“When written in Chinese, the word ‘crisis’ is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity.”
John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. president
Reflecting on our current multifaceted crises, it’s essential to remember Pascal’s advice, with a slight twist: instead of carrying something beautiful in your heart, keep it in your mind. This shift from heart to mind underscores the need for more rationality and less emotion in these trying times.
Conscious and self-aware, humanity finds itself at a crossroads, torn between its archaic emotional instincts and a forward-looking vision. Our internal and external conflicts revolve around the struggle for identity — a battle waged within ourselves, among individuals, and across groups. This quest for identity, to find what defines and distinguishes us, is a fundamental aspect of our existence.
But why do we, as a species, spend so much effort on self-identification? This question becomes even more pertinent if we aim to secure a sustainable future for our species. The process of self-identification, ubiquitous in individual experiences, seems to be an inescapable aspect of human life.
Perhaps this is because, at our core, we are more similar than different. This similarity, coupled with our unique identities, creates an intriguing contradiction. We share many attributes and emotions, yet our ideas and beliefs diverge significantly.
Notably, these beliefs, and the concepts they encompass, are not of equal standing. It’s possible that the key differences among humans lie in these belief systems. Some view the individual as the ultimate judge of ethics and aesthetics, while others believe in a higher authority beyond human judgment.
These divergent beliefs form the basis of our internal human conflict, presenting an inherent incompatibility within our species. Ultimately, we are faced with a choice about our future direction, a decision complicated by the paradox of free will — a paradox I believe exists.
I believe that the current polycrisis is fundamentally one of choice. We must choose to believe that we can create a better world with our own hands. In this sense, optimism is far from being a castle-in-the-sky approach but a pragmatic and useful attitude for it implies that we do desire a future, a good and equitable future.
That is the good we must keep in mind.
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns or rejoice because thorns have roses.”
Alphonse Karr, A Tour Round My Garden
…
On the current Polycrisis
A Polycrisis is a Meta event — Multiple events occurring concurrently and reinforcing each other. Hyperconnected and entangled the set of events comprised in a polycrisis are such that it is practically impossible to detach one from the other, these events are, so to speak closely coupled.
Alternatively, they can be called wicked problems but to my mind polycrisis is a more appropriate term.
Primarily a “polycrisis” refers to a situation in which multiple crises occur simultaneously or in close succession, with each individual crisis having the potential to exacerbate the others. This compounding effect can make it particularly challenging to address any single issue, as solutions for one problem might inadvertently worsen another. Polycrises require comprehensive, holistic, and often innovative solutions, as well as collaborative efforts across sectors, disciplines, and even borders to adequately address the intertwined challenges.
Examples of polycrises could include situations where economic downturns, political unrest, public health emergencies, and environmental disasters happen concurrently, creating complex webs of interrelated problems. The concurrent challenges posed by climate change, resource scarcity, economic inequality, and geopolitical tensions in the 21st century are sometimes cited as manifestations of a global polycrisis.
I believe with others (see notes) that we are currently at the initial stages of a global polycrisis in which forces that have moved underneath are coalescing, intertwining, locking, and mingling to such an extent that our current conscious-aware narratives are hard-pressed to clarify.
As we grapple with the simultaneous onslaught of climate change, economic disparities, geopolitical tensions, and social upheavals, the interconnectedness of these crises reveals a world where individual challenges are no longer isolated events.
“A global polycrisis occurs when crises in multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects. These interacting crises produce harms greater than the sum of those the crises would produce in isolation, were their host systems not so deeply interconnected.” (The Cascade Institute)
The question of how to think about the current polycrisis is (or should be) a top priority to any thinking being, if we assume, as I do, that we all want a future, and a good one at that. A future that as in the above quote from the Cascade Institute does not significantly degrade humanity’s prospects.
I leave it to minds greater than me to explicate the intricacies of the current polycrisis, historians such as Adam Tooze, do it expertly at the World Economic Forum, or in his blog here. Alternatively, the political scientist Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon explains it well at Vox (highly recommended).
‘Welcome to the World of Polycrisis’:
“A problem becomes a crisis when it challenges our ability to cope and thus threatens our identity. In the polycrisis the shocks are disparate, but they interact so that the whole is even more overwhelming than the sum of the parts. At times one feels as if one is losing one’s sense of reality.”
Adam Tooze
“More immediately, the polycrisis requires us to take seriously the coexistence of quick (pandemic, war) and slow (climate change, biodiversity decline) crises. We have to inhabit these temporalities at the same time.”
The polycrisis by Ville Lähde
What interests me is the relationship of the current polycrisis to our conscious awareness and to our thought processes.
The current events in the world, a reality affecting millions of people all over the world, are fundamentally degrading our options as humans into the future.
Yes, we have developed an amazing civilization, reaching for the stars, we are on the verge of breaking through the conundrum of AI, and still, we wage war.
…
Atrocities are a wound in nature.
Dark and harrowing, traumatic and distressing, atrocities serve as a mirror to humanity, to our very nature.
To Nature. To Consciousness. To the individual and to the collective.
Brutalities and carnages, bloodbaths, and slaughters; are all expressions meant to convey in words a reflection on the worst that humans are and do.
The mirror of massacres reflects the horror. Not only of the cruelest and vilest but most importantly to the non-care we have as a species to life, ours, others, and other forms of life.
Though we know how rare life is and how precious our little planet in a far corner of our galaxy is, we keep on destroying it.
And so, when confronted with acts of immense cruelty we are forced to revisit and grapple with deeply rooted questions about the value and sanctity of life.
The Value of Human Life
In the vast array of human existence, the worth of an individual life is often appraised differently depending on cultural, religious, and personal perspectives. Yet, a common thread in most philosophical and religious traditions is the innate dignity and worth of the individual.
When faced with atrocities, this belief in inherent worth is put to the test. It demands that we ask, how can one human inflict pain, suffering, or death upon another, recognizing the depth and sanctity of life that we all share?
The Ethical Paradox
Atrocities often arise in contexts where ethical clarity becomes blurred. Either through the dehumanization of the “other” or the conviction in a cause so deeply that it justifies unimaginable acts. The ethical paradox is that individuals committing these acts often believe they are justified, either because they see their victims as less than human because they believe their actions serve a greater good, because they follow a particular creed, or because they have been indoctrinated. Be the reason as it may these transgressions on the human values and the sanctity of life must be eradicated.
Why?
Not because nature says so (obviously nature allows it) nor because this or that god says so (obviously gods of all shades permit it) but because we, the modern humans say so, proclaim so, and declare it.
We the conscious aware humans are the only ones in charge of the assertion, no deity, entity, or ideology is necessary here, the authority is and must always remain with humans concerning the value of life.
We declare life to be of intrinsic value because we love life, we enjoy life, and we believe that life is more valuable than non-life.
In this respect there is no dualistic perception here, there is no equivalence between life and death. (which does not mean we do not accept it as a matter of fact).
There is no ethical dispute, there cannot be moral relativism here, life is valuable period.
That is the stance of all conscious aware human beings.
And yet there is an immense and quite dense ethical/moral fog here as the current polycrisis shows us.
But to have clear sight and crystal vision we cannot be simple. We are complex creatures embedded in a multifaceted environment, in a convoluted and intricate civilization that continuously complexifies.
And it may be that we are ill-equipped to deal with such an immense complexity. (and apparently, The UN Hired an AI Company to Untangle the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis)
We are at an inflection point, there is no doubt about that. A bifurcation in the history of civilization is not new in the historical sense, but it is for us, who living here and now must find within ourselves the ethical clarity, to perform for the future.
There is a way out. There always is.
It is not for the faint of heart nor for the meek of spirit, it is for those courageous minds, daring to be different in a world consumed by hatred and stupidity.
The way out of this conundrum is through conscious awareness positioning itself in the state of negative capability.
In an age where polarized opinions and dogmatic beliefs are rampant, negative capability acts as an antidote. It challenges the need for absolute certainty and instead promotes a mindset that values doubt as a pathway to deeper understanding. This can prevent the rise of extremist views and encourage more moderate, balanced perspectives.
First pointed out in a letter of Keats to his brothers, negative capability describes the ability of an individual to remain comfortable with uncertainty, doubt, and ambiguity, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason. For Keats, this quality was particularly essential for a poet. Over time, however, the concept has been applied more broadly to other areas of thought and life. Defending the value of negative capability involves championing open-mindedness, embracing uncertainty, and recognizing the limitations of human cognition.
It is precisely because we are complex systems that we must embrace a higher cognitive state such as negative capability. Such a state will allow us to deny absolutism but remain enthralled with the mystery of life (Keats again), it permits us to rise above the fray of immediate response and define an ethical stance that supports life, evolution and an enlightened civilization that aims for its own betterment.
It starts with acknowledgment, recognizing, and admitting the presence and scale of the atrocity. It continues with empathy. Understanding the depths of suffering and the complexities of motivations. Proceeding to education and ending with fostering dialogue and understanding between groups to heal wounds and build a foundation for lasting peace.
Facing visible atrocities is undeniably a test of our humanity. It challenges our convictions, ethics, and beliefs. Yet, it is precisely in these moments of darkness that humanity has the opportunity to shine brightest — to reaffirm the value of every life, to stand firmly against hate and discrimination, and to pave a path towards understanding and reconciliation.
“If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
(what can I say I am a sucker for poetry)
Thank you for reading.
(more contemplations to come soon)
…
Further readings:
