In the second last piece I introduced Duns Scotus’s distinction between quiddity and haecceity — whatness and thisness. Quiddity is what makes you human at all: the shared pattern. Haecceity is what makes you this human, the one the universe will only make once. That was about persons.

This one is about why the people trying to change the world keep failing to change it.

Because I have spent years now in rooms full of systems thinkers — brilliant, committed, exhausted people who can describe the molochian shitshow in their sleep — and I keep watching the same two crashes happen. Not crashes of analysis. Crashes of category. Whatness and thisness, swapped mid-thought.

Crash one: hearing a this and refusing a what

Someone stands up and shows their work. A community currency in one valley. A farming cooperative in Siaya County. A governance experiment in one organisation. A this — one particular, local, unrepeatable attempt.

And the room responds: “That won’t scale.” “That ignores geopolitics.” “That’s not systemic.”

Look at what just happened. A haecceity was offered and a quiddity was refused. The particular was executed for failing to be a universal — a test it never signed up to take. Nobody claimed the valley currency solves civilization. It solves the valley. It is one instance of a pattern, and instances are how patterns enter reality. There is no other door.

This is the receiver’s shortsightedness, and it is everywhere. It feels rigorous. It sounds like high standards. It is actually a category error wearing the costume of critique — and it reliably kills the small living things that any future system would have to grow from.

Crash two: shipping a what dressed as a this

The mirror image. Someone falls in love with a pattern — a framework, a model, a school. And they present the pattern as if it were already a solution. “We just need doughnut economics.” “We just need Game B.” “We just need to adopt the framework.”

No. A whatness was offered and a thisness was claimed. Patterns don’t ship. Frameworks don’t feed anyone, govern anyone, house anyone. Only particulars do — this community, this bioregion, this negotiation between these neighbours, with a shape that will never transfer one-to-one anywhere else. A universal presented as a deployable is a map sold as a settlement.

This is the sender’s shortsightedness. And it hands the receivers of crash one all the ammunition they will ever need. Every overclaimed framework that face-plants on contact with a real place teaches another funder, another mayor, another farmer that “systems change” means slideware.

What the two crashes cost

Between people and groups, this confusion does real harm. Movements fragment over it. I wrote about sitting with Jim discussing why systems change doesn’t get funded — and one wall we hit was exactly this: wealthy funders who understand the whole (the whatness) but will only fund the fragment they can grasp as concrete (a thisness), refusing the pattern that gives the fragment its meaning. Sender and receiver, missing each other across a distinction neither has named.

And inside a single mind, the cost is worse: paralysis. If you demand that your particular action carry universal justification, every concrete step looks too small — merely local, merely anecdotal, not The Answer. And every principle you hold looks too abstract to act on. So you hover between a whatness you cannot implement and a thisness you cannot justify.

So you end up doing nothing.

Nature never has this problem. Every forest runs on universal pattern — photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, succession — and expresses it exclusively through unrepeatable particulars. No oak apologizes for not being a general theory of trees. No mycorrhizal network gets refused because it “wouldn’t work in another forest.” The pattern lives nowhere except in its instances. The instances cohere only because of the pattern.

Heliogenesis — the vision of a life-rooted, sun-powered civilization I keep writing toward — is built on precisely this: every community a unique expression of a shared vision. One quiddity, a thousand haecceities. Never a blueprint stamped onto places. Never a place mistaken for a blueprint.

So the practice, for anyone in this work:

When you hear, ask yourself first: is this offered as an instance or as a law? Judge it as what it is.

When you say, declare which one you’re holding. Never defend your particular as a universal. Never ship your universal without a particular.

And when you’re stuck, check whether you’re demanding universal justification for a local act. Plant the tree. The theory of forests can catch up.

Whatness tells you why. Thisness is the only thing that ever does anything.

Disentangle them.

In February 2021 I published a short piece on Medium making a simple claim: the way we measure value and wealth is broken, and I could sketch a better way on a single page.

Four and a half years later, that sketch has been the working core of a citizen council in Germany, it has become a central element of an initiatve in Germany— and in Kenya it led us to farming communities whose traditions had beaten us to the idea by generations.

Time for an update:

1 - The numbers haven’t gotten less obscene

Back then I wrote: 8.6% of humanity hold 85.6% of the financial capital on this planet. 29.9% hold 97.2%. Which leaves seven billion people holding, essentially, nothing.

You can update the decimals — wealth concentration has only accelerated since — but the shape of the obscenity is stable. Our measurement system declares seven billion people worthless. Not poor. Worthless — as in: the instrument we use to measure worth returns zero when pointed at them.

When your measuring stick produces a result like that, the interesting question is not “how do we redistribute?” The interesting question is: what the hell is wrong with the stick?

2 - The stick measures one thing out of eight

Take Maslow’s five dimensions of human need — physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, self-actualization. True wealth means feeling subjectively wealthy in all five. Not in a spreadsheet. In your own felt experience. There cannot be any lesser goal than a world in which every human feels wealthy in all five dimensions!

Now ask what inputs produce that wealth, and you arrive at eight distinct forms of capital — I use Soloviev (formerly Roland) and Landua’s model: financial, material, living, cultural, social, spiritual, intellectual, experiential. (i like those, but they are not the only framework!)

Eight forms. Our entire civilization measures exactly one of them — and it happens to be the most abstract of the lot. Financial capital is a claim on the other seven, a pointer, an IOU written against real things. It feeds no one, shelters no one, loves no one. And yet we’ve organized the whole molochian shitshow around maximizing the pointer while liquidating the things it points at.

As I wrote in “Composting Money”: money in its current form is a claim on lost life. The Capital Value Map was my attempt, back in 2021, to draw the alternative — organize the eight forms by their level of abstraction, weight the concrete above the abstract, and watch the ranking invert. Financial capital lands dead last. Social capital rises to the top.

A map is a nice thing. But a map that nobody navigates by is an ornament.

3 - How to actually use it

The process is simple enough to run by yourself, with your family, your team, or your whole community:

1. Identify how you — or your group — view a truly good life and a truly good world. Not the life you think you’re supposed to want. The one you actually want. LUCID, a process we developed exactly for this, helps with that.

2. Map the inputs you need to fulfil this idea of a truly good life onto the eight forms of capital. As mentioned, we use Soloviev and Landua’s model; if a different one serves you better, use that.

3. Explore the result. There is a spreadsheet you can copy and play with. (that was back in 2021 - today you might use LLMs to do that for you)

What most people discover in step 2 is the point of the whole exercise: nearly everything a truly good life runs on turns out to be non-financial. The money was never the wealth. It was, at best, one input among eight — and usually the least interesting one. For me, the finance piece makes up around 7% of my overall definition of wealth.

4 - What happened since: the map got users

Two things happened that I could not have written in 2021, because they hadn’t happened yet.

First: my partner in crime Sebastian Fittko took the framework and built it into the working core of the Initiative Regenerative Marktwirtschaft — the organisation we created to give Germany a path toward a regenerative market economy. Inside the IRM, the multi-capital perspective is not a thought experiment. It is the communication tool, the onboarding tool, the daily working instrument. It sits underneath “New Wohlstand” — New Prosperity — the citizen council through which people redefine, together, what wealth should mean: quality of life, social cohesion, ecological regeneration. The sovereign defining the goal, so politics can fight about the path instead of the destination. Regular readers will recognize this move from “You Are Sovereign. Are You?”

Second: together with Sebastian and Diana, we took the framework into MOTHERLAND, our organisation working with farming communities in Siaya County, Kenya. There it grew into a design I find genuinely beautiful: the Gross Community Product.

The GCP is what happens when you stop asking “how much money moved through this community?” and start asking “is this community actually thriving?” It splits the eight forms of capital along their true fault line. Three are scarce — financial, material, living — and you can measure them objectively: does the community have what it needs to thrive, now and in the foreseeable future? Five are abundant — social, intellectual, spiritual, experiential, cultural — and those you don’t measure from outside at all. The community members assess them subjectively, themselves, because subjective felt wealth was the whole point from the beginning.

Then you weight it: 80% abundant, 20% scarce.

That is the exact inversion of GDP. The forms of capital that grow when shared — knowledge, trust, culture, spirit, experience — carry four times the weight of the forms you can hoard. The measurement itself teaches the economics.

In full honesty i have to say that we have not yet succeeded in implementing the GCP on the ground. It remains work in progress, and I will report as it unfolds. But while trying, we stumbled into something better than validation. The farming communities we work with have been practicing old knowledge — passed down, lived, never written into any economics textbook — that runs on remarkably similar ideas: wealth assessed by the community, in the currencies of relationship, knowledge, and shared life, with money as one small input among many. We didn’t bring them a new measurement. We brought a formalization of something their traditions already knew.

5 - The questions, four years later

I ended the 2021 piece with three questions to the privileged — do we find the courage to convert our financial capital into the other forms, do we let go of the power we think we hold, do we break free of the current model of measuring value.

I’m no longer asking whether it can be done. Farming communities in Kenya have been living a version of it for generations, without waiting for anyone’s framework. A citizen council in one of the largest economies on Earth has been negotiating New Prosperity in public. And in between, we are doing the slow, unglamorous work of turning a map into an instrument.

So the questions have sharpened into one:

The stick is broken. The replacement is older than the stick, and it is being rebuilt in public, right now.

What are we waiting for?

Wood and grass are the plant materials. The serial then moves down, into the soil.

Mycelium is the vegetative network of a fungus: the fine white threads that wind through everything under the forest floor, not the cap you see above ground. The largest known organism on Earth is a single honey fungus in Oregon, ninety square kilometres of continuous living thread. Mycelium is light, firm, insulating, water-resistant. You can grow it on sawdust and coffee grounds, and after a short growth phase you dry it and it becomes a dense, rigid material that replaces polystyrene and composts in your garden.

Ecovative Design has been doing this commercially since 2007. IKEA uses their mycelium packaging. Bolt Threads grows Mylo, a leather substitute from the same stuff, and Adidas, Stella McCartney and Lululemon have built products from it. MycoWorks supplies Hermès. A pavilion made entirely of mycelium bricks stood in the courtyard of MoMA PS1 in 2014. These are not experiments. They are shipments.

But mycelium leads somewhere wider. It leads to the question of what happens when you stop looking at materials as things you melt and start looking at them as things you programme.

Anne Meyer was walking a beach on Cape Cod in 2010 when she picked up a mussel and really looked at it for the first time. Mother-of-pearl is aragonite platelets interspersed with organic proteins, microscopically layered, three hundred times harder than the pure mineral, lighter than steel. The mussel pulls calcium ions from seawater and deposits them on a protein template, layer by layer, at ambient temperature and pressure. No blast furnace. No mine.

Meyer asked a different question than most. Not: how does the mussel do this? But: can we build the same instructions into bacteria, which are easier to grow than mussels? Today her lab at Rochester programmes bacteria to produce materials with deliberately tuneable properties: conductive, transparent, flexible, magnetic. She has bacteria that lay down cellulose with embedded conductive polymers. Bacteria that place iron-oxide particles precisely, yielding a magnetic material you can shape on demand. These are demonstrations, not products. But they show what becomes possible when you treat the procedures of Life as programmable.

At the other end of the resolution scale sits Neri Oxman. Her Silk Pavilion used six thousand five hundred silkworms guided by light conditions to spin a structure no industrial fabric could match. Her Aguahoja pavilion was built entirely from cellulose, chitin and pectin, the three most common biopolymers on Earth, and composted after the exhibition. Her method, which she calls Material Ecology, treats form and substance as inseparable: the material’s properties emerge on site, through growing or printing or biological assembly.

Meanwhile Spiber, in Japan, has been producing spider-silk proteins from engineered bacteria since 2007. They call it Brewed Protein. The North Face has sold jackets made from it. A production plant in Thailand now runs at hundreds of tonnes per year. Spiber solved the problem spiders themselves pose, they eat each other in captivity, by side-stepping the spider entirely and going straight to the genes. Modern Meadow does something similar for leather: yeast ferment collagen, which is processed into a material that competes with animal hide, without the ten percent of global methane that cattle contribute on the way.

This field has become real faster than most people notice. Investment in synthetic biology crossed twenty billion dollars in 2024. Four-digit company count. Exponentially growing patents. The work that started with Anne Meyer on a beach is now a global industry in formation.

It raises questions Meyer and her peers do not dodge. Biosafety: the risk of programmed microbes escaping is real. The answer today is biocontainment, strains that cannot survive outside the tank, but every new procedure needs its own honest audit. Patenting: since 1980 in the US, living organisms can be owned. An open-source synthetic biology exists, seeded by the iGEM competition, but the industry trends toward closed systems. If these materials are to be part of a shared future, the designs should circulate like Linux, not like a Monsanto seed. And a deeper question about relationship. When you programme a bacterium, you are either mastering it or collaborating with it. Kimmerer writes of indigenous plant breeding carried out in reciprocity: what you take, you give back. Synthetic biology does not yet have that grammar. The field will need to find one.

Then the serial lands on the simplest material of all. Earth.

Schloss Tempelhof, two hours from Stuttgart. An Earthship, half buried in a hill, south-facing glasshouse, walls of old tyres packed with soil and plastered with clay. It heats itself. It catches its own water. It recycles grey water through plants. It took three years just to get the permit. It is the only permitted Earthship in Germany.

This is the strange situation the serial keeps surfacing. Clay building is the oldest way of building on Earth. Çatalhöyük, nine thousand years ago, thousands of inhabitants, entirely of clay. The eleven-storey clay towers of Shibam in Yemen have stood since the sixteenth century. Rammed earth was standard in Central Europe until the twentieth. Clay breathes with the humidity, stores heat impeccably, binds no pollutants, consumes about a hundredth of the energy of concrete per square metre, and can be returned harmlessly to the ground when the building’s life is over. Michael Reynolds has built over two thousand Earthships in more than thirty countries. Nader Khalili’s Superadobe, fabric tubes filled with moist earth layered into earthquake-proof domes, is a UN-recognised emergency shelter standard.

Still, Germany says no. The building regulations, written for steel and concrete, do not have a field for soil. The insurance tables, the fire-protection codes, the professional liability frameworks: none of them expect a wall made of what is under your feet.

And yet the field moves. Bind-X, a Munich startup, sprays microbes onto desert sand. The bacteria secrete enzymes that bind loose grains into solid ground within days. Roads from earth without asphalt. Dune stabilisation without concrete. Pilot projects in the Emirates, Tunisia, Mali.

This is the heliogenic logic in its most distilled form. Instead of hauling material from far-off mines, you activate what is already there. Instead of melting and smelting, you borrow the chemistry life has been refining for three billion years. The question is never the material. The question is the permission.

to read the full series in English go to

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

um die ganze Serie auf Deutsch zu lesen:

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

A 13th-century Franciscan friar named Duns Scotus had a word for the part that is the whole story. He called it quiddity — from quidditas, “whatness.” Quiddity is what makes you human at all: the shared substrate, the species-level pattern, the thing you have in common with eight billion other mammals walking around on two legs. Every one of us runs on it. It’s the operating system.

Then he named the other thing. Haecceity — from haecceitas, “thisness.” Not what you are, but that you are this one, and never again. Not a rarer instance of the pattern. Not even the best instance. A different category of fact altogether — a non-negotiable, non-repeating, non-transferable this. Scotus insisted it wasn’t made of qualities at all. You can list every trait you have — kind, funny, tall, anxious, generous — hand that list to someone else, and none of it is what makes you you. Thisness sits underneath the list. It’s not a better description. It’s the fact that there’s a someone there to describe in the first place.

Every ecosystem on the planet already runs this, and most humans have forgotten it: quiddity and haecceity were never in competition. Look at a mycelial network. Every strand runs on the same shared protocol — nutrient exchange, chemical signaling, the same fungal quiddity threading through the whole forest floor. And every strand still grows into a shape no other strand will ever grow into again, reaching toward light and water that exist nowhere else, in a configuration the forest will only get once. The pattern doesn’t erase the particular instance. The particular instance is how the pattern gets to happen at all. Life doesn’t choose between the universal and the unrepeatable. It runs on both, simultaneously, without noticing the philosophical problem we’ve made out of it.

I wrote once that the spirit is the essence of a person, and that this essence gets more refined and more pronounced with the individual evolution of consciousness. I didn’t have the Latin for it back then. I do now. Quiddity is the spirit you were issued. Haecceity is what it looks like once you’ve actually lived in it long enough to sharpen it into a shape nobody else could have made.

Most people never get there, and it’s not because they’re lazy. It’s because standing out registers, deep in the nervous system, as a threat. Fear of individuality is a real, nameable fear — the anxiety of being different enough that the tribe might not catch you if you fall. So people flatten. They perform the socially rewarded version of themselves, keep the edges sanded off, trade their one unrepeatable shape for a slightly more popular counterfeit. Congratulations, you’re now extremely relatable. You’re also nobody in particular.

And don’t mistake the opposite failure for freedom. Haecceity with no quiddity underneath it isn’t individuality — it’s the attention economy’s real product: audiences of one, each fed a personally optimized reality until nobody can find common ground with anybody else, each self-declared main character starring in a story no one else was cast in. That’s not thisness. That’s isolation wearing thisness as a costume.

The actual work was never “discover your essence” like it’s buried treasure with a fixed X on the map. You don’t come with a core. You come with the raw shared material and an entire lifetime to press it, unrepeatably, into a shape. Nobody else on this planet — not one of the several billion running the exact same human quiddity — will ever produce your particular thisness. Not because you’re better. Because the universe genuinely does not do reruns.

So be the mammal. And then, for God’s sake, be the one it will only make once.

She said the intellectual interest was never the main thing. It was only ever instrumental. She was never trying to understand the problem for the pleasure of understanding it. She was trying to get the tension out of the room, and the thinking was a tool for that, and nothing more. Which, she noted dryly, made her rather uninteresting to the pure theorists and philosophers, who were quite happy to go on turning the contradictions over and over.

Sit with that for a moment. Sixty years as a political scientist and her honest account of the whole enterprise is that she picked up the analysis the way you pick up a wrench.

I don’t know how to say this gently, so i won’t. Our bubble has an analysis problem. We have built one of the most sophisticated diagnostic apparatus in human history. We can name the multipolar traps, the generator functions, the metacrisis, the shape of the thing from six angles at once. We have podcasts about the diagnosis. We have podcasts about the podcasts. And when you ask what has actually moved, the answer usually is: “a conference/a gathering”.

Gesine is eighty-three. She is actively building towards the goal of upgrading the democratic setup. She raised something north of two hundred thousand euros this year to put people in a room about inheritance tax. She doesn’t stop for gatherings.

She traced back for me where this comes from.

She could not bear fairy tales as a child. Her mother tried to read her and her brother Nils Holgersson, and Gesine made her stop, because she could not tolerate that the boy had been taken away from his family. After that her mother read it to her brother alone. Literature, in her words, had to end well, which she cheerfully admits is a catastrophic requirement to bring to literature. Her brother-in-law, a professor of German, spent decades teasing her about it. He would come back from his seminars with something he was teaching and tell her, very solemnly, that he had found one she was allowed to read. “This one ends beautifully.”

She knows exactly how childish it sounds. She has been ironising it for seventy years. And she has also never let go of the underlying conviction, which she stated to me like this:

There is a good ending. But you have to do something for it.

That is not optimism. Optimism is the belief that things will probably be fine. Instead, it is a structural claim with a bill attached. The good ending exists as a real possibility in the world, but it does not arrive on its own. And the gap between the possibility and the arrival is filled with your labour. Or not at all.

So what does she actually do?

She builds rooms. This is the through-line of her life. A university on the Oder, situated where two countries had every historical reason not to speak, built around the premise that they would. Kommunale Entwicklungsbeiräte, now running in ten German municipalities, which sit local politics, administration, business and organised civil society at one table across a year and hand the council a set of recommendations they all signed. And now the trialogue on inheritance tax, funded in significant part by family businesses who would like to be taxed fairly, which is a sentence i had to hear twice.

Every one of these is the same engineering problem: how do you construct a space in which people who arrive as opponents leave as something else, maybe even allies.

She is very clear that this is not done by being right: these things are not a question of arguments. She herself is not short of arguments. She has never been short of arguments. The question is what the other person can actually bear, and if you have not built for that, arguments are noise.

Here is how she is building for it this time: she has secured a Catholic prelate to open the trialogue. Twenty minutes on the common good. The man has been the church’s link to Berlin politics for decades, he is thoroughly embedded in the conservative milieu, he is not remotely conservative, and he is extremely funny. Which means the party that is her main obstacle on the issue at hand will find it socially difficult to walk out. She was still enjoying it while she described it to me.

Call that manipulation if you like. I think it is the difference between wanting to be right and wanting the thing to happen.

What makes this perspective possible is a certain stance. She is a believer, and what her faith gives her is not comfort. It is a floor. The world was not made in order to end. Standing on that floor, she can look directly at the horrors, all of them, the full catalogue of what is currently being done to people and to the living world, without flinching and without dissociating, because she is not looking into the abyss while standing on nothing. She said this ability is precisely what the faith buys her. Without it she thinks she might hesitate to look.

And it obliges her. For her, believing is not obeying. It is being addressed as a partner, and being addressed as a partner means the work is yours. Giving up is simply not among the options on the table. She batted away the question of why anyone would take that on as irrelevant. You just do.

Near the end she quoted the Godesberg Programme at me, the line in it about a certain political project being a permanent task, and she applied it not to politics but to herself. To the daily, unfinishable work of getting the balance right between what she takes in and what she keeps out.

That is what i am taking from this hour, and it is what i want to hand to you.

The work is not a summit. It is not a framework you install and maintain. It is not a diagnosis you eventually complete, at which point the action phase begins. It is a permanent task, performed today, and then drifted from, and then performed again tomorrow.

Which means you are not late. There is no version of this where the analysis is finally finished and you are cleared to begin. There is only whether you did something today for the good ending.

This is the good starting of a series with Gesine. We laid the ground this time, because everything we want to get into afterwards depends on knowing how she sees.

PS: We spoke in German. English subtitles run the whole way, so nothing is lost.

At the threshing, someone walked behind the animals and sang to them, urging them on, promising them fresh hay when the work was done. Somewhere nearby another person cut the barley, singing something different. At the winnowing, done by hand, they whistled. And in the houses at that same hour the monks had arrived for the harvest ceremonies, so underneath the singing and the whistling there was chanting, and the long horn that sounds like the Alps.

Twelve thousand feet. Four inches of rain a year. Snowed in for four months, sometimes eight.

That is the second thing Helena told me about Ladakh, and she apologised twice for the level of detail. I did not want her to stop. In summer the animals went up to the commons at eighteen thousand feet and some of the villagers went with them — glacial meltwater, edelweiss growing in what looks like desert, yak and dzo and hundreds of goats grazing half-wild across enormous ground, flutes, a game played with stones on a flat rock, every generation from the youngest to the oldest sleeping in small dark stone huts and telling stories at the fire. Small-scale settled agriculture that had fed people in one of the hardest environments on this planet for thousands of years, on inherited family plots and carefully maintained common land, without a war over either.

She used the word blissful.

Then she said the thing that has been sitting in my chest since. That way of life, the high pastures, was the first to be abandoned. Because it was judged the most primitive.

Which is where you have to slow down and ask what the judgement was actually measuring, because it was never measuring food.

Industrial agriculture never produced more food per acre. It produced more food with fewer people.

Read it twice, the way I had to. The yield was never in the harvest. The yield was in the labour removed. We took the single number that mattered to the owners of the machines, output per worker, wrote productivity on it, and then spent eighty years telling anyone who questioned the arrangement that they wanted people to go hungry. And the work that survived got worse, not better. Helena’s picture of it is a man sitting on top of a large machine, spraying. She adds the part I had not considered, which is that even the people still physically standing on the land were no longer in nature. Nature had become the thing you fight, and spray, and defeat. You can be in the middle of a field and be nowhere near it.

So the reversal she wants is not nostalgia, it is arithmetic. As much diversity as possible, as many people on the land as possible. More hands, more eyes that can see what is happening, more food off the same ground.

And every price you will encounter today is built to prevent exactly that. Labour made artificially expensive, energy and resources made artificially cheap — that ratio, run through the growing and the processing and the packaging and the refrigeration and the freight, still lets the supermarket undercut the thing that came from five miles away and used almost nothing. Not because the long chain is efficient. Because we agreed to lie in the units. I made the same argument from my end of the telescope and I want to be honest that I do not yet have a figure I would defend: the industrial food system is a magnificent driver of GDP, and a large part of that contribution is shadow — healthcare, agrochemicals, the entire downstream economy of repairing the damage the system produces. We book the repair as growth. If someone has done this rigorously, send it to me. I want the number.

Somewhere in there I said something lazy. I said we have convinced ourselves that working with our hands is hard and low and unpleasant.

She stopped me. Not unkindly, and not for a second. We have not convinced ourselves. We have been persuaded. By the masters.

I took the correction, because she is right, and because the difference is not rhetorical. Self-deception has no address. Persuasion has a payer. One of those you address with more mindfulness. The other you address by naming the party who benefited and the mechanism they used. And once you are standing in that second frame, the most common story about why any of this happens quietly collapses.

Greed is not the engine. Greed is the exhaust.

Her argument runs like this. You are driven off land you know, into a city, into a market where you have no idea what bread will cost tomorrow, no idea who is making it, no idea who controls the supply, no visibility over any of it. In that position, hoarding money is not a moral failure. It is a correct reading of your situation. Any sensible person would do it. So the standard account — the system is extractive because humans are greedy — has the causation backwards. Manufacture insecurity and you manufacture greed, reliably, in anyone, including the people currently congratulating themselves for not having it.

I offered her the counterproof I live inside half the year. In Costa Rica, around Christmas, everyone makes tamales, and when you visit someone you bring tamales. Which means the number of tamales in your house stays roughly constant while the tamales themselves distribute across the whole community. Nobody is asked to sacrifice. Nobody ends up short. A culture built a small, playful, delicious annual demonstration that sharing does not subtract.

Security is a technology. We used to build it socially and hand it to each other. Now it is sold back to us as an insurance product, and the premium is the reason we are all running.

But the severance she is describing goes deeper than economics, and this is the part I did not expect from a conversation about food. Self-reliance and self-esteem, in her account, were never individual achievements. They were properties of a group. Enclosure and slavery cut both, on both sides of the world, in the so-called poor countries and the so-called rich ones alike — with missionaries running ahead as advance emissaries whose real product was the destruction of a people’s confidence in their own view of reality. Dickensian London was the result, and we were taught to call it the beginning of progress.

Then she gave me the image I have not been able to put down. Put thirty one-year-olds in a room with one adult and you have created elbows.

Against that: five to ten caretakers for every baby, a child always on somebody’s body. A three-year-old helping a one-year-old to walk. A five-year-old who never once wonders why she cannot run as fast as the eight-year-old, because she is inside a fabric of difference where different speeds are simply what a group is made of. When Helena told mothers in Ladakh that Western mothers worry if a child is not walking at one year, they laughed. Why would you worry. Of course they will walk. That is what she means by true individualism — being appreciated for exactly what you are, including a damaged foot, which can be named and joked about and is never grounds for exclusion. It is very nearly the opposite of what we have been sold under the same word.

I would add one mechanism to hers. Children learn by imitation, and if you sort them by year of birth you have removed everything worth imitating. A room of same-aged peers is a monoculture, and like every monoculture it then needs enormous external inputs to keep standing. Field, mind, nursery. The same operation, running at three different sites.

And before this reads as though I am standing outside it: I am not. When my wife taught me to clean with effective microorganisms I resisted twice over. Once because I had absorbed the idea that microorganisms are dirt. And once because a Protestant upbringing left me unable to accept that cleaning might be easy, that small helpers could do the work while I did not suffer for it. Cleanliness as a class signal runs deeper than we admit — Victorian England covered the legs of the piano. God above, clean and white, and the earth below, dark and bodily and menstrual and refused. Progress has always partly meant getting away from the soil and the body.

Which raises the only question I really wanted answered. Soil recovers fast. Helena has watched land stripped by chemicals and machines improve markedly inside three years and go night-and-day within five to seven, and that matches what the farmers I know tell me. So can the intergenerational fabric come back at the same speed.

She thinks it can, and says the movement is already running underneath our noses — the ancient-futures microtrends, people finding their way home without knowing that is what they are doing. But she named a real gap, and it is a gap in the work of her own allies. Even among her indigenous colleagues she hears connection to nature constantly, and the need to rebuild the human and intergenerational fabric almost never. Her favourite counterexample is small and perfect: students in the Netherlands given a cheap room in a home for old people on condition that they spend some hours with the residents, who then spent far more hours than the arrangement required, because it turned out to be the best part of their week.

For the young families who feel the pull and have no idea where to start — no land, no capital, no skills, and the story of the city still very loud in their ears — her instruction is blunt and sequential. Find the others first. Not the land. The others.

One nuclear family is not enough and it never was. She thinks this is precisely where the hippies failed, not because the impulse was wrong, but because they built a monoculture of hippies: one age, one opinion, no elders, no lineage, and in some cases actively hostile to children. Osho communities that were anti-child. Unnatural, she says, and I agree. Her working version is a group in Dublin who met for a year in the city, gaining and losing people, building real consensus, and only then moved onto land together. Against readers in South Korea who were inspired by her book, went out to grow food, and had not first established a single person who wanted to buy it. Set up the CSA, find the market or the shop that will genuinely value the product, establish a we.

The we before the where. That is the rule I am taking away.

I tested it against the advice that talked me out of an intentional community years ago, Joe Brewer’s line: do not build one, find a village and help it heal. She was careful with it. Her first question was whether that is simply one more conquest of the few people who are left. Her second was more uncomfortable, and she flagged it herself, and said that Wendell Berry would not like hearing it from her — in her long experience the people who never left the village tend to be more closed, sometimes openly xenophobic, and comparatively easy for the right to recruit. Centuries of being told that farming is nothing will do that to a place. And the incomers do the mirror-image damage, romanticising the old locals and demonising themselves, which helps nobody. Open-eyed, honest and discerning, in both directions, is the standard she holds.

Then she described where she has actually watched the healing happen, and it is not a manifesto or a charter. It is a farmers market. Growers who spent their lives being dismissed, now handing food to people who do not care that one apple has a black mark on it, because the black mark is the proof that nothing was sprayed. Left and right, standing in the same transaction, agreeing about something real.

That is the site. Not the panel.

Though it would be dishonest to end on the market stall without the constraint around it. Local councils across most of Europe cannot refuse a large developer — the road gets built, the off-ramp gets built, the red carpet gets rolled out with our taxes — and then spend what capacity they have left policing the small, the healthy, the ecological. Helena has a friend whom she loves and who calls her his great inspiration, who has understood the infrastructure argument completely and is now going to build infrastructure for profit. Her answer to him is the hardest line in the conversation, and it should be printed on the wall of every impact fund in Europe: in this casino, for profit means that which pollutes more, uses more resources, and punishes you for employing people.

That is the board. Every well-intentioned business plan is being played on it.

And the weapon she rates above all the others is not a subsidy or a chemical. It is time pressure. Because a person with no time cannot draw the connections, and a person who cannot draw the connections gets handed a fragmented, furious identity to defend instead. Everything under the sun to be angry at. Never the corporation.

We go deeper next time, into what I think is the hardest problem in localisation. The membrane. How a community holds a real boundary, one that can open to a stranger and can also, healthily, refuse one, and whether that can be held across generations. Helena has been taken in and accepted in more places on this planet than almost anyone I have spoken to, so I want to know how it is actually done. Every serious answer to the global mess runs directly through this question. And the charge that localisation is a right-wing project will not be argued away. It has to be built away.

Until then, one instruction and one number.

Find two other people. And remember that per acre, the machines never won.

Listen to the full conversation above.

Two weeks ago the serial mapped both dead ends: the fossil battery draining, the electric world needing more metal than mining can deliver. Last week it added a quieter problem. Recycling eases the hunger but cannot still it, not during the transition, not when the stock of mined metal is a fraction of what a global fleet of EVs would demand. The honest conclusion is a turned question. Not: how do we replace the fossil source? But: what economy would make the sunlight we already receive enough?

The serial calls the answer heliogenesis. And it begins where every honest answer to a design problem begins: by studying something that already works.

A beech wood in the Spessart, May. The trees are a hundred and twenty years old. On a single hectare they add about ten tonnes of matter each year: trunks, branches, leaves, roots, drawn from soil, air and sun. No delivery van brought these tonnes. No mine was opened. No power plant ran. Nothing broke.

What is not built into new wood or foliage falls to the ground, is taken apart by fungi and bacteria, returns to the soil, rises again. The circle closes. It has been closing for three and a half billion years.

Scale it up. The global biosphere moves about a hundred and fifty billion tonnes of material annually, roughly the same order of magnitude as the human economy, but with one difference that changes everything. Our hundred billion tonnes come mostly out of the ground and end up roughly half as waste. The biosphere’s hundred and fifty billion circulate. A leaf becomes humus. Humus becomes the next tree. There is no waste in this system, only nutrients waiting for their turn.

The energy that drives the whole thing: the sun pours 172,000 terawatts onto the Earth, about half of which reaches the surface. Our civilisation consumes nineteen terawatts. One hour of global sunlight holds more energy than all of humanity uses in a year.

The biosphere captures only a sliver of that, one to three percent efficiency through photosynthesis, and it is enough. Enough to build every forest, feed every animal, drive every fungal network, keep the oxygen-carbon balance of the atmosphere stable. Every leaf is its own power plant, and there are trillions of them.

Janine Benyus gave this logic a name in 1997: biomimicry. Instead of mastering nature, learn from it. The bullet train modelled on the kingfisher’s beak. Ship hulls modelled on shark skin. Adhesives copied from gecko feet. These were hints. Heliogenesis goes further. It takes not just the forms of nature but the procedures. The metabolism itself, with its enzymes and reaction chains and ambient-temperature chemistry, becomes the basis of industrial production.

Four lessons from the biosphere sit at the centre of this shift.

Diversity beats efficiency. A forest does not optimise for a single output. It produces wood, leaves, seeds, fungi, insects, birds, in a web of relationships that makes the whole thing robust against disturbance. An industrial monoculture is the reverse: efficient by one measure, fragile by every other.

Local adaptation beats global standardisation. A Bavarian forest looks nothing like a Borneo rainforest. Each is fitted to its place. The biosphere does not run on global standards. It runs on local solutions networked into a planetary web.

Cycles beat linear processes. In the forest there is no exit. Everything stays in the system. In the industrial economy, mines sit at one end and landfills at the other. The middle burns through both.

Cooperation beats competition. What we call survival of the fittest is one thread in a fabric woven mostly from mutualism. Fungi and trees share nutrients underground. Bacteria and roots fix nitrogen together. Birds spread seeds for plants that feed them. The forest is a web of cooperation interrupted by temporary competition, not the other way around.

These four are not romantic. They are what works. They have kept life viable through five mass extinctions and every climate lurch the planet has ever thrown.

The serial then translates the template into the first concrete material: wood. Brumunddal, Norway, March 2019. The Mjøstårnet opens: 85.4 metres, eighteen storeys, apartments and a rooftop pool, load-bearing structure entirely of cross-laminated timber. Until 2022 it was the tallest timber high-rise in the world. It is no longer alone. Vienna, Vancouver, Milan: the vanguard is becoming the standard in Norway, Sweden, Austria, Canada.

But wood grows slowly. A beech needs decades. So a company called Plantd, founded by former SpaceX engineers, is pressing fast-growing grasses into boards that rival wood in every relevant property. Twenty to thirty tonnes of material per hectare per year, against ten for beech. And Carboncrusher in Norway has replaced bitumen, a crude-oil product, with lignin, the natural glue that holds every tree together, to bind road surfaces. The value chain shifts from the borehole into the forest.

These are not prototypes. They are in production. The question the serial keeps circling back to is not whether we can. It is whether we allow ourselves to.

to read the full series in English go to

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

um die ganze Serie auf Deutsch zu lesen:

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

In ancient Tibetan, the verb tells you whether you saw it.

Not the tense. The witness. When you speak to someone, the affixes carry a claim about your own eyes: I watched this happen, or I did not, and you will have to take my word. It is grammar. A whole language built around the difference between what you have stood in front of and what you have been told.

Helena Norberg-Hodge learned to speak that language fluently. She arrived in Ladakh — Little Tibet — before the roads, before the media, before the money, and she kept going back for over forty years. Long enough to see what was there. Long enough to watch what replaced it.

The first thing she said to me, before I had properly finished my opening question, was that the idea of managing global civilization is already the framing of a blind system.

I want to stay with the blindness. Because what she told me next is the most uncomfortable thing I have heard this year, and it is not about the people you would expect.

I reached, mid-conversation, for one of my default references in my toolkit. Dana Meadows. Twelve leverage points. The most powerful place to intervene in a system is the paradigm out of which the system arises. I said it the way you say something everyone at the table already agrees with.

She stopped me.

The blindness she was describing, she said, includes Dana. Dana was a friend. Dennis was a friend. The systems dynamics group at MIT was, in her words, her tribe — the first people she had met who thought whole. This is the seventies.

By the late eighties, she watched those same friends stop looking. She described a newsletter in which Dana wrote warmly about a company in St. Louis that had decided to move from producing toxic chemicals to feeding the world sustainably.

That was Monsanto.

Then a conference in Washington about changing the American dream, aimed squarely at the consumer — you have to change, you have to buy differently — and not a word about what the corporations were doing. Dana brought along a nature-loving woman from Monsanto. Helena tried to talk to her about the trade treaties being negotiated at that very moment, and what they would mean. It did not land.

Her explanation is not corruption. It is not stupidity. It is far more frightening than either.

You are based in one point on the map. The media reaches you there. The funding for your science reaches you there. Both are steering, gently, continuously, and you cannot feel the steering because you have nothing to compare it against.

Helena happened to be gone half the year.

That is the whole credential. She missed the decade in which everybody agreed that the electric car would save us — the same people who, ten years earlier, had opposed nuclear power precisely because it centralised control. She wasn’t smarter. She was elsewhere, repeatedly, for long enough to notice that the story had changed while the structure had not.

Vandana Shiva, with whom Helena worked in India, called it monocultures of the mind. I had always read that as a metaphor. Sitting with Helena, it stopped being one. We do to knowing exactly what we do to land: we specialise a single site, optimise it for a distant market, and export the yield. One institution, one discipline, one funding stream, one output, shipped to conferences that reward it. High productivity. No resilience. And nothing left in the soil that could have told you something you did not already believe.

She said something I have not been able to put down: she comes from several points of grounded observation.

Nobody asks for that credential. Not on a panel, not in a grant application, not before the sentence “what the world needs is.” It is the one qualification the Ladakhi verb would have demanded before you were allowed to speak.

I asked her where a person in a European city should even begin, given the overwhelm. She gave me practice, and she gave me a fact.

The fact is called ISDS. Investor-state dispute settlement, a clause our governments have signed into trade agreements, permitting global corporations and banks to sue those same governments in front of arbitration panels. Not for profit lost. For profit they might have made. Germany decided to phase out nuclear power and was sued for billions by a Swedish energy company over money it had been planning to earn.

I gave her the example from home. My wife is Costa Rican; we spend our lives between there and here. The Costa Rican people are unusually good at standing up — several times this year alone, mining concessions have been stopped by ordinary people refusing. And now the country is paying a Canadian company for the ore it declined to let them dig.

A country too poor to afford it, paying compensation for a future it chose not to have.

Governments now pay rent on the roads they do not take. That is the machine. Not an abstraction, not an ideology. A clause, with a name, in documents that have signatures on them.

Which is where she took my vocabulary away from me.

I told her I use Molochian shitshow — the shitshow of Moloch, the god we feed our children to — because it is the most precise descriptor I have. She was kind about it. Then she said she does not use “neoliberal.” She does not much like using “capitalism” either. Abstractions, all of them. They let the argument float. What she wants named is the enclosure, the subsidy, the treaty clause, the specific infrastructure our taxes laid down as a red carpet — bigger ports, bigger highways, bigger everything, faster everything.

She is right, and it stung, and I am keeping the word anyway — but only as a headline. Underneath it, the clause. Always the clause. Which leads to the reason I think this conversation matters beyond the two of us:

The fight is not big government against small government. It is a direction.

We need our governments to be far stronger upward — over an empire of monopolies that currently answers to no one and sues anyone who tries. And far weaker downward — over the goat farmer in France whose family has supplied the local town for three generations and who now needs tiles in his ceiling, at a cost of thousands, in the name of hygiene. Over the family that wanted to let out a spare room and was regulated into impossibility by hotel chains. Over the person who wants to buy raw milk and is told, in a national newspaper, that this makes them a fascist.

Power up on the empire. Power down on the neighbourhood. Almost everything in the current debate collapses the two into one dial and then argues about which way to turn it.

And her answer to where you push first is not abstract at all. Food. Not because food is nice, but because food is where the original wound was made: enclosures and slavery drove people off diversified production for nearby needs and into monoculture for distant markets. That is the structure. Reverse it and the rest follows. Line-caught fish instead of a trawl net that could hold seventeen jumbo jets. Oak that becomes a building instead of woodchip. Smaller farms with more people on them, not bigger ones with drones.

She also corrected me, gently, when I got romantic about it. I told her the story of giving up single-use plastic when my first child was born, and how it forces you to make your own gnocchi, and how the gnocchi turns out to be cheap and delicious and a crack in the pavement. She agreed. Then she said she worries about asking too much of people who have no time and no money — that the crack in the pavement is, right now, something of a privilege. She worries about the localisation movement running ahead into bioregional redesign while the people it needs are being squeezed by rent, by clocks, and by algorithms that hand them everything to be angry at except the corporation.

So her minimum ask is very small. Find one other person. Two, three, up to twenty. Meet regularly. Reconnect, rethink, resist, renew, rejoice — in that order, and do not stop at the first one, because most people stop at the first one.

I offered her a line I use often: three hundred thousand years of being human is stronger in us than three hundred years of destruction. She liked it, and then she made it sharper. In Ladakh you live inside seven generations — your great-grandparents and your great-grandchildren, and you in the middle. Which means, she says, there was no need for altruism. Not because those people were saints. Because caring for a hundred and fifty years in both directions was simply caring for the room you were standing in.

We have not abolished that capacity. We have removed the room.

This is the first of what I hope will be many conversations. The next one we have already agreed on: food systems, from the local to the global, and how we actually do this properly.

Until then, the question I am carrying is the one the Ladakhi verb asks automatically, and which our institutions never do.

Before you tell me how the planet should be run: how many points on it have you actually stood on, and for how long?

Listen to the full conversation below.

Two design flaws, sitting next to each other. One compels growth. The other lets whoever grows rich from externalising harm buy the rules. Between them they disable the market’s error correction entirely.

This is not metaphor. Gilens and Page demonstrated it for the United States in 2014: subtract the preferences of the economic elite, and the median voter’s influence on legislation vanishes. The curve bends toward whoever paid for the advertising. The machine does not break by accident. It is held broken. Structurally, quietly, with the same plausible deniability any architecture affords its inhabitants.

Which brings us to Spindletop. Texas, January 1901. A drill hits eleven hundred feet and the ground answers with a fountain forty metres high. It stands for nine days before anyone can cap it, spilling a million barrels into the mud. More each day than the whole of the United States was producing.

Nobody at the time used the word battery. But that is what they had found. Sunlight, captured by algae and pressure and millions of years of patience, waiting in the rock like a charge.

We have been draining it since. Eighty-five percent of our civilisation runs on it. And while it drains, the returns diminish. Those first Texan fields gave a hundred units of energy back for every unit invested. Today conventional oil averages about fifteen to one. Tar sands have touched three. Charles Hall, who built this way of counting, reckons a modern society needs at least ten to one to keep its schools, its hospitals, its roads and orchestras alive. Below that threshold a society still has energy. It just begins consuming its own substance.

Same barrel. Same price tag, maybe. A different reality inside.

Now double the wound. While the energy return thins, the exhaust is pushing the atmosphere toward thresholds that ignore our quarterly reports. Greenland ice, the Atlantic circulation, the Amazon: nine tipping elements in the Earth system, several of them wobbling somewhere between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming. On current trend that is one to two decades away. What we do not prevent now cannot be un-tipped by our grandchildren.

So we reach for the obvious exit. Electrify everything. Panels get cheaper every year. The sun and wind are free.

Then you stand at the rim of Chuquicamata. An open copper pit in Chile, four kilometres long and a full kilometre deep. Fifty years ago a tonne of ore held four percent copper. Today it holds 0.6. Six times the rock, six times the energy, for the same metal. The trucks that crawl out of that pit weigh three hundred tonnes empty and burn twelve thousand litres of diesel a day.

An electric car wants eighty kilograms of copper, four times what a combustion car needs. Simon Michaux did the sums for the Geological Survey of Finland: a one-to-one replacement of the fossil system would require more copper in two decades than humanity has mined in its entire history. Known lithium reserves would not cover even the first generation of electric vehicles. A new mine takes sixteen years from exploratory drill to first delivery.

This is not an argument against renewable energy. It is an argument for honesty about what renewable energy physically demands. The problem is not that the Earth has too little. It is that the way we use her does not scale.

Here the trap closes. On one side, a fossil battery that poisons the sky and returns less each year. On the other, an electrified world whose material appetite exceeds what mining can deliver at the necessary speed. Both dead ends are real. And neither can be wished away by choosing to talk down the problem you find less frightening.

Bernard Lietaer, who helped design the euro and knew the inside of that machine better than almost anyone, left us a sentence worth the wall it hangs on: the money we have is not the only money that could exist. The WIR franc has quietly steadied Swiss small business since 1934. The Chiemgauer loses value if you hoard it, so it circulates six times faster than the euro. Sarafu fed whole districts of Mombasa during the pandemic when the official currency collapsed. Small, all of them. Real.

Reform will not come from the middle of the system. It builds beside it.

But the deeper turn is the question the serial takes next. Maybe the problem was never the energy source. Maybe the problem is an architecture that demands this much energy in the first place. An economy hauling a hundred billion tonnes of material around the planet every year needs a battery. An economy that grows material where it is needed can live on the light that falls anyway. 172,000 terawatts of it, every day, everywhere, free.

The book calls the answer heliogenesis.

to read the full series in English go to

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

um die ganze Serie auf Deutsch zu lesen:

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

Pride has two sides. One faces the sender, the other the receiver. The receiver’s side is a beautiful cocktail: gratitude, love, happiness, relief that something long carried is finally out in the open. Today i feel that second kind of pride for the crew at delodi. After thirteen years of building software for sustainability, they have raised the bar. The new thesis is documented in a book, and it is now coming out on Substack as well. Twice a week, free, in English and in German. We have carried this text for years. Now it walks.

Every two weeks I will fold the freshly published pieces into one letter here, for those of you who read in letters rather than chapters. This is the first.

Eight people around a table in Upper Swabia. Two generations, one pot, fresh bread. No plan. No shared goal written on a whiteboard. And yet everyone knows: we eat together, we talk, we are with one another. The woman who brought the pot knows who likes tomatoes and who does not. The boy cutting bread does not cut the last piece for himself. This flows without needing to be named.

Now ask these eight people what Germany wants. What Europe wants. What humanity wants. Listen to the language shift. Suddenly you hear growth, security, competitiveness: values no one would speak at a Sunday table.

The serial opens with this gap. On the near levels we know what we want: the children healthy, the bread enough, someone there when we are ill. On the distant levels we cannot measure any of that, so we reach for proxies. GDP for well-being. Voter turnout for trust. The map for the land.

A proxy is not a lie. But whoever drives by the map alone eventually hits a tree.

Marshall Sahlins called the hunter-gatherer bands he studied the original affluent society and meant it. Affluence, he said, has two roads. You can expand the means, or you can contract the wants. Those communities worked three or four hours a day and missed nothing. We took the other road and forgot there had ever been a fork.

So the book lands on a question we answer without thinking at every family table and have sidestepped for generations at civilisational scale: what is our shared goal as humanity?

Aristotle had a word: eudaimonia. Not the sofa-happiness our economy peddles. The quality of a whole life. And it is relational. My good life hangs on yours, on the state of the city, on the Earth beneath all of us.

Then the world turned.

Money, we all vaguely feel, is broken. The serial shows precisely where. Most of it is not printed. It is lent into existence. Commercial banks create deposits by making loans. The Bank of England said so in plain words in 2014. Every loan is a debt. Every debt carries interest. And the money to pay that interest does not yet exist. It has to be borrowed into being. A spiral with one direction: onward, more, larger.

That is the first design flaw. The second is that accumulation has no ceiling. Piketty demonstrated that returns on capital consistently outrun economic growth, so wealth concentrates. And a market with an actor rich enough to buy the market is no longer a market. The error correction breaks.

None of this is conspiracy. It is architecture. We built a machine that must grow on a planet that cannot, and then we wonder why every year feels tighter than the last.

But the grandmother with her garden and three hens is not poor, and no one at that table would dare call her poor. She knows something the ministries have forgotten. The whole book is an attempt to carry what she knows into the structures of the distant. Not by dismantling the procedures, but by binding them back to their purpose, and making them leaner where relationship can carry the load.

to read the full series in English go to

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

um die ganze Serie auf Deutsch zu lesen:

WELTAUFGANG by delodi

My personal Substack

I am currently sorting through 60 boxes of books from my parents library and i stumbled upon one that pulled me back deeply into my childhood.

For years I only knew its spine. Gödel, Escher, Bach. The title felt like a door I wasn’t tall enough to open yet. A mathematician, a painter, a composer, held together by a word I didn’t understand. It was mentioned at dinner. Pulled down and put back. A small monument to something the adults found important. I think it shaped me before I ever read a page of it.

Years later I learned to write software, and I met the thing the book was really about.

A recursive function is a function that calls itself.

That is the whole definition. A piece of code that, in order to finish its work, asks itself to do its work again, on a slightly smaller problem. To compute a factorial you say: the factorial of this number is this number times the factorial of the number below it. The function reaches back into itself. And then again. And then again.

This should not work. It sounds like a trap. A snake eating its own tail. A hall of mirrors. A question that answers itself with the same question. And it would be a trap, except for one thing. Every recursive function needs a base case.

The base case is the place where the calling stops. The factorial of one is one. You do not ask again. You simply know. It is the floor beneath the recursion, the single fact you are allowed to hold without justifying it further. Without it, the function calls itself forever, deeper and deeper, until the machine runs out of room to remember where it has been. Programmers have a name for this. Stack overflow. Death by infinite regress.

Here is what took me years to see. The base case is where all the philosophy lives.

Think of a child asking why. Why is the sky blue. Because of the air. Why is there air. Because of the planet. Why. Why. Why. Every parent knows the vertigo of that ladder, the moment you realize you do not have a bottom step. Philosophers have argued about this for two and a half thousand years and gave it a serious name, the regress of justification, but it is the same thing. Every belief leans on another belief. What holds up the last one?

You have exactly three options, and recursion shows you all of them. You can keep going forever, which is to admit you never reach solid ground. You can let the beliefs hold each other up in a circle, each leaning on the next, no floor at all. Or you can stop. You can plant a base case. You can say: this, I hold without further argument. This is where I stand.

Religions do this. Constitutions do this. Mathematics does this and calls them axioms. Every system of meaning that has ever held weight does it. It chooses a floor. The honest ones admit they have chosen.

And then there is the other kind of recursion. The kind the book on my parents’ shelf was really chasing.

Douglas Hofstadter wrote Gödel, Escher, Bach to ask how a self comes to exist. His answer, which he spent a lifetime refining, is that you are a strange loop. A pattern that became complex enough to refer to itself. Awareness that curved back and became aware of its own awareness. You are not a thing. You are a function that calls itself, and has been calling itself for so long, so smoothly, that the calling feels like a someone. I read that years after first seeing the spine, and I finally understood why the adults had kept the book.

And here is where it stops being a clever idea and starts to matter.

A civilization is a recursion too. We justify growth by pointing to growth. We measure success by a number, and we chase the number because the number is how we keep score, and we keep score so we can chase the number. There is no base case. We have built a planetary function that calls itself, faster every year, with no floor beneath it, and we are beginning to hear the sound a machine makes when it runs out of room to remember where it has been.

We do not have a stack overflow problem. We have a base case problem. We never decided what we are allowed to hold sacred without converting it first into someone else’s units. Life. The living world. The simple fact that the sun pours down its energy for free and asks nothing in return. Maybe that is the floor. Maybe that is the one thing we get to know without proving.

Which brings me to a conviction I have held quietly for a long time, and want to say plainly now.

I think everyone should learn to write software. Not to get a job. Not to join the industry. Most of what I am describing has little to do with employment and will probably be done by machines soon anyway. I mean something else. I mean that writing software is one of the last places left in modern life where you are forced to think clearly about thinking.

When you write a recursive function you cannot hide from the base case. The machine will not let you. If you do not say where the regress stops, your program dies in front of you, instantly, with a plain error. There is no committee. No spin. No consultant to blame. You confront the structure of justification directly, in miniature, and it confronts you back. You learn, in your hands, that every process which refers to itself needs a place to stand. You learn it the way you learn that fire is hot.

This is philosophy you can run. Logic that bites back. Plato gave us dialogues and Descartes gave us doubt, but a child writing her first recursive function gets something neither of them could offer: a universe that tells her immediately whether her reasoning holds. We have built, almost by accident, the most honest philosophy classroom in human history. And we are mostly using it to serve ads.

So learn to code. Not for the salary. For the same reason my parents kept that book on the shelf, mentioned often, rarely opened. Because some objects, some practices, train the mind in the shape of a deep truth long before the mind can say it out loud.

The truth is this. Everything that calls itself needs somewhere to stand. The self. The argument. The civilization. All of it loops, and all of it falls, unless we are brave enough to name the floor.

Choose your base case carefully. Everything is built on top of it.

A little over ten years ago, in my own small pocket of reality, something became impossible to ignore. One probable future was a future in which machines grow stronger than us in every domain we have ever called our own.

So I made a decision. I would understand what that meant. And, I admit, I went looking for a hiding place. Some domain, any domain, where we humans remained undefeated.

I looked deep and I looked hard. For ten months I found nothing.

The things we like to call uniquely ours: feeling, creativity, imagination; are not ours alone. They are not bound to flesh. You do not need a mammalian body to feel, or to make something new. We had told ourselves a flattering story that did not hold.

Then one day in October, I remember exactly where I was walking, I gave myself a different permission. To find anything substrate-dependent at all. Good or terrible. It no longer mattered which.

And the moment I gave that permission, it was simply there.

What is ours, and ours alone, is our vulnerability.

When the body is wounded, when the mind is wounded, when the soul is wounded, healing can take a long time. Sometimes it never comes. A machine can fit a new arm. Roll back to yesterday’s data. Patch the broken thing and carry on. Machines can be wounded too. But machines can be repaired.

We cannot.

We live with our wounds.

And the most powerful technology we have ever found for this, our most common humanness, is not a technology at all. It is love. Reciprocity. The hand that stays.

We are all wounded. We are all vulnerable.

And to love, and to be loved, is the only real answer we have ever found.

Every living thing on Earth, from the bacterium to the redwood to you, requires it. You cannot find molybdenum drifting in interstellar space. It has to be forged inside stars large enough to fuse heavy elements, and the stars have to die violently enough to scatter it. Then enough generations of stars have to live and die that the molybdenum settles into dust clouds dense enough to coalesce into a planet that can carry life.

The Sun is probably a third or fourth generation star. The universe had to evolve for nine billion years before the conditions for our kind of life were even possible.

This is where Jim started, in our latest conversation. He is writing an essay on life and death and he wanted to walk the whole story from the beginning. So we walked it.

After the elements came the membrane. Fatty acids in water organize themselves into the simplest possible boundary, an inside and an outside. Not yet smart. But smart enough to let concentrations of chemistry build up.

Then metabolism. Cycles inside the membrane making new molecules out of old ones.

Then information. RNA, DNA, the molecular memory that lets the metabolism reproduce itself with fidelity.

Membrane. Metabolism. Information.

Somewhere around four billion years ago, an ensemble of these three came together well enough to keep itself running. Life ignited. Within a few hundred million years there was a last universal common ancestor, a single organism from which everything alive today descends. Fungus. Trees. Paramecium. Frogs. Elephants. Us.

All the competitors died out.

Half a billion years ago, the Cambrian explosion. Multicellular life. The neuron, invented just before. The arms race between predator and prey. Brains getting bigger and better. Vision evolving independently three or four times.

Two hundred million years ago, somewhere around the common ancestor of birds and mammals, the first something we might call consciousness.

And then language. The strange technology that lets us point at things that are not there. That lets us hold a story across time.

That lets us know we are going to die.

Which brings us to death.

In Jim’s telling, death is the simplest thing in the universe.

Every living body is a knot of homeostatic cycles, each one continuously recreating the chemistry it needs to keep cycling. Lungs feeding heart feeding blood feeding neurons. Your cells are mostly replaced once a year. There is no permanent body. There is only the cycle holding the body in shape.

When enough of the cycles fail, the cycle stops. The chemistry comes apart. The body returns to the soil and is taken up by the next round of metabolism.

That is all.

Jim is clear about this, and I find I agree with him. There is nothing to fear in it. The fear of death that drives so much of what humans build, the cathedrals and the heavens and the bargains and the lies, is the projection of a consciousness that cannot quite accept its own ending. Once you accept it, the structure built around it dissolves.

Jim told me he goes to a few Christian funerals a year now, at his age, and what he hears the priest selling is Mary, you’ll see your grandmother again. He finds this transparent. So do I.

Religion’s grip on the species runs largely through this single transaction.

Drop the bargain. Get the time back.

So far so good.

But here is where the conversation turned.

Because if death is simple, why have I spent a lifetime thinking about it?

Jim has a second answer. Recently he wrote an essay on what he calls the Fermi consequence. The argument is this. We do not know if we are alone in the universe. We do not know if there are ten thousand technological civilizations in our galaxy or zero others. The math on the steps required to get from no life to consciousness to language to civilization is uncertain enough that either answer is still on the table.

If we are one of many, our extinction is a tragedy on a human scale. Bad, but bounded.

If we are alone, our extinction is the end of the only attempt the universe has made to know itself.

Either way the right move is to be very, very careful. Because we do not yet know which universe we live in.

I pushed back on this.

I told Jim it sounds like the fear of personal death scaled up to a civilizational level. If you can let go of your own consciousness winking out, why can’t you let go of the species winking out? Is the claim that life is more interesting than its absence not just another religious argument in another shape?

Jim was honest about it. Yes, it is a values judgment. He values life over the silence of a universe without it. He thinks a universe that has come to know itself is more interesting than a universe of rocks. He cannot derive this from anything external. It is an endogenous reason. He just holds it.

I think I hold it too, though it took me longer to admit.

What I said next is the part of the conversation I have been turning over since.

The moments in my life where I feel most fully alive, most complete, most filled with what life is, are also the moments where I would be most okay to die.

Not suicidal. Not despairing. The opposite.

A clarity that arrives sometimes. A job complete feeling that does not depend on the job actually being complete. There is always more to do, always more to experience, always a next step. And yet, sometimes, there is also this.

The two arrive in the same moment and sit together.

The first time I felt this I was around twenty. It has happened several times since. I cannot plan for it. It happens.

Jim said he has not experienced this. He said the closest he came was when his daughter got married and he felt job done on the parenting front. But it was not powerful. It did not change his trajectory.

I sat with that for a while after the call.

What I think now is that the feeling I am describing is the moment the meaning in life and the meaning of life briefly touch.

The meaning of life is not knowable. Nobody knows what we are for. Which is exactly the reason we need meaning in life, because without it there is no reason to keep the cycles cycling. Most of the time these two operate at very different scales and never meet.

But sometimes, for reasons I do not understand, they touch.

The contribution lines up with the cosmology. The small thing you are doing in this hour feels like part of the long arc from molybdenum to consciousness. The personal and the universal sit in the same chair. And in that moment, dying would not be a violation, because the thing has already been done.

Job complete is the wrong phrase for it.

It is more like participation confirmed.

If that is real, and I think it is, it shifts the meaning of the Fermi argument slightly.

The point is not to be careful about extinction because life is more valuable than rocks. The point is to be careful about extinction because there is a specific texture available to a conscious creature, the participation confirmed texture, which only exists when the long story is still running.

End the story and you end the possibility of any creature standing in that moment again. Not just for me. For all the creatures of all the species that have not yet evolved into the capacity for it.

That is the moral hazard of going extinct.

We come back to where the conversation left off last time. The valley crossing. The dark triad capture. The structural reasons we cannot quite organize ourselves to do the thing we say we want to do.

Jim and I agreed, again, that this is the work. Build new membranes. Tune the accords inside them so that doing the right thing goes with the current rather than against it. Refuse to valorize the dominators. Find each other.

And, he added, and he is right. We cannot do it by good thinking alone. We need the resources in the world to make it happen.

We must.

The universe has spent thirteen billion years arriving at the possibility of a creature that can stand in that moment.

It would be small of us to throw it away.

Five people are sitting at a table.

Each of them has spent the last decade working on what they would call, if pressed, the transition. They use slightly different vocabularies but they recognize each other. The conversation has been going for two hours and there has been a great deal of nodding. The dinner is excellent. The wine is open. They walk away from the table at midnight convinced there is alignment in the room.

None of them, in those two hours, has said a number.

I have been at that table many times. Sometimes I have been one of the people doing the nodding. Sometimes I have been the one who left feeling that something important did not get said.

Not because anyone in that room was hiding anything. Because the questions had not yet entered the room.

What did not get said is what I want to write about.

We talk as if we agree about the shape of the world we are trying to build. And in fact, surprisingly, we mostly do.

Walk into any room of serious people working on this. The metacrisis crowd. The Game B people. The bioregionalists. The cooperative economy people. The doughnut economists. The Indigenous futurists. The regenerative agriculture community. The commons scholars. The cosmo local builders. The four currency designers. The post growth thinkers. The Buen Vivir, sumak kawsay, ubuntu people.

The room has dozens of vocabularies. Underneath the vocabularies, the shape is the same.

Cooperation rather than extraction. Membranes rather than platforms. Bioregional rather than global. Plural rather than singular. Long rather than short. Care rather than capture. Many rather than one. The shape is so clear that anyone who has spent more than a year in any of these conversations could draw it on a napkin, and the other dozen vocabularies would recognize it without prompting.

The shape is not the disagreement.

The disagreement is the when.

And almost none of us sees that we need to say it out loud.

The AI accelerationist who came to your dinner party last month thinks the transition is fifteen years away. He thinks the substrate is about to flip, that the new economy will be running on agentic infrastructure by 2040, and that everything we are doing to prepare slow community fabric is either irrelevant or will be absorbed into the new substrate.

The Game B builder you met at the conference thinks the transition is fifty years. She thinks the cellular substrate has to be grown one viable community at a time, that the cold start problem is real, and that we are in year ten of a fifty year crossing.

The deep ecologist you keep reading thinks the transition is a hundred and fifty years. He thinks anything faster is hubris. He thinks the work right now is to protect what we can and to seed practices that will only fully mature in his grandchildren’s generation.

The despair positive thinker you keep almost arguing with thinks the transition is after collapse. She thinks no transition is possible until the existing system has actually fallen, that everything we build inside it gets captured by it, and that the real work is preparation for the rebuild.

The civilizational designer who wrote you that long email last week thinks the transition has already begun and that the window for the decisive moves is the next eight years.

These five people will sit at the same table and use the same words and nod at each other and walk away convinced that there is alignment.

There is no alignment.

There is alignment about the shape of the destination and total disagreement about the duration of the journey, and the disagreement about duration is the actual reason none of their projects fit together.

Because if you think it is fifteen years, you build differently. You bet on technology compounding. You underinvest in slow social fabric because the substrate change will outrun it. You make peace with capital.

If you think it is fifty years, you build communities and accords and currencies and you assume that the political layer is mostly downstream of the cultural layer and that the cultural layer takes generations to soften.

If you think it is a hundred and fifty years, you build seeds. You write the book. You plant the oak. You teach the apprentice who will teach the apprentice. You stop thinking about your own life as the unit and start thinking about lineages.

If you think it is after collapse, you build the seed bank, the monastery, the protocol that will be needed in the rebuild.

These are not the same project. They cannot share the same money. They cannot share the same staff. They cannot share the same urgency. They produce, when put in the same room, the maddening sense that everyone is talking past everyone else, even though everyone agrees about the shape.

But there is a second variable.

It diverges even more than the first. And we see it even less.

The second question is this. How many people do you expect to be alive at the end of your timeline?

Not how many you would want to be alive. Not how many you think should be alive. How many you actually, in the quiet of your own thinking, expect.

Twelve billion? Ten? Eight? Four? Two? One? Less?

Each of the five people at the table has a number for this too. The numbers are not in the same neighborhood. None of the five has been asked. Most of them have not yet asked themselves.

The AI accelerationist, if you asked him, would probably say twelve billion without much hesitation. Better medicine. Longer lives. Greater abundance. The projects he funds and the timelines he believes only make sense if he assumes most of humanity carries through. He just has not been asked.

The Game B builder expects something like eight billion. She thinks the transition is hard but survivable for most. Her communities are designed to absorb people, not to replace them. Her math assumes that the cooperative substrate, once built, can hold the species.

The deep ecologist has read the overshoot literature for thirty years. He cites carrying capacity numbers without flinching. He believes in a hundred and fifty year transition through climate disruption. The arithmetic is already in him. He has just never been invited to read out the sum, and so the sum has stayed in the margin of his thinking rather than the center.

The despair positive thinker may, if she sat with the question, name a number close to one billion. Her whole frame assumes collapse happens before transition begins, and collapse on the scale she expects is depopulating at scale. She has not, as far as I can tell, stated the population implication of her own framework. Almost nobody in her conversation has asked her to.

The civilizational designer expects something close to current population, maybe nine billion. Her decisive eight year window is, fundamentally, a bet that decisive action right now keeps the bottleneck from closing too hard. The number is doing all the work in her sense of urgency.

These are not the same expectations of the same future. And every project, every dollar, every life decision downstream of a population number is doing different work depending on what the number is.

If you expect twelve billion at the other end, you build for abundance and inclusion.

If you expect eight billion, you build for resilience under stress.

If you expect two billion, you have already, whether you have named it or not, accepted that something most of us would call a catastrophe is part of the path. You build for what survives it.

If you expect one billion, you are working on a different planet from the person who expects twelve, even if you use exactly the same words.

This is the second axis. Timeline and population. When and how many. The combination of the two creates the actual project a person is working on, no matter what the stated mission says.

Two people who agree on a fifty year timeline but disagree about whether eight billion or two billion are alive at the end are not doing the same work. They cannot be. The work the eight billion person is doing is transition. The work the two billion person is doing is triage with rebuild. These are different verbs.

And almost nobody has yet found a way to name which one.

These are not hidden questions. They are unseen questions. There is a difference. A hidden question is one you have refused to look at. An unseen question is one nobody has pointed at yet. Once it is pointed at, it cannot be unseen.

There is a discipline available to us, once we can see the questions, that we have not yet had a chance to use.

The discipline of saying our numbers.

Not the right numbers. There are no right numbers. Anyone who tells you they know how long the transition will take, or how many people will be alive at the end of it, is selling you something. But each of us, in the quiet of our own thinking, already operates on both. We have already decided. We have just not yet seen that we have.

The fifteen year, twelve billion person has decided. The fifty year, eight billion person has decided. The hundred and fifty year, two billion person has decided. They built their lives around the decisions. They chose where to live, what to study, what to fund, who to marry, what to have children for, around the decisions. The numbers are doing enormous work in each of their lives. They are doing it in a place nobody has yet thought to look.

So here is the modest proposal.

Before the next meeting where five aligned people talk past each other for two hours, name both questions out loud.

Not vaguely. Specifically.

How many years from today until the world we are trying to build is the world most people actually live in?

And how many people do we expect to be alive when we get there?

Write both numbers down. Have everyone else in the room write theirs down. Pass them around the table.

I have done this twice now. In both rooms the spread on the timeline was an order of magnitude. The spread on the population was an order of magnitude too. The people giving the answers had spent the previous two hours nodding at each other. None of them had been angry about the questions. Most of them had been a little surprised that the questions existed.

Once the numbers are on the table, the conversation about what to do this year changes shape. The fifteen year, twelve billion person and the hundred and fifty year, two billion person discover they cannot share the same calendar, the same hiring decisions, the same theory of how change happens, or the same definition of what counts as progress. They may still want to collaborate. They may even find places where their work braids. But the collaboration is now legible to itself. It knows what it is and what it is not.

This is what making a horizon explicit does. It allows the work of the year ahead to be done against it. The horizon is not flexible. The horizon is the discipline.

Most of us do not yet have a horizon. We have a vague sense, a sentiment, a felt slope. We have numbers we have never said out loud, never thought to say out loud, and would have to look at directly before we could state.

But we can, this week, look. And then ask each other.

Until we know whose clock each of us is on, and how many of us we each expect to make it through, we cannot help each other carry.

And what we have to carry will need to be carried for a long time.

The system is extractive. It is locked into growth. It is driving us, with mathematical precision, into a wall.

We have a name for this. We have books about it. We have podcasts. We have conferences. We have a generation of thinkers who can describe the Moloch of it all in their sleep.

And still.

The money does not move.

I sat with Jim Rutt this week to ask, plainly: why is it so hard to get systems change funded? Jim has been in this field since 2012. He has had the conversations. He has watched the wallets stay closed.

His first answer is the one I keep hearing in my own life. Most of the people who are psychographically aligned with what we are trying to do are young, successful entrepreneurs. They cannot get their head around anything that is not a business. They keep trying to turn Game B, or metamodernism, or whatever you want to call the work, into a profitable venture.

That is not what this is.

The pure philanthropic ask, for something that does not promise a return, gets close to zero. And the sums we are talking about are not even astronomical. We are not asking for trillions. We are asking for what a single hundred metre yacht costs.

Still no.

So what is going on?

Two camps emerge among people with significant wealth. Both groups have understood that the system is breaking.

The first camp says: collapse is coming, I will make sure that a small radius around me is safe, the rest is not my problem. Maybe some of it going away is even fine. This is the bunker strategy. This is where no funding for systems change will ever come from.

The second camp says: yes, we need to move toward something life serving, something heliogenic, something like Game B. Then they fixate on a single piece of the problem. Education. Food. Energy. Governance. They will fund the part they understand and refuse to fund the whole, even though everyone in the conversation knows the whole is the point.

This is the first wall.

The second wall is the legitimate question hiding inside it. What is the money actually for? What gets built? What can a funder point at after the cheque is cashed?

The honest answer is that you cannot flip the global system by main force. The trillions sloshing through the financial markets, locked into profit maximization by their growth obligations, dwarf anything philanthropy could marshal. The strategy has to be different.

Demonstration at scale.

Twenty, fifty, a hundred communities operating under the new paradigm. Open. Visitable. Airbnbs so people can come and live inside a different operating system for a week. If the thesis is right, and we do not yet know that it is, then those demonstrations create a wave. People come, people see, people return changed. Resources begin to flow. Something like an origin of life event.

That is the realistic play.

Which raises the harder question.

When does the opening come?

I keep thinking about the Arab Spring. The vegetable seller in Tunis who set himself on fire was the trigger, but the trigger only worked because years of preparation had been funded underneath it. People had been quietly building groups that could rise in the moment.

What if something similar could be prepared for the next big correction?

A 2008 sized financial crisis is the obvious candidate. Jim’s read, which I share, is that the accumulation of public and private debt across the industrialized world, with the partial exception of Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden, looks unsustainable. The 2008 crisis was about 800 billion. The US alone now carries something like 30 trillion in national debt. The next correction will probably be bigger.

When it comes, it could come tomorrow afternoon. It could come in ten years. The financial markets run on the anticipation of anticipation of anticipation, which means today’s facts do not have to trigger anything. The probability of future facts cycling backward through belief is enough.

There are signals to watch. Interest rates on bonds from supposedly stable countries. The moment Japan starts selling its US treasuries instead of buying them.

But the timing is unknowable. What is knowable is that the window will open.

The question is what is in place when it does.

In Game B’s framing, crises increase the osmotic pressure of people wanting to move into different membranes. If a few hundred well functioning communities exist when the crisis hits, the pressure pushes people across the membrane. The communities take in newcomers, split, form new communities, grow in spurts driven by the crisis.

If nothing is in place, the pressure dissipates. Or worse, it gets captured by reactionary movements that are very much in place and very well funded.

So what needs to be ready?

First, the demonstrations themselves. The proto communities. Either built from scratch, or selected from existing intentional communities whose DNA is already aligned and which need scaffolding rather than invention. Most existing intentional communities will not qualify. They were built as one offs, not as seeds of a viral movement, and many carry strong points of view that would not generalize. But some might.

Second, a population of associates. People who do not yet live inside the new structures but who think in their terms. Who are running babysitting cooperatives, car shares, dinner parties operating under the new logic. Who are preloaded with the why before the crisis arrives. Today this group is in the hundreds of thousands. It needs to be in the millions.

Third, the cultural carriers. Young people, because the future is always young people. Independent media. Public intellectuals. Artists. Musicians. Filmmakers. Poets. The people who can metabolize the ideas into forms that travel further than essays do.

Notice who is not on that list.

Politicians.

Jim is firm on this and I have come around to it. Politicians no longer lead the public. They follow it. They map themselves to whatever the conventional wisdom is. The few who break from the conventional wisdom break in the reactionary direction, toward nationalism and retrograde social arrangements. The road to political change runs through public sentiment, not through politicians.

You change the public. The politicians follow.

But there is a fourth piece, and this is the one that nags at me most.

Pre legislation.

When the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation wanted to reshape the United States, they did not wait for the moment to arrive and then start drafting policy. They wrote the handbooks years in advance. Project 2025, whatever you think of its content, is a remarkably detailed and intelligent document. The Trump administration’s speed of action would have been impossible without that preparation.

There is no equivalent on the life serving side.

There are partial efforts. The Center for Humane Technology. A handful of small think tanks with a few million in annual budget. Nothing at the scale of Heritage. Nothing operating with the assumption that legislation will be needed and that drafts ready in a drawer are worth more than drafts written in a panic.

This may be the single biggest gap in the field.

A think tank for a life serving civilization. Serious policy writeups. Draft legislation. Modular, ready to be picked up by any aligned policymaker in any jurisdiction the moment the window opens. Game B has always penciled this in as the Game B Foundation. Nobody has built it.

So why has nobody built it?

Here is where the conversation got uncomfortable.

The neoliberal think tanks are funded so well because they are self serving for their funders. Lower taxes. Less regulation. More room for capital. The wealthy donor who funds Cato is funding their own portfolio.

The pro social side is the opposite. You are asking wealthy people to fund work that runs against their immediate personal benefit. That is always harder than asking people to fund work that flatters their interests.

And the deeper thing, which I have been turning over for days now: anyone with a large pool of capital, whether inherited or earned, has learned the game that produced that capital. They have absorbed its logic at a level below thought. They know how the extractive system functions because they have functioned inside it. Stepping out of that pattern, letting go of that legacy, is genuinely hard. Not philosophically hard. Hard in the body.

This may be the actual reason systems change does not get funded. The people with the means to fund it cannot quite think the thoughts that would make funding it feel right.

And yet.

There is a category of holder I keep coming back to. The people with vastly more than they can ever spend. The ones for whom another yacht, another house, another foundation in their own name, has stopped meaning anything. The ones who are starting to think about legacy. About descendants. About what humanity will look like when their grandchildren are old.

For that person, this is not philanthropy. It is the most rational wager available. A bet that the trajectory of the species can be improved, and that being a quiet architect of that improvement is a better legacy than another wing of another museum.

If that person is reading this: you know how to find Jim. You know how to find me.

The window is opening either way.

The question is whether anything is built before it does.

That is what Facebook earns from the average user. Twitter earns less than fifty cents.

Every distortion of public reasoning we now live with sits downstream of a business model that, per person, is fighting over the price of a coffee. The algorithmic enragement. The endless scroll. The slow flattening of our capacity to think together.

For two dollars, we sold the membrane through which a culture talks to itself.

I had a long conversation with Jim Rutt this week. Jim has been building social platforms since 1982. He has watched four decades of attempts to make this work, and has been the architect of several of them. Especially the failed ones.

We were circling the question we keep returning to.

What would the InfoSphere of a civilization aligned with Life actually look like?

Not better Facebook. Not nicer Twitter.

The membrane. The connective tissue. The substrate of a culture that intends to be alive.

In 2013, Jim’s team forked Reddit and built LightNet, the early Game B home. It was elegant. It was thoughtful. It failed.

For a platform to work, it has to become a daily habit. A nexus is not a place you visit. A nexus is a place you return to. Email got there. Facebook at its peak. TikTok now.

LightNet got perhaps twenty people there, out of two hundred. Most things never tip.

Funding. Talent. Design. Motivated early adopters. None of it is enough.

So what would we build instead?

Not on Ethereum. The chains are slow, complex, and the only thing they really add is trustlessness. And if you need trustlessness inside your own platform, something has already gone wrong with your culture.

Not as a DAO. Most have failed because they are too rigid. Human cultures change continuously. Tribes around a fire negotiated and renegotiated for millennia. The DAO movement tried to legislate this away.

Not in legalese. Almost every online community Jim has watched fail has failed for the same reason: missing governance. What happens when someone is genuinely a bad actor?

Governance is not optional. Governance has to be designed first.

But not invented from scratch each time.

The hundred people who know everything about regenerative agriculture probably know nothing about governance at scale. They should not have to invent it. They should be able to fork the accords of a Nebraska cooperative restaurant that has worked for fifteen years, modify them, and run.

Forkability is the deep argument.

Biological evolution is slow because every generation has to recombine and mutate from zero. Culture lets us copy what works, with modification.

This is what GitHub did for code. We do not yet have it for living together.

If accords are written in plain language, a model can hold them. Monitor a community against them. Surface drift.

You said you wanted to do X. What is actually happening looks more like Y. Change what you said. Change what you are doing. Or negotiate.

A human could do this. No human will. A model can. Cheaply enough that small groups can afford one.

Not a bot. A living charter. A fair witness. Always there. Never tired. Never partisan.

The next move will horrify every German data protection lawyer reading.

Step away from the screen. Treat the screen as a fallback. Prioritize the campfire. The dinner table. The meeting room.

Then record. Continuously.

The hardware exists. The models exist. The bottleneck is no longer technical.

The bottleneck is trust. And therefore: business model.

I would not wear a recording pin in every context of my life if the back end were owned by anyone whose incentive is rent extraction. The infrastructure has to be a commons. Owned by the people who use it. Governed by them. Priced, if priced at all, at cost.

The Chris Anderson free trajectory of the early internet is precisely what got us to two dollars a month for the corruption of public discourse.

We cannot make that mistake twice.

And here is the part that is actually exciting: you do not need a hundred million users to make this valuable.

If the hundred smartest people each of us knows recorded their conversations into a shared commons, governed in good faith, the resulting artefact would be extraordinary.

Value first. Network later.

So why has nothing worked yet?

Bad location decisions. Internal conflict. Insufficient funding. The usual three.

The more honest answer is the one neither of us quite said out loud. None of these projects has ever had enough sustained power. Money. Time. Attention. Talent. Never enough to run the experiments that would actually let us learn.

A few dozen people on a piece of land for eighteen months is not a fair test of anything.

And under that, the deeper failure.

Aligned people who refuse to collaborate.

We agree, roughly, on where the summit is. Each of us is too convinced of our own particular path up to walk together.

This is the failure I find hardest to forgive. In myself. In the people around me.

Jim mentioned Asimov’s Foundation in passing. The small group that calculated the crash was coming and asked: how much can we preserve?

I can no longer dismiss this framing.

If the boom phase ends without us implementing what we already know works, the question becomes whether we can build artefacts durable enough to survive the bust and reach whoever comes next. Accords. Knowledge bases. Governance templates. Recorded wisdom.

So they do not have to start from zero.

That is a smaller, sadder, and possibly more achievable project than rebuilding civilization.

It is, increasingly, the one I think about most.

If you are working on any of this, I would very much like to hear from you. The recording into commons. The forkable accords.

Two dollars are not going to fix themselves.

And the membrane is not going to weave itself.

A bridge that only reaches the middle of the river is not a project: it is a monument to failure. Yet, most systems change efforts are currently trapped in “Tin Cup” mode, raising just enough to survive another month while the bridge to a life-serving civilization remains unfinished.

In my latest conversation with Jim, we performed a forensic audit on the chronic underfunding of Game B. We explored why these projects fail and how to build the financial plumbing required to move the needle.

The Tin Cup Trap

The majority of social change projects fail for two reasons: insufficient capitalization or internal decoherence.

In Game A, we understand that a startup requires a specific “activation energy” to reach the threshold of viability. Game B projects often ignore this physics. We buy the land but forget the mortgage. We start the farm but ignore the sewage system. This is what Jim calls the “Tin Cup” mode: a cycle of constant, small-scale fundraising that drains the most scarce resource we have: time and attention.

To build the exit, we need a “Game B Foundation” operating at the scale of hundreds of millions. We need to tap into Game A “guilt money” and the next generation of billionaires to fund experiments with enough redundancy to survive the valley of death.

The Human Filter: Institutionalists vs. Soulsets

Money is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one.

The “Great Filter” of social systems is often internal decoherence, or what Gregory Bateson called schismogenesis. Projects die because the team cannot maintain coherence. We have found that success requires a delicate balance between two types of people:

1. The Institutionalists: Those who can build a profitable organic farm and a working sewage system.

2. The Personal Change People: Those who focus on the “Soulset” shifts and the relational health of the membrane.

If you have only the former, you build a corporation. If you have only the latter, you build a commune that starves. You need both, and you need them to meet face-to-face.

The 10x Multiplier of Presence

We have observed that trust and coherence happen ten times faster in person than in the virtual space.

High-dimensional relationship management is a primate heuristic. In the early days of Game B, we flew the team together every six weeks. It was expensive, but it was the magic that created the synthesis. We must stop trying to save the world solely through Zoom. We need to dance around the fire, share a drunken dinner, and look into each other’s eyes to see if we are “Fair Witnesses” or just more assholes in disguise.

The path to a new world requires both the rigor of a spreadsheet and the vulnerability of a shared meal.

Once a proto-B becomes large enough to be noticed, it enters the danger zone. It becomes a threat to be crushed or, more likely, a resource to be co-opted. In my latest conversation with Jim, we explored the kinetic and memetic power imbalances at this threshold. We asked the question: how do we navigate the transition without being hijacked by the very structures we are trying to replace?

The Shield of Strict Legality

The first move is counter-intuitive: Strict Legality. Jim argues that under the rule of law, we must not give the authorities a stick to beat us with. The hippies of the 1960s failed because they provided Game A with a legal pretext for their own destruction. To exit the multipolar trap, we must practice jurisdiction shopping: finding the “nooks and crannies” in the legal operating system where rams-earth houses and compost toilets are not just dreams, but legal realities.

By committing to the law, we buy time. We use the existing mechanisms of democracy to leverage local power, turning a small community of two hundred into a decisive political force.

Membrionics and Cultural Power

We cannot do this as isolated islands. We need Meta-membranes.

We require coordination structures that concentrate our political and economic power without falling into the divisive partisan traps of Team Red or Team Blue. This is the infrastructure of the new civilization: a stack of interpenetrating membranes that protect our communication and our capital.

But the strongest shield is not kinetic; it is cultural. When we reach the point where the general public sees Game B as a transparent, unself-serving sanctuary for human flourishing, we achieve a cultural win that no dominator hierarchy can easily suppress.

The Great Filter: Internal Schismogenesis

The greatest threat, however, is not external. It is the Great Filter of Schismogenesis.

Jim and I looked back at the early fissions of Game B: the moments where smart, good-hearted people were torn apart by minor differences in perspective. This is the internal hijack. To counter it, we must adopt the role of the Fair Witness: a neutral, independent observer who surfaces the undercurrents before they turn into personal grudges.

Whether we use high-dimensional human intuition or the analytical power of LLMs as neutral analyzers, we must build an immune system that keeps “Dark Triad” personalities away from the levers of power.

We are not just building houses. We are building the social technology required to survive the shift.

For centuries, that shared vertical anchor provided our moral compass. We have also, in our hubris, attempted to “kill” nature by assuming a dominance that is as impossible as it is destructive. We have severed the umbilical cord of interbeing.

In my latest conversation with Jim, we asked the hard question: what gives rise to a shared sense of morality now? What is the foundational prerequisite for a large-scale shift toward a life-serving civilization?

The Interestingness Heuristic

Jim proposes a fascinating North Star: Interestingness.

Physics grounds out at stars and planets. Biochemistry is more complex, but life—especially life with general intelligence—is where the universe becomes truly open-ended. If we use “generating interestingness” as a pruning rule, we find a vector for ethics that doesn’t require a top-down ideology.

Free people generate more interesting culture. Nature, unmolested, produces more intricate food webs. This is the transition from the “exploitative mode” to one of co-evolution. It is the recognition that human flourishing is not a zero-sum game played against the planet, but a result of being a part of its complexification.

The Custodial Species

We discussed Tyson Yunkaporta’s concept of humans as a Custodial Species. Our role is not to be the “apex predator” or the “supremacy” in the web. Our role is to be the caretakers of the interesting. We are the first general intelligence in the universe that we know of, and that carries a moral obligation to preserve that intelligence and move it forward.

But this requires a radical humility. We are rushing forward with AI and market-driven extraction like three-year-olds building atomic bombs. We are so afraid of insecurity—biological, financial, and existential—that we cling to the “Game A” machinery because it promises a safety it cannot deliver.

Bootstrapping Security

How do we move the compass? We must address the Insecurity Loop. The status quo keeps us on our toes by cultivating precarity. Even in the richest countries in history, we feel two weeks away from the street. This fear is the anchor of the multipolar trap.

To exit, we must build the Membrane. The membrane is where we bootstrap basic survival—food, shelter, relationship—independent of the extractive system. It is where we remember what we already know: that we are social animals, and that the fundamentally collective nature of human experience is our only true security.

We don’t need a machine to tell us how to live. We need to start being a part of life again.

You can measure the frequency of the light. You can map the atmospheric refraction. You can even write a poem about the bleeding of purple into gold. But the touching: the visceral, internal shift that occurs when you stand before that fading light, cannot be transferred through words.

In my latest conversation with Jim, we decided to tackle the impossible: the participatory side of system change. We explored the things that can be named but never fully explained.

The Left-Brain Hijack

Our civilization has been hijacked by the left brain.

As Iain McGilchrist argues, we have traded the intuitive, scanning, and integrative capacity of the right brain for the linear, grasping, and categorizing mode of the left. We have turned life into a series of “mentioned” sentences rather than lived experiences.

This is the core of the multipolar trap. We have commodified time to the point where “being mode” feels like a betrayal of productivity. If you spend four hours watching a sunset or picking coffee with friends, the system marks you as a defector. But this “defection” is actually the first step toward sanity.

The Status Game of Moloch

Why do we choose the car chase over the rose garden?

It is a question of granularity and status. We are wired for the high-intensity signal: the explosion, the $M_3$ growth, the aircraft-carrier-sized truck. These are the artifacts of a culture that has lost its connection to “Qualia,” the raw, felt sense of being alive.

Jim and I discussed the ultimate lever for shifting this: the status game. If we want to change the world, we must change what we reward with our attention.

We need new stories. We need a “Netflix for Game B” that doesn’t just entertain but lifts the viewer into a higher granularity of mind. We need to reach the point where the person participating in a community sunset drumming circle holds more social capital than the one trading Bitcoin in a basement.

Building the Asshole-Free Zone

How do we start? We build the Membrane.

Individual agency is fragile, but a membrane of conviviality is resilient. One of my own heuristics for this is the creation of the “Asshole-Free Zone.”

In business and in life, we must learn to trust our high-dimensional intuition. We must filter for the “rate of learning” and the quality of being rather than the resume. When you find “the others”—the ones who are willing to embarrass themselves, to fail, and to grow—you create a mycelial network that Moloch cannot penetrate.

We must move from the “having mode” to the “being mode.” We must follow the water until the ecosystem accepts us.