Capitalism has meany sins, one worth shouting about is that it will displace billions and kill millions of people over then next ten years because it has left it too late to avoid unsurvivable 2/2.5°C of global warming with continuing blinded focus on perpetual growth, consumption, and resource exploitation. This significantly delays meaningful action on climate change, the inertia of emissions, feedback loops, and the continued expansion of fossil fuel industries mean that global temperatures will surpass the 2°C threshold, a critical boundary for avoiding widespread catastrophic #climatechaos.
Climate scientists and reports (e.g., #IPCC) highlight that without immediate, radical action, 2°C or even 2.5°C is locked in within the coming decades. Reports from global organizations consistently stress that incremental reforms are insufficient. They call for transformative changes to the political-economic systems driving ecological and climate crises. This includes shifting away from growth-focused capitalism toward sustainable, equitable models of resource management, prioritizing ecosystem restoration, and respecting planetary boundaries. The food for thought on this is that it starts to sound like socialism Without this systemic change, both biodiversity loss and abrupt climate disruptions are going to worsen.
The challenge remains, moving from acknowledgment of these issues to implementing viable alternatives. Best not to be a #deathcult worshipping #mainstreaming prat on this.
A small step is the #OMN, we need bigger steps, but each journey starts with a simple step #KISS
This is my reaction from the talk, have not read the book.
In The Forever Crisis, the author presents complex systems thinking as a framework for addressing the world’s intractable challenges, particularly at the level of global governance. The book critiques the traditional top-down approaches that are pushed by powerful institutions like the #UN, highlighting how these solutions are a mismatched for complex, interwoven issues like #climatechange, security, finance, and digital governance.
One of the core issues raised is that global governance structures are failing to keep pace with the crises they are supposed to address. Traditional approaches “silo” issues, handling them in isolation, which makes it hard for messy interconnected challenges to be addressed in a holistic way. For example, while climate change is universally recognized as a priority, the complex “network of governance” is fragmented, leaving institutions like the UN and #IPCC struggling to effectively drive change. These traditional, siloed paths reflect a short-term vision, prioritizing superficial “silver bullet” solutions over systemic, transformative approaches.
A complex systems approach, likening effective governance to networks such as the “mushrooms under the forest floor”—resilient, interconnected, and adaptable. Rather than rigid, top-down mandates, this metaphor supports creating flexible, networked governance structures that can adapt to shifting crises. The notion of cascading solutions is key here: solutions should ripple across systems in a way that amplifies positive outcomes, rather than relying solely on isolated, large-scale interventions.
The talk highlights how unready we are for institutional preparedness and adaptive governance, with the importance of adaptability in governance, particularly in preparing for shocks, both anticipated and unanticipated. Using COVID-19 as an example, he critiques the over-reliance on “luck” rather than robust structures, suggesting that governance systems must be nimble and interconnected enough to absorb shocks without collapsing. Currently, we have a fasard, the UN and other agencies are trying to act as “confidence boosters,” convincing themselves of their own effectiveness.
Challenges to implementing complexity in governance, despite the potential of complexity theory, the talk raises significant questions about implementation. Power structures are deeply entrenched in traditional governance systems, making it difficult to shift away from rigid, reactive models. Further, financial systems tend to funnel resources into quick-fix solutions rather than funding long-term, adaptive responses.
My though, about the talk on mainstream solutions, touches on an essential question: can the existing structures within the “#deathcult” of neoliberalism actually provide the transformation we need? This perspective aligns with the book’s critique, questioning whether today’s dominant structures can truly embrace a complexity-oriented approach to governance. To solve this I focus on #Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB as grassroots projects which underlines an alternative that prioritizes local, networked, and community-driven solutions—a departure from the centralized and out-of-touch responses typical of global governance.
The book’s focus on complexity theory as a tool to facilitate self-organizing, resilient systems could be a powerful argument for the decentralized path I advocate. This framework validates the idea that change might be more effectively driven from the grassroots, where diverse actors work in networked patterns that reflect the natural resilience seen in ecosystems.
The talk:
Join Thomas Hale, Professor in Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, and Adam Day, Head of UN University Centre for Policy Research in Geneva, as they discuss Day’s newest book The Forever Crisis.
The Forever Crisis is an introduction to complex systems thinking at the global governance level. It offers concepts, tools, and ways of thinking about how systems change that can be applied to the most wicked problems facing the world today. More than an abstract argument for complexity theory, the book offers a targeted critique of today’s highest-profile proposals for improving the governance of our environment, security, finance, health, and digital space. It suggests that we should spend less effort and resources on upgrading existing institutions, and more on understanding how they (and we) relate to each other.
My thinking and notes.
Its the #NGO crew talking about my subject, this is a professor and the #UN secretary generals adviser. Start with basic complexity, telling a normal story.
Globalisation drives complexity, the nudge theory, the network of governance which we have to manage. Use the IPCC as a tool, but this is a mess. The argument for big solutions, top down is a bad fit for complexity thinking. The solution is tendicalse? Or the mushrooms under the forest floor, network metaphor.
Shifting tipping point, to shift change
Long problems demand complexity, current risk is undervalued
Transformative global governance, or our current global governance could go extinct.
We have a anufe data, for AI to be used as early warning “advising” governance.
So this is main-streaming looking at change and mediating the challenge. Whether it works at all is an open question, looking unlikely looking around the room.
He says we can’t co-operate, and in his terms this is correct. The solution is to try and “trick” the current systems to work together, don’t think he gets beyond this.
UN women calls the current path a failer, and that this is ongoing, but MUCH more urgent now.
In the report, the silos were knitted together, but nobody understood this, so then it was unpacked into sloes so that people could accept it.
The conference that did this report, was in a large part a confidence booster that the current systems could actually work. This is a very small step. No war was won.
The is a consensus that the current process is failing, and needs to change to challenge the current structures. The problem of re-siloing, the crumbling of bridges as they are being built, the outcome the establishment is still blocking the needed bridging.
For him, the ideas don’t create transformation. They spent a year going over old agreements, the new issues were not focused on. This was a problem of trust and transparency. So the whole process was knocked back a year.
Is this change easer or harder during crises? We tend to think that crises creates flexibility, but he argues they hold together stronger when change might be happening? She points to the defence crotch, that change is being blocked by the crises, it’s complex.
Are any of the current institutions fit to governing #AI
Finance funds silver bulite solutions rather than long term solutions. Quick fix, fixes nothing, its funding pored down the drain. His solution is a real cost on carbon if we can get the spyware command and control right to make this work.
On chip verification, hardcoded spy and control in our chips… now this is a very #geekproblem idea.
Can the states raise to work, she says we hope so 🙂 as the is no alternative 🙁 we won’t states to work, in partnership with the private secturer… we need the UN to preform its function, that partners with other actors, private structure, civil society etc.
Capacity building is 10% of the climate budget, this is about writing PDF’s, the people doing the change are simply not there.
Q. on the time to act, with the example of Gorbertrov and the claps of the Soviet Union.
Resilience is not a good thing, if the thing that is resilients are paths are not working.
Can we bake in a long term path into current decisions?
How can we change the existing system so that it balances?
The word leadership, that individuals playing a role, to be the change, is a subject that excites them.
My question would have been, the #deathcult – is the any actors or forces outside this cult – that you see could be the change we need?
He, Cascading solutions across the system fast enough to be the change we need?
She, better preparedness for the shocks, so we can pull together. To deal with issues we have not anticipated. We are not there yet.
In today’s #mainstreaming political mess, the issue of #climatechange is sometimes seen as a matter of differing opinions. However, we need to be honest to recognize that climate denial, particularly among #mainstreaming people, is not a simple case of holding an alternative viewpoint; it’s a deliberate spread of misinformation.
The Reality of Climate Change we can see every day, it is a fact, supported by a consensus within the scientific community: rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and shifting ecosystems all show the severe impact of human activities on our planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (#IPCC) have repeatedly confirmed these findings.
The motives behind climate denial, despite the scientific consensus, is to push falsehoods. Why? Financial Interests: Climate deniers are financially tied to industries that would be negatively impacted by stringent environmental regulations, such as the fossil fuel industry. These industries stand to lose billions if policies are enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Political Gain: Politicians deny climate change to align with their party’s stance, which is influenced by powerful lobbies. By doing so, they secure campaign contributions and political support. Ideological Reasons: Denying climate change is part of an ideological battle pushed by our blinded worship of the #deathcult that this “common sense” is blocking the needed intervention and regulation. Yes, the reality of climate change would require some of us to endorse policies we fundamentally oppose, it would bring into question the last 40 years of our worship, we might have to wait for some people to die out, for their blocking to end.
The consequences of denial, labelling climate denial as just another opinion trivializes the consequences it has on public policy and global well-being. The spread of misinformation leads to: Delayed Action where policy measures to combat climate change are postponed, worsening the impact and increasing the cost of mitigation efforts. Public Confusion, where people are misled about the severity of the issue, which undermines efforts to build the consensus for collective action. Global Harm of climate change are not confined by borders. Decisions made by deniers in the rich countries, have ramifications for ecosystems and communities worldwide.
Calling out the liars, is a first step, to make visible, what is a deliberate and harmful lie. The stakes are too high to treat it as a difference of opinion. Effective climate mediation requires a foundation built on truth and scientific integrity. We need to strongly push back and make accountable people and organizations who spread these lies, particularly those in positions of power. This involves, demanding #4opens transparency of politicians and public figures, a simple step is disclosing financial ties to industries that influence their stance on climate issues.
Climate change is the defining issue of our era, and addressing it requires a commitment to truth and action, both grassroots and mainstreaming. Climate deniers are not holding a different opinion; they are actively obstructing progress, by lying. We need to walk a truthful path, act on this, by starting to implement the actions and policies needed to protect, our society, environment and our planet.
