Envisioning a future that works for all: characteristics of the visioning process
Daniel Christian Wahl
532

“the vision pulls you” — Yah, there’s nothing like obsession and fanaticism for solving pesky problems.
I see two things here. (A)Desire for a sustainable world. (B) Visioning to describe it so that it can be attained. Those seem good goals. 
So start with Visioning. (1)Long time scale, (2)participatory, (3)preferred outcome, (4)holistic, (5)untestable, (6)motivational… I can go with those easily, but lets flesh these out a bit.
We need a (1)long time scale vision of a new (3)sustainable world that we will be comfortable in. The (6)motivation is that the world we have now (stick) sucks and seems unsustainable, heading rapidly towards increased common misery and we want ((3) carrot) a world where we can be comfortable and grow long term. As for (2) participatory, well, you wouldn’t be trying to provide leadership if it was completely participatory, but at the same time, this will only work if (2a)somehow- you can get everyone behind it. (5) Untestable is largely irrelevant, but you are incorrect that there is no a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. It’s just that that ‘right’, while it is the most important point because (2a and 6) participation and motivation are never going to happen unless you get your Vision ‘right’ in some manner or another and it is near impossible for most people to figure out what that ‘right’ is. I’ll let you slide on this as this might be the hardest part to figure out. Well, it took me the longest, but I warn you, fail at that part of getting it ‘right’ and the rest of it will all fail… no -somehow-. 
(4) Holistic… I think you mean complicated, because it has to be broadly encompassing. It sounds like you need a grand synthesis of a detailed knowledge of history, philosophy, sciences, technology, religion and even lore. To get that, I suspect you are going to need some bright person with at minimum the instincts of all the human castes — priest, king, warrior, scribe, crafter, peasant and even merchant and hunter. Then there is masculine and feminine, which may be difficult to glue together. All that has to be plopped together without making the person explode. Gads, I can see even more difficulty getting the unlikely conditions and experiences it will take. I mean, this person is going to have to voraciously consume knowledge for decades, from distilled sources of wisdom, while having physical experiences that are both improbable and likely to kill them. I mean, the person would have to be a complete whack job and society would destroy them for being so different… if they could. Would they have headaches or cause them?
 
I’m sorry, I should cool it, but I did all that and I can’t help but be amused. Do you know why? I can answer all your questions. I can tell you what science to use to organize the sysnthesis you want — ecology is the tool made for organizing the disparate data you need. I can tell you where the problem originates that you have to solve — changes that started when we developed civilization. I can tell you the problem you are trying to solve — creating a “relatively stable” environment where humans can survive and develop long term (that is the “vision” you want). Oh, since it is a created environment, it has to be designed to be self repairing too (I suspect that that is “regenerative” in your terms). I can tell you the problems you need to solve, many of which you know nothing of yet. I can even tell you the path — genetic, strategic, philosophical and moral to get there, all nicely packaged in human terms — that you neglected to ask for. I can tell you the consequence of failure and the prize of success — “the dangers are greater and nearer than you think, but the potentials are as great as human aspiration”. Butt, the funny part that amuses me is that unless this article is fishing for this answer (which you actually may be), you will not listen to me and are unlikely to even look at what I have to offer. Unless you already know you do not have the answer, you will not consider another. Want one?

I just published an eBook on the first part — Genetics For A New Human Ecology (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYCC25Q), but I am currently re-editing it some. Still, it should be easy enough for you to understand if you want. Try it. I know it’s a good book — — because it’s short. Uhhhh…. you didn’t actually think we were going to get away with this without a pending genetic disaster… did you? I mean, come on. What we call “human progress” is the removal of Natural Selection, the agent that keeps our genes healthy. You didn’t actually think we could get away without paying for that did you? No biggy, I solved all that too, but if you want to solve your vision thing, you probably need to start there and it’s the easiest part to comprehend. I am currently working on the next book — Strategy For A New Human Ecology. Now that probably contains some stuff you wouldn’t expect, because it really does require someone with a pretty broad knowledge.