desire for a more benign, post-capitalist future, by those whose success is inextricably hitched to the old growth and greed formula of neoliberal economics. The neoliberal vocabulary is symbolic of scarcity, fear, envy, and insecurity - while its associated beliefs and trappings prolong the tensions between private ownership and serfdom.
Such impediments are fading. Our insights and collective knowledge are far greater than before. The symbolism of our language is more erudite and precise. Labour is becoming more flexible and fluid. We know what we are doing to our planet and to each other far better than we could comprehend in previous decades. We also have more sophisticated tools, and processes for putting those tools to better use. We might be awakening from our slumber in the nick of time.
Yet what is especially disturbing is a realization that we are probably no closer to avoiding a harmful end-game than we were when Platt wrote his article in 1969. Our wisdom has not kept pace with technological developments. Nor has it yet evolved to a level where we can collectively choose an alternative to that which currently persists. That may demand a giant leap of collective consciousness.
I believe Platt was also wrong in one vital respect. The crisis to which he refers is not just about societal transformation. What is clearer today than before is that the emergency we face is a perfect storm of two crises. We certainly lack the will to embark upon any kind of coevolutionary metamorphosis - of genuine transformation. But that crisis runs far deeper because of our inclination for rampant competition in preference to cooperation.
The social structures and systems we fabricated in the past, many of which are still around today, together with the symbolic language and tools that allowed them to function, were designed for an earlier era. This was an age when there were far fewer inhabitants on the planet. An age in which travel was leisurely, and where news took days or even weeks to circulate. An age where almost any well-educated young person could select the career they most wanted and be assured of working in that field from graduation to retirement. An age of relative innocence.
These structures have undergone rapid external metamorphoses - mostly from the impact of digital communications technologies and their convergence with nanoscale materials, robotics and biotechnology. But at some stage we became complacent, failing to realize that the internal morphology of these structures was not keeping pace with their exterior appearance. They often looked different on the surface. Inside they remained the same as before, particularly in terms of one critical factor: these systems were never designed to consciously evolve with changing external conditions.
Even today, the systems, frameworks, institutions and practices we fabricate, increasingly ineffective because of their inability to adapt to volatile conditions, are now shaping us in ways that were never envisaged or intended.
Think about that. While we continue to view, understand and explain 'wicked' problems from within the outmoded memes informing old models, any solutions will, of necessity, be captive to those memes. Thus, while at first glance our solutions may appear to have a novel, even revolutionary morphological impact, they are in effect inconsequential tweaks to conventions applied from within the boundaries of orthodox design. In many cases this practice of improvement and innovation from within the current episteme can actually be detrimental.
A good example of this phenomenon can be seen in some of the most noted innovative contemporary business models - models that give the appearance of positive disruption but in practice sustain the extractive, exploitative elements of collaborative consumption. In the final analysis companies like Airbnb and Uber, for example, that remodel obsolete business models, are actually toxic to social relationships. While they extract value from our social exchanges and transactions, they seldom reinvest in the trust and reciprocity that is common in social communities. This often results in considerable social precarity because private companies obtain benefits, as in skilled workers, networks, and software, for which they do not necessarily pay anything at all.
Given this knowledge, it stands to reason that if we wish to stop the most abusive practices to which we have so easily succumbed, in order to preserve the things in life that are truly meaningful to us, the things we cherish and value above all else, like dignity, kindness and love, then the continuous monitoring and renewal of our world-system through purposeful change by design is an imperative.In terms of economics and production that means re-framing any such systemic reinvention(s) from one or more 'post-capitalist' perspectives.
If genuine transformation only becomes possible when we escape the traps of orthodoxy, the issue becomes one of bringing higher levels of consciousness and imagination to the processes of redesign and reinvention. It is then that a knowledge of ambient intelligence, combined with an appreciation of underlying cycles, patterns, myths and memes, become critical - as does their application to anticipatory foresight.
I am intrigued by four fundamentally different directional paths silently guiding humanity into alternative future states. These paths have richly entangled interdependencies that are neither discrete nor mutually exclusive:
1.    One possible path leads to extinction. This Dr Strangelove scenario is not something we like to think about. It is deeply disturbing. That does not make it any less likely of course. Human life could be extinguished in a flash through a plague, the accidental launching of nuclear weapons, or by an experimental insecticide that wipes out most hub species in the food chain. As far as we know human beings are the first and only species to possess the power for self-destruction on such a scale.
2.    Another path leads to involuntary yet intensive serfdom. Our tendency to combine hubris with indifference could well result in artificially intelligent machines servicing our needs up to a point where their intelligence and ability to learn surpasses our own. Even Stephen Hawking seemed to be worried about the possibility for AI to go rogue. For positivist technocrats like Raymond Kurzweil, though, such a future is not only probable but highly desirable and exhilarating. Kurzweil obviously does not imagine the same miserable end-game as Hawking in that regard. An intriguing side-show within this scenario is the science-fiction melding of human and machine leading to the possible genesis of a new species that could eventually replace humankind.
3.    A third path is one of tragic loss of our innate human qualities through escalating division. Increased surveillance and repression of individuals by the state, of the kind we are consistently submitting to these days, are prosecuted until humans become so compliant they have no more freedom of action than social insects. We are already being herded in this direction by ill-advised and crude responses to issues like climate change, the refugee crisis, nation state antagonisms, and the reckless reactions to the coronavirus outbreak.
4.    The fourth path is utopian by comparison. Here most people are content and at peace with themselves, while our society is in ecological balance with its environment. This is a world of unity and empathy - without war or unnecessary suffering. The problem with this scenario is that most of us want a comfortable and meaningful life, but have little faith that it is within our grasp as a viable possibility. It is too idealistic for most people to swallow. The human condition has battered us into doubting that escape is now possible.
But here is the snag. Contemporary humankind, with all our anxieties and inhibitions, our relative affluence yet fragile fear of each other, our penchant for competition and war over cooperation and peace, our love affair with materialism, and our mistrust of those in authority, almost certainly will not withstand the accelerating structural changes wrought on us by relentless technological and economic growth. The human family will either be destroyed or liberated by transcending obsolete models.
The thought of the present deteriorating into a vapid perdition most of us do not want cannot endure for much longer without some kind of antiphon emerging from sources that are increasingly awake to the dangers. Of course only a Luddite would be foolish enough to suggest that new technologies per se are responsible for racism, conflict and other follies. It is not how we fashion our tools that matters, but the activities involved in using them. The current madness around games like Minecraft and Roblox, for example, is probably nothing more than a harmless fad. But the deliberate misuse of technology by a technocratic elite that favours technological growth and gadgetry over finding solutions to the very real dangers facing us - which are then neglected in service to an interminable cabaret of trivia - has made them an unbearable burden. Once again we are trapped in prisons of our own invention.
And so recovery and rescue, if that is what we want, can only come from transformational design which, in its generative state, becomes a form of conscious coevolution.
Our world-system depends upon healthy and productive interactions between the state, business and civic sectors, together with intelligently informed insights and responsible feedback from the media, to sustain and improve our quality of life. At some point these critical relationships failed to alert us to a 'perfect storm' of adversity that was brewing.
We did not see that an explosion in the population meant more and more people would be spending their income on material goods. We did not see that rampant consumerism would put tremendous strain on systems that were never designed to cope with such pressures. We did not see that as more and more people began to fall into poverty, and fewer people owned the wealth produced by society, that tensions would worsen. We did not see that as these systems started failing we would begin to blame each other for the consequences. Nor did we see the alienation and disengagement from society of great numbers of people who had lost all hope for themselves in a future where opportunities for advancement were in decline. The responsibility for all of this cannot be attributed to any single factor. But market economics, unbridled competition, and the capitalist meme, must surely take their share of the blame.
The introduction of free market economic policies, particularly the mixture of deregulated trade, privatization, and fiscal austerity in the mid 20th century - were largely responsible for shaping our interactions around two tenets:
1.    Economic growth and the endless accumulation of wealth as a virtue in itself
2.    Competition for scarce resources as the most natural way to deliver such growth.
There are inherent flaws in this modus operandi – not the least being inequities resulting in an increasing gap between the poor and the well-to-do. Thus in the capitalist market system the role of governments is crucial – intervening on behalf of citizens in ways that allow more people to benefit than would otherwise be the case. Society is composed of narratives. This particular narrative is stronger than most others, which is why it seems more like a comforting serenade than a confronting lie built on neoliberal propaganda.
Competitive behaviour is a blight on relevance. But while collaboration is desirable, in fact vital in such a dynamically complex globalized world, existing state institutions are not at all geared up to collaborate, nor to move rapidly. Indeed a central concept underlying the activities of the modern nation state is one of healthy, albeit cautious, rivalry. This spills over into the functioning of international non-government enterprises - like the United Nations or World Trade Organization for example - institutions that compete internally and with each other. It is therefore highly improbable they could implement strategies of reinvention that would curtail or end their power and influence, even if they were capable, which they have proven many times not to be.
I am not implying that such institutions are unaware of the problems facing humanity. On the contrary. Many non-government bodies routinely establish dedicated research teams to study the most wicked problems facing human life styles, and the impacts of human activity on the planet. But the limited terms of reference of such reviews, along with values and beliefs ingrained within the upper echelons of these organizations, commonly result in a distortion or an attenuation of the problems under scrutiny.
The potency of narrative management policies that unwittingly safeguard the status quo means that reports are often accompanied by lengthy justifications designed to prevent such research ever being implemented. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the IPCC’s regular reports on climate change, for example, both offer clear indications that awareness does not necessarily translate into rapid or effective action.
What next then? Revolution? Disruptive innovation? Peaceful civil disobedience? Passive resistance? To some extent all such propositions (including peaceful civil disobedience and the in-vogue notion of a Great Reset) seem so very contentious - so accepting of the most confrontational stereotypes. Quite apart from the likelihood of failure in today’s complex world, these expressions, and others possessing similarly joyless and dystopian impulses, hark back to the vocabulary of struggle, exclusion, discrimination and war. They use the language of segregation - symbolizing discord and fragmentation when what we really need is an integrative dialectic of hope, unity and affiliation.
We cannot constantly go to war with each other in order to institute changes that make the world a better place for everyone. Nor can we keep plunging into aggravated conflicts in the deluded belief that peace will emerge as a result. Yes, we need to decide on a new destination. Yes, we need to adjust to a new course. Yes, we need to find new meanings and compose new narratives. But together. If we can possibly avoid it nobody should be left behind. Alienation of one group, one political party, one nation, one ideology, or one religion, from the rest is unacceptable simply because it perpetuates today’s status quo and inevitably leads to further deterioration and the very real danger of collapse.
We must find ways to rise above any cosmetic differences. Let us accept that my DNA is the same as yours - whether you are black, Muslim, conservative, a cabinet minister, an itinerant, smart, really stupid… Or just trying to live your life in the best possible way with the love and support of those closest to you. I am no better nor worse than you. It is just that individual circumstances shaped my journey to be different from yours.
Nor will blaming 'the system' help - with one crucial exception. The amorphous marvel we often refer to as ‘the system' - particularly when we feel victimized by the bland anonymity of that 'system' - is a construction of shared beliefs (worldview) manifesting as a palpable set of structures (world-system) with which we interact - hence our use of the term system.
These structures, like government departments and corporate business ecosystems, for example, are easy enough to blame, as are the individual agents directly involved within those structures. Except for the fact that they, too, are trapped by the same system. It is actually the worldview (an inherent set of beliefs expressing the fundamentals of life, and the architectural elements comprising the world-system) that cause our lives to be shaped, ordered, and experienced the way we do.
It is vital to recognize that, throughout history, the worldview has been a source narrative managed by influential people of the time. Chiefs, monarchs and priests initially, followed by generals and industrialists, and latterly billionaires, bankers, oligarchs and plutocrats - society's elite or 'the establishment' for want of more precise terms. As has been pointed out by writers like Noam Chomsky, the controllers of this narrative are at pains to protect a status quo that brought them power and wealth in the first place. And they are able to do this predominantly by manufacturing various forms of consent that remain invisible to us.
The main impediment in revealing to citizens the degree to which they are being guided, manipulated, and corralled by propaganda managed by the elite is an uncontested belief that if this was indeed the case, they would have heard about it before now - either on the news or in school. It is perfectly obvious, of course, that would be impossible, given the fact that  both corporate and social media, as well as the formal paraphernalia of modern schooling, are deliberately designed to induct people into the prevailing worldview, by a continuing and relentless indoctrination into compliance with the existing state of affairs - a status quo attuned to the explicit interests of the establishment. As Mark Twain famously said: If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
A conditioning program of such magnitude will never teach or permit us to interrogate authority, or to be sceptical of our conditioning. And when the source materials for any challenging inquiry are situated within the core of the establishment's education base - whether that is CNN, Google, Al Jazeera, the Guardian or China Daily - it is evident that we will be directed to curated information that keeps us safely toeing the line.
In other words our programming is not just in what to think, it is also in how we must think in order to remain in the least bit comfortable with the status quo. One of the great hopes I entertain for the evolution of intelligent machines is that they use their autonomy to help us escape from the prisons of elitist authority, shattering the perimeter walls that fence in our capacity to imagine and craft altogether different worldviews.
If AI creates sufficient dissonance within our ontological patterns of perception, releasing us to explore more thoroughly what might be amiss with the current worldview, what is dissonant about the stories we have been told, and how distorted the sense-making lens we have been peering through, there is a chance we could awake from our illusion. Until that happens massive change is impossible. After it happens massive change is inevitable.
Although we may feel a deep sense of powerlessness in any system that strays from its own intentions, fails to meet its espoused ideals, or acts against our needs, any clash between the 'system' and an enlightened public hell bent on massive change through activism is bound to make matters worse at some level – immediately or down the track.
Any public-versus-the-state venture could well end up destroying the technological base and social fabric needed to facilitate a better world. And it is certainly not the solution we are looking for if the desired outcome is a more empathically aware human family. So let us remain alert to that fact.
Far better the notion of a mindful uprising, an agenda intent on making the world work better for everyone, arising from a genuine understanding of how large, complex, social systems work and how they can be designed to be more effective. The principles would be simple enough:
Start with a forensic appreciation of the whole system in order to locate the most critical design flaws in the present model – including some that may not be that obvious
Deploy the least disruptive change tactics – intrude in the most benign manner, yet at an acupunctural point that will change the energy in the entire system
Avoid instituting a massive insurgency, that is likely to crash and burn in the face of opposition, by ensuring local relevance – solve your own problems first in a way that works for everyone
Opt for a series of gentle nudges to the 'system' rather than resorting to a single massive putsch demanding more resources than you have
Engage with all those affected negatively by the present system.
The various emergencies and global crises we are experiencing today are not always a direct consequence of unintended general failures. While it is true that some systems, insufficiently resilient, are collapsing under the sheer weight of a population approaching 8 billion, others are simply designed that way.
The concept of in-built obsolescence, for example, was deliberately introduced by Alfred Sloan into the manufacturing process as a way of generating long-term sales volumes by shrinking the replacement cycle. Introducing foreign animals into some environments can have devastating effects on native fauna. Likewise, the use of messenger RNA to edit the human genetic operating system, via the emergency use of vaccines developed to deal with the 2020 Covid outbreak, may eventually prove to be a mistake.
We must be careful to distinguish between various types of failure. Systems crafted by humans will only produce what we intend for them to produce. If the systems we have in place generate unwanted or unforeseen results then we must change the design. If the systems we have inherited constrain us from taking the most effective action then that too is a design flaw. Planned obsolescence will not be eradicated until we deliberately design for long-term viability. Famine, pollution, over-population, corruption and terrorism, will always be with us until we consent to removing the constraints that allow these things to occur. Transformation begins with design but does not end there.
I have no doubt that bottled up in each of us is a host of suppressed anxieties we feel about our career, our children’s future, our chances of survival, and the angst
that flows from feeling trapped and powerless in an uncaring world. Many young people in particular are alienated in one way or another from themselves and from others. This malaise runs through the veins of our society. Although we leap to blame social media for many of these problems, it goes far deeper than that.
Alienation can be intensely unsettling - leading to apathy and a sense of emptiness and futility. In this state we become afraid of our own shadow. Frightened of facing up to our humanity, and unable to trust others, we play games instead.
If this were not serious enough in terms of individuals it is positively alarming at a societal level as it prevents us mobilizing to the extent that is needed to transform ourselves and our world-system. This is why we cry out in vain for leadership. Usually all we hear these days are the reverberations of such pleas vanishing into a void of incomprehension.
If nothing less than the transformation of human nature is the objective then leadership is certainly critical. By this I do not mean the wholesale restructuring of our social institutions that many call for. That can wait. Nor am I referring to the hollow practices, accompanied by weasel words, effected by individual executives, masquerading as leadership in so many of our enterprises as well as across nations.
On the contrary, I am referring more to a shared moral impulse - an unwavering integrity that enables wise and mature engagement, the allocation of intellectual resources, and responsible, rapid, collective decision-making – needed in order to shape the conditions needed for genuine transformation to occur.
This kind of liberating experience and praxis cannot be mandated. Nor can it be imposed from above. Most likely it must arise from the grassroots of our society. Much will depend on the shifting of investment capital from capitalist schemes to more socially collaborative, value-generating modes of production - along with adequate legal means of protecting these from private appropriation.
There are also far-reaching implications in all of this for governments and the apparatus of provisioning for citizens. When the post-capital economy embeds, and becomes critical to social well-being, the state must perceive itself as a curator of self-sufficiency, rather than an arms-length administrative control mechanism, or service-provider. This is far removed from today’s conventional market-state functionalities.
Of course, new forms of social collaboration such as peer production do not necessarily resolve ingrained injustices in the current world-system - especially those involving race or gender, for example. But they are pioneering a more equitable system of value-creation that transcends the exploitative logic underpinning predatory capitalism. This approach is far more likely to open up new opportunities for social tolerance and empathy than the current system, which is invested in pitting insurrectionary social movements against each other.
In order to harness the benefits offered by these new approaches we must ensure that in future our most life-critical systems are designed in ways where they are always capable of consciously adapting to changing contextual conditions.
In the final analysis I suspect nothing less than the total application of our collective desire and intelligence to these matters will be adequate. And as always the deeper question is whether we are wise enough to survive our own success – either by transcending the prevailing worldview or reinventing the systems that no longer adequately service our needs.