Make — Earth — Great — Again: Theoretical Background (Long Read)
(A short reflection and introduction can be found here)
Intro
“Make — Earth — Great — Again” is a call for people to rebalance their path towards the future — not only technologically and economically, but primarily socially and spiritually.
Looking at the types of current problems mankind faces, they mainly originate from a lack of self-regulation. Our uncontrolled and unlimited (“the sky is the limit” type of) individual-human-footprint growth causes tension within humanity leading to violence and wars, and invokes external irreversible environmental damage which leads to climate catastrophes.
Notwithstanding, to drift apart or to expand also has the important function to innovate, to think out of the box, to be different, to attempt to find solutions or ways to survive with more people than the ecosystem naturally may allow us; to achieve “progress” for humanity and avoid stagnation.
Although innovation is driven by individuals, addressing the collective negative effects of our combined impact may nevertheless require birth control or other self-imposed reductions of our influence. Innovation-derived life-expectance increase, may well force us to reduce our individual space allocation or our collective population growth.
Alternatively, there also may be technological options discovered to harmoniously and sustainably reduce mankind’s negative effects on its environment. This would allow more people to coexist within the same shared ecosystem and would optimize the available space for humans. It could change our “survival of the fittest” evolutionary selection by an approach of voluntary self-control.
However, in order to arrive at this stage of development, we will first have to be aware of our limits and educate ourselves on restraint. This implies to become competent to grow together or contract when the challenges we face surpass our capabilities and our initiated developments get out of hand; “when the side effects of the medicines we develop are or become worse than the disease”.
Reviewing today’s polarized situation, where the focus increasingly seems to be on fighting instead of cooperating with each other, we first will need to learn to talk with and respect each other again; without doing so we are out of control and doomed.
This long read is about balancing our “drifting apart” and “growing together” and what an individual can contribute to finding equilibrium between the two. It is meant as a thought framework for building personal applications to achieve this goal rather than for describing the applications themselves. Nevertheless, the article describes fundamental options to be explored by anyone.
Individualization
The world’s current polarization, inequality, forced migration, and environmental destruction all stem from the same structural imbalance between humanity drifting apart (the collective result of our expanding individual footprints) and growing together (requiring the shrinking of the sum of our individual footprints).
Technological progress as such is not enough to address this. Only the human management of the advancement can create the required sustainability. Without awareness and oversight, change can easily turn itself against us or ruin us. In times of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear threats and AI, we can also easily initiate our self-destruction. This is why we as humanity will very frequently need to evaluate and pause or rebalance the systemic, evolution-related, expansion of our footprint.
Compared to 100 years ago, many people have become wealthy. Mankind meanwhile created a world of mass production and consumption. This has led to more individual options to select from and increased independence — but — it has also led to more personal competition and elevated gaps between rich and poor. Unfortunately, extreme poverty still keeps millions of people caught in a situation of powerlessness and forced interdependency. Notwithstanding, from a macro-level perspective, societies became more fragmented by people obtaining more freedom of choice and, as a result, the division of communities into smaller interest groups and greater individualization.
Related to the above, also the type of personal identity has changed. Connected to our dependence levels and assuming a situation of free will rather than of people being caught in forced discipline, our personal identity largely used to be more inward-looking. Our view used to be based on an integrity-and-authenticity-derived “being an integral part of one’s environment” approach. The result was a primarily solidarity-and-respect-founded attitude of “what can I contribute to my surroundings”. Meanwhile, to a great extend, this turned into an outward-looking, comparison-based, individuality and “freedom of expression” associated positioning of people, who now prioritize “what is in it for me”. More recently, social media developments have substantially contributed to and accelerated this process.
The difference between the two shows a growing-together outcome for the first “contribution-based” attitude, while the second positioning of discriminating oneself from others is causing people to drift apart. Often this also results in presenting oneself as “who one would like to be”, rather than “who one actually is”, including deviation of the truth in order to achieve one’s personal or interest group’s goals. The use of AI to manipulate people may strongly reinforce this “fake fictional truth” process from now on.
A related result is growing inequality. Whereas a focus on contributing to one’s environment clearly has a leveling effect, in the “what is in it for me” situation, everyone has different access to resources and opportunities, leading to uneven outcomes.
Looking at the present-day imbalance between the two forces and in order to start addressing our common problems collectively, people will have to start prioritizing reconnecting with each other and with the ecosystems that sustain our life over maximizing their personal space. This requires a rethinking or re-shift from “what is in it for me” towards a more honest authenticity-based primary attitude of “what can I contribute to my surroundings”. For the time being, in order to address the above, the latter will have to become our personal guide towards the relationships with our context.
To conclude, the above two types of individual behavior both determine how we emotionally function in groups and how we position ourselves towards others and nature from a totality perspective. Growing together is the result of having one’s surroundings as its focal point and to look inside, whereas drifting apart is mainly caused by being self-centered and to look outside for reference. Both perspectives are directly connecting the individual with its societal environment.
The Societal Environment
The M-E-G-A model starts non-polarized with independence representing the core individual. From here the individual is surrounded by two collective social grouping concepts: belonging for one’s inner circle and engagement for the outer, wider, social participation. Furthermore, the individual is part of an organizational society structure, also here two concepts can be found: governance for the top-down and regard for the bottom-up view on one’s position.
Applying the previously described drifting apart versus growing together logic, the above five concepts become polarized in an outward-looking (drifting apart, inequality generating (-)) and an inward-looking (growing together, equality generating (+)) outlook on the world.
-a- Independence becomes polarized in (-) individuality (the more distinguishable a person is from others, the more independent the individual becomes) and (+) authenticity (the result of inward-looking self-discovery, one’s independence is derived from observed and lived inner values).
-b- Belonging becomes polarized in (-) rivalry (a result of comparing oneself to and discriminating oneself from others in a group) and (+) empathy (a result of looking for similarity by imagining oneself to be in the position of the others in the group).
-c- Engagement becomes polarized in (-) patriotism (seeing oneself as different from other societies and the urge to maintain this difference) and (+) solidarity (seeing oneself as having the same human value as others, leading to an urge to support others who face a deprived situation in societies).
-d- Governance becomes polarized in (-) superiority (decision making and control based on power dynamics) and (+) excellence (decision making and control based on supposed wisdom of the ruler).
-e- Regard becomes polarized in (-) discipline (forced regard for the power of others) and (+) respect (voluntary observing rules out of regard for the wisdom of the ruler and the related society structure).
The result is that there are eight paths connecting an individual to its societal environment. These paths and their implications will now be elaborated upon into more detail.
Two Cold versus Two Warm Social Paths
There are in principle two social positions we have to choose from: “Cold” versus “Warm”, which implies to either socially, primarily, focus on “What separates people?” or on “What people have in common?”. The first approach assumes people to be different from each other, whereas the second one assumes people to be socially fundamentally equal.
On the four resulting social paths, which connect individual independence to belonging and engagement, there are two stages: a first step away from independence where the individual position is still dominant and a second step where the collective identity becomes more important than the individual one.
The first set of two paths has belonging as its goal. It means to connect to a social group and to identify with it. There are two approaches here: as said before, a cold and a warm one.
The first option means to base one’s belonging on “what is in it for me”. It leads to exclusively cluster with objectively, criteria-wise, selected people in order to reinforce one’s own position or interests and to shut-out everyone else. There is a world of “us and them” created. Belonging becomes polarized, exclusive, and competition-based. The group’s focus is on barring those considered to be different, being them, in order to maximize the interests of us. Its basis is otherness, which leads to kinship as a second stage. This path causes banning, rivalry, and potentially jealousy, which all feed “hatred” in those who are excluded; it causes the path to be cold.
The second option is to base belonging on “what I can contribute to my surroundings”. This integrity- or authenticity-driven path to one’s belonging, primary looks at what people have in common (the us component in us and them); it looks for resemblance as its first stage, which leads to empathy-based affection as a second stage. Also in this case, belonging becomes polarized; belonging turns inclusive and based on empathy. This path leads to affection, fondness and “love”, openly welcoming like-minded or socially resembling people, making it a warm path.
The second set of two paths has engagement as its target. It means to become a member of a wider society beyond the more “specific belonging to a social group” level. Also here there are two options; a cold and a warm one.
The first option means to base one’s engagement on “what is in it for me”. It leads to seeing the society as a transactional system where paying taxes (almsgiving) and what people get for their contribution are weighted against each other. Supporting less fortunate others is dominantly considered to be an obligation rather than that the disadvantaged are being seen as (to be supported) full members of society. In the second stage of the path, one is supposed to be a good citizen who fully assimilates and perfectly fits-in (malleability) within the common societal denominator. This type of engagement in society is based on patriotism and much less on real individual personal involvement. The path leads to inequality; disadvantaged members and culturally different outsiders are socially ignored. This causes the path to be cold.
The second option is to base one’s engagement on “what I can contribute to my surroundings”. Less fortunate or disadvantaged members of the community are taken care of by the privileged ones. Its basis is mindfulness, people are socially involved and consciously aware of each other, this awareness turns into kindness in the second stage where solidarity starts to dominate as the polarized form of engagement. Besides inclusion, the path also leads to hospitality towards outsiders; culturally different people are welcomed. This leads to the path being warm.
Two Control- versus Two Non-Control-based Organizational Paths
Also organizationally there are in principle two positions we have to choose from: a control- versus a non-control-based one. Also here the first approach is based on assumed differences whereas the second assumes equal fundamental rights. It means to either base the societal order on “division” or on “likeness”.
On the four organizational paths from independence to governance and regard there are (like before) two stages: a first step away from independence where the individual position is still dominant, and a second step where being part of the organizational structure or ecosystem becomes more important than a person’s individual purpose.
The first set of two paths has governance as its goal. It means to organizationally structure the society and to divide the tasks necessary to rule or manage it. There are two options here; a control and a non-control-based one.
The first option means to base governance on “what is in it for me”. It means to maximize one’s personal span of control, power or status. This leads to a hierarchy of competences and a struggle for power. Justification of the hierarchy is a supposed superiority of some over others. There is a world of top-down layers created with the focus on influence over those below. Its basis is qualification or mastery, which leads to autocracy or dictatorship as a second stage. Governance becomes polarized and based on the concept of superiority in this case. Since the hierarchy is involuntary imposed on people, enforcement is mostly needed to remain in control of the mechanism. The path leads to division and fundamental inequality between people.
The second option is to base governance on “what I can contribute to my surroundings”. This integrity- or authenticity-driven path to bottom-up governance primary looks at qualities of people, it looks for virtuousness as its first stage, which leads to wisdom or clear-sightedness-driven governance as a second stage. This governance or polarized leadership-type is, excellence-driven, mentoring the others. Leaders are no autocrats but chosen to represent their population. The structure is based on entrustment and likeness or fundamental equality between people. Individuals are mentored to maximally contribute to their society structure by optimizing the use of the qualities they possess within an organizational context.
The second set of two paths has regard as its target. It means that resources are considered limited and compromises must be made on how to share or divide them. The result is limitation, which needs to be complied to. Also here there are two options; a control- and a non-control-based one.
The first option means to base the expected regard on “what is in it for me”. It leads to seeing oneself as entitled to resources whereas others are not. As an outcome, subservience or discipline is expected from the deprived individuals. In the second stage of the path, the disentitlement goes a step further and becomes absolute; totally disqualifying people from accessing the resources by declaring them to be non-human. This process leads to genocide. The related society type is one of Nazism; its foundation is disentitlement, which turns into dehumanization as a second stage. This, outward-oriented, polarized, and forced regard-founded path, fundamentally presumes inequality.
The second option is to base one’s regard on “what I can contribute to my surroundings”. On this path, people are aware of the overarching omnipresent forces beyond their control and realize that these surpass their human influence or capacity. Its foundation is inward-oriented spiritual humbleness or meekness. Mankind realizes that we are no more than an integral part of nature or the ecosystem where we belong to, and that the system does not discriminate between individuals. This awareness of synthesis turns into spiritual-compassion-based tenderness or oneness in the second stage of the path, where spiritual unity dominates. Regard becomes polarized into voluntary respect here. This, inward looking, acceptance of our human limitations is based on presumed fundamental human equality in relation to the universe; none of us has achieved to escape death and to live forever yet.
The Foundation for Change
As we can see from the above explanation, change starts with the rebalancing of our concept of personal identity between “what is in it for me” versus “what I can contribute to my surroundings”. Taking less and giving more is most likely the only self-imposed path to bring people closer together. Doing so, its consequence is to try to rebalance cold versus warm, and control versus non-control. Only that way, we can address the encountered challenges when our initiated “progress” surpasses our capabilities to sustainably manage it. The next question is how to fill this in as an individual.
-1- Otherness versus Resemblance
Otherness is easy to assume, one does not even have to be in touch with the other, and outwardly one can often see it from far. This is where for many people the challenge starts to adjust their balance. Due to social media use, we more and more live in our safe social bubbles and avoid any contact with strangers. Without meeting them, there is no way to discover and reflect on the resemblance between people and to grow together. Resemblance is often hidden behind a veil of differences and needs introspection on what really matters. This is the topic www.dialog.builders addresses. It proposes to rebalance screen-time, face-time and reflection, and to cross the bridges with the unknown in order to discover resemblance and as a next step reinforce empathy.
-2- Kinship versus Affection
After replacing otherness by resemblance, the following effort is to rebalance one’s attitude towards group membership. In order to grow together one needs to reduce one’s fear or defense against the outside world and to discover or replace it by trust. When non-violent interaction with strangers is created, automatically, mutual empathy will grow; meaning that it will become lighter to build group cohesion based on understanding and open affection instead of to isolate oneself in a fortress of fear- driven kinship and rivalry. However, the rising use of AI may frustrate the required trust-building process (also see: www.thefutureoftrust.org).
-3- Almsgiving versus Mindfulness
In order to grow together, participation in society should not be exclusively based on abstract and cold financial (almsgiving type of) contribution. To socially engage means to be aware of the needs of the others one shares the collective space with. It results in mindfulness and warmth, bridges gaps and fills in needs, bringing people closer to each other.
-4- Malleability versus Kindness
Being aware or mindful, the next question is what to expect from society. Is it a structure asking for compliance, malleability and assimilation to the common denominator based social norms in order to be able to be proud on its created social identity? or is it a security- or solidarity-based system grounded in the kindness of its participants? The first approach excludes those who will or cannot assimilate to the applied set of limited and strict norms, whereas the second path is hospitable and warm to all sharing the same living space, bringing everyone together and culturally integrating them this way. This second approach can also be used for the reinclusion of forcibly displaced people, a group which worldwide meanwhile surpasses 100 million people (also see: www.reinclusion.org).
-5- Mastery versus Virtuousness
Currently, many people are educated to fulfill or master a position in an interrelated network of tasks or jobs representing the organizational structure of a society. This reward focused and inequality-based approach leads often to being under- or overqualified to perform the role one possesses or obtains. A related aspect is that, this way, Artificial Intelligence can easily take over many of the well specified job descriptions or tasks. At the other side of the spectrum one can find an alternative approach to maximize people’s potential contribution to a society’s “governance” by fully exploiting their qualities, potential or virtuousness. In this case, people are not qualifying for well-paid positions but are equally using their potential or authentic qualities to optimally contribute to the society’s structure. In order to move the balance between the two, one could for example introduce Universal Basic Employment (UBE) and alternative education structures which enable more freedom for self-realization and let people grow together this way (also see: www.iknal.org).
-6- Autocracy versus Clear-sightedness
Autocratic leadership, as a position, is an outcome of the previously discussed power-, status- and reward-founded organizational system based on mastery. It leads to a top of a pyramid shaped structure which handles mostly fully autonomous without any longer being accountable to the bottom and is thus clearly inequality-based. The equality-based counterpart is a “first among equals”-like type of leader who is one and equal with all participants of a society. Wisdom, leadership qualities, and clear-sightedness rule here and lead to guiding or mentoring all others towards an optimal (managerial or organizational) structure and its related output of accomplishing progress towards the common societal goals. The balance between the two is determined by the degree of real democratic representation and the ability to select wise instead of primarily powerful leadership candidates. The approach can also be used for conflict resolution or peace-building between culturally incompatible parties (also see: www.canaan.community). Unfortunately, most current politicians primarily posses the self-centered target of staying in power and to divide and rule instead of to focus on a population’s common interest of growing together.
-7- Disentitlement versus Meekness
In times of shortage or imagined lack of space, there are two paths to share the resulting limitations or suffering. The first path is one of inequality; it selects segments of the population in order to disentitle them from accessing the scarce resources, it means that the limitations become unequally divided. The second, equality-based, path is based on acceptance of the fact that mankind is not in control of the situation. The scarcity and its resulting suffering are equally borne by all, and there is humbleness or meekness towards one’s environment developed. Mankind is in this concept ruled by or subordinated to omnipresent forces which are beyond its capabilities to understand. The first (human) approach divides the society in those who will survive or thrive and those who will suffer, whereas the second leaves this decision to God. The latter lets people grow together and unite.
-8- Dehumanization versus Tenderness
In a continuation of the previous balance, addressing shortage or imagined lack of space can surpass the level of disentitlement or expropriation. At this stage, and in a situation of inequality, people will start to dehumanize others in order to “morally” defend killing them like vermin or pests. At this level, genocide is executed by those declaring themselves to be superior. The ideology of doing so is Nazism. On a different level, in respect to nature in general, a comparable process declares humans to be an entitled dominant species and exploit other species. The alternative, equality-based, approach of continuation of meekness is to bring all people together via uniting them with the omnipresent force ruling over them, and as a result to show spiritual compassion or spiritual tenderness towards each other and our ecosystem as a sign of the ultimate oneness with God (also see: www.samadeus.org). In order for humanity to grow together we will need less dehumanization and more religious consciousness and respect for nature to address the above situation.
Implementing the Eight Personal Balance Shifts
The above eight balances show a guide to shift one’s attitudes and rebalance humanity. If people need to grow together in order to be able to more collectively manage mankind’s progress by self-regulation, they will have to become warmer, less controlled and more focused on equality. Every individual can translate the required shift from “what is in it for me” to “what I can contribute to my surroundings” into forms of personal action. Indirectly, this will also lead to more appreciation for the society structure and the ecosystem one is an integral part of.
The steps to be taken to realize a particular contribution strongly depend on an individual’s cultural context. One of the eight balances will turn out to be the central or dominant one in any specific culture. However, which one will differ between societies. Still, all other forces will also be present to a lesser extent, and can be addressed.
Collective Effects
All forces in a society are interrelated. Shifting the individual balances does not only have personal effects, it indirectly changes the society’s dynamics and also influences the “collective” forces a society possesses. Besides of the eight direct relationships between individual independence and the outside world, there are four more indirect “collective” relationships that will shift or be influenced as a result of a change of personal attitudes.
From the five basic (non-polarized) concepts being independence, belonging, engagement, governance and regard, only two (belonging and engagement) are truly collective in nature because of their dependence on joint interaction. Belonging and engagement are an indirect mutuality-based attitude or behavioral outcome which cannot be directly influenced externally; both empathy and solidarity cannot be enforced. Governance and regard are different in this respect. They also cause collective results but through individual action, the collective outcome here is the sum of all individual changes and not of mutuality. This means that simultaneously addressing all individuals in relation to governance and regard results in collective change. The implication is that in a relationship between the latter concepts (governance and regard), these organizational approaches will dominate the two mutuality-based ones. In this essay’s context it means that the balancing forces where mutuality would influence the outcome are omitted. It is important to realize this approach when one looks at the dynamics of the indirect “collective” relationships below.
The Relationship between Governance and Belonging
The combination between governance and belonging shows two polarities. On one side, when superiority and rivalry come together, authority-based leadership of a clan or inner circle will be established, the result is patriarchy. The stronger or more dominant the superiority component is in this balance, the more patriarchic a society will become. The second, opposite, process is when excellence and empathy meet. In this case the result will be communion: people unite under the influence of a conflict-dissolving and tension-avoiding clear-sighted leader. The level of communion will vary in accordance with the experienced level of excellence-based governance.
The Relationship between Governance and Engagement
The intersection between governance and engagement is very important in most societies. When the negative polarities (superiority and patriotism) meet, the result will be supposed supremacy of one society model over another (for example with colonialism as a result). The supremacy level depends hereby on the level of the superiority component in the balance between the two. However, when the positive polarities (excellence and solidarity) encounter each other, the derived result will be harmony. When solidarity becomes stimulated by a clear-sighted leader who wants to reduce tension in society, unity will increase. The realized outcome level of achieved harmony will vary, mostly depending on the impact level of leadership excellence in the balance.
The Relationship between Regard and Belonging
When belonging and regard meet each other there are two possible outcomes. The first one being subjugation as a result of the two negatives rivalry and discipline. One group of people becomes (involuntary) fully docile to the will of another one. The more disciplined people are in this balance, the stronger their subjugation is. The second, positive, result is natural blending of people’s spheres as a result of a combining empathy with respect. People become intertwined because of their respectful interaction which stimulates the development of empathy. The outcome level is determined by the respect level for each other; the latter determines the level of openness for blending.
The Relationship between Regard and Engagement
Last but not least, when regard and engagement meet, this has a direct effect on people’s fragmentation. If the relationship is forced (discipline meets patriotism), the outcome will be coerced, discipline-driven, deference. However, if the relationship is voluntary (respect meets solidarity), the outcome will be a pacification tendency, resolving all tensions and conflicts between society models and their participants. The level of respect for each other determines the strength of the pacification outcome here.
Conclusion
“Make — Earth — Great — Again” is a call for people to rebalance their path towards the future — not only technologically and economically, but primarily socially and spiritually.
The world’s current polarization, inequality, forced migration, and environmental destruction all stem from the same structural disparity between humanity drifting apart (the collective result of our expanding individual footprints) and growing together (requiring the shrinking of the sum of our individual footprints).
Technological progress as such is not enough to address this imbalance. Only the human management of the advancement can create the required sustainability. Without awareness and oversight, change can easily turn itself against us or ruin us. This is why we very frequently will need to evaluate and pause or halt the systemic, evolution-related, expansion of our footprint.
People will (in the current out-of-balance stage) have to start prioritizing reconnecting with each other and with the ecosystems that sustain our life over maximizing their personal space. This requires a re-shift from a “what is in it for me” attitude towards a more honest authenticity-based attitude of “what I can contribute to my surroundings”.
It means a required direct personal change of one’s focus from:
-Otherness towards -Resemblance
-Kinship towards -Affection
-Almsgiving towards -Mindfulness
-Malleability towards -Kindness
-Mastery towards -Virtuousness
-Autocracy towards -Clear-sightedness
-Disentitlement towards -Meekness
-Dehumanization towards -Tenderness
The individual steps to be taken will strongly depend on one’s personal cultural context. Out of the eight balances, a single one will turn out to be the central or dominant shift required in any specific culture. Still, all other forces will also be present to a lesser extent, and can be addressed.
Doing so, will (on top) indirectly cause amplifying collective-growing-together effects, namely from:
-Patriarchy towards -Communion
-Supremacy towards -Harmony
-Subjugation towards -Blending
-Deference towards -Pacification
The above twelve outcomes will bring people closer to each other and improve their mutuality levels. This will open the opportunity to establish the required awareness of our human limits and self-control. Following the above steps, the medicines we develop may turn out to be able to cure our current and future diseases.
(The complete interactive “Information philosophy” cultural communication model, on which this article is based, and a short introduction to it can be found here)
