There is a lot to consider with quantum physics with a closer connection to life, living systems and holism rather than planet first and people second as has been the case in sustainability for too long. Thank you. Is n’t this what regenerative economics is taking on?
Thanks, John, this is very helpful, not least because you're integrating a lot of diverse ideas into a tighter aperture - and bringing them into an investigation space that deserves further observation, (or not, as it may be).
The idea of non-linear sustainability does feel increasingly relevant. System complexity appears to be moving faster than folks at the face of sustainable change can adequately process, let alone respond to.
Given the high level of demand you and GlobeScan identified for more radical agenda change (I'm comfortably among that 56%), this kind of work seems crucial - not as an end goal, but as a discipline for making better sense of transformative change. (I also liked Nicola's point about it being 'a practice-tested body of complexity science').
I've been exploring something in parallel through the lens of 'alchemy' - not as an entire end state, but as a way of naming an adaptive process for making sense of, and bringing about change that currently seems impossible.
Like you, I'm wary of this drifting into abstract mysticism or rejecting science. If it has value, it should be applied across science, markets, politics - while also pointing to the inner, relational and cultural shifts that technical solutions alone seem unable to carry.
Alchemy is by no means a perfect word - perhaps usefully so. It's interesting that it appears, in different forms, across both Eastern and Western traditions.
Either way, feels like we're scratching the surface.
I tried to explore this from a slightly different angle earlier this month, in case it's of interest:
John, I really appreciate this article. If we’ve learnt anything in the past few decades, it’s that transition is not linear, not incremental, and not amenable to 20th-century logics.
One nuance I’d like to offer: most of what people are exploring around uncertainty, emergence, and sense-making didn’t really come from quantum mechanics itself. It came from the complexity, cybernetic, and nonlinear dynamics traditions. Like Prigogine’s work on far-from-equilibrium systems, Bateson’s ecology of mind, Weick’s sense-making, and later translations by Cilliers, Stacey, and Snowden into organisational practice.
Using “quantum” is evocative, and I understand the pull, but I’m wondering about the danger of people turning metaphor into mystique. A woo factor that skips over the actual disciplines that do the work.
I know this is not your intention. And I may be over-sensitive because I see people evoking woo as they romanticise Indigenous Knowledge.
But to my mind, our imperative now is grounded discipline that draws from a practice-tested body of complexity science. Perhaps making that applied lineage explicit could make the piece even more useful for us as practitioners.
I wish there was a pill one could take to onboard all this wisdom, Nicola : ) But, as it is, I hugely appreciate your suggested sources. Knowing the work of people like Bateson, however, and the fact that they came after the peak of the early quantum boom, I wonder whether they were at least somewhat influenced by the zeitgeist?
Thanks John, I think you're right. It must have been an incredibly exciting time to be alive and open to new ideas. I still remember the thrill of discovering Capra in the early 80s, which was many decades later.
There's a fascinating quote from French missionary Henri Junod who published an ethnography on the Tsonga people of Southern Africa in 1912. "These people are so little philosophical that they can hold two contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time", he wrote.
A decade later, Heisenberg published his Uncertainty Principle...
And a century later we are starting to grapple with what ambiguity means for sustainability practice and decision-making.
There is a lot to consider with quantum physics with a closer connection to life, living systems and holism rather than planet first and people second as has been the case in sustainability for too long. Thank you. Is n’t this what regenerative economics is taking on?
Thanks, John, this is very helpful, not least because you're integrating a lot of diverse ideas into a tighter aperture - and bringing them into an investigation space that deserves further observation, (or not, as it may be).
The idea of non-linear sustainability does feel increasingly relevant. System complexity appears to be moving faster than folks at the face of sustainable change can adequately process, let alone respond to.
Given the high level of demand you and GlobeScan identified for more radical agenda change (I'm comfortably among that 56%), this kind of work seems crucial - not as an end goal, but as a discipline for making better sense of transformative change. (I also liked Nicola's point about it being 'a practice-tested body of complexity science').
I've been exploring something in parallel through the lens of 'alchemy' - not as an entire end state, but as a way of naming an adaptive process for making sense of, and bringing about change that currently seems impossible.
Like you, I'm wary of this drifting into abstract mysticism or rejecting science. If it has value, it should be applied across science, markets, politics - while also pointing to the inner, relational and cultural shifts that technical solutions alone seem unable to carry.
Alchemy is by no means a perfect word - perhaps usefully so. It's interesting that it appears, in different forms, across both Eastern and Western traditions.
Either way, feels like we're scratching the surface.
I tried to explore this from a slightly different angle earlier this month, in case it's of interest:
https://open.substack.com/pub/theboyinthewildwood/p/a-meeting-by-the-river?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
John, I really appreciate this article. If we’ve learnt anything in the past few decades, it’s that transition is not linear, not incremental, and not amenable to 20th-century logics.
One nuance I’d like to offer: most of what people are exploring around uncertainty, emergence, and sense-making didn’t really come from quantum mechanics itself. It came from the complexity, cybernetic, and nonlinear dynamics traditions. Like Prigogine’s work on far-from-equilibrium systems, Bateson’s ecology of mind, Weick’s sense-making, and later translations by Cilliers, Stacey, and Snowden into organisational practice.
Using “quantum” is evocative, and I understand the pull, but I’m wondering about the danger of people turning metaphor into mystique. A woo factor that skips over the actual disciplines that do the work.
I know this is not your intention. And I may be over-sensitive because I see people evoking woo as they romanticise Indigenous Knowledge.
But to my mind, our imperative now is grounded discipline that draws from a practice-tested body of complexity science. Perhaps making that applied lineage explicit could make the piece even more useful for us as practitioners.
I wish there was a pill one could take to onboard all this wisdom, Nicola : ) But, as it is, I hugely appreciate your suggested sources. Knowing the work of people like Bateson, however, and the fact that they came after the peak of the early quantum boom, I wonder whether they were at least somewhat influenced by the zeitgeist?
Thanks John, I think you're right. It must have been an incredibly exciting time to be alive and open to new ideas. I still remember the thrill of discovering Capra in the early 80s, which was many decades later.
There's a fascinating quote from French missionary Henri Junod who published an ethnography on the Tsonga people of Southern Africa in 1912. "These people are so little philosophical that they can hold two contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time", he wrote.
A decade later, Heisenberg published his Uncertainty Principle...
And a century later we are starting to grapple with what ambiguity means for sustainability practice and decision-making.
I agree, Nicola, and my intention is not to woo.