Let there be (no) Apocalypse

Learn how to work together

From Greek apokalyptein “uncover, disclose, reveal,” from apo “off, away from” (see apo-) + kalyptein “to cover, conceal”. Its general sense in Middle English was “insight, vision; hallucination.” The meaning “a cataclysmic event” is modern (not in OED 2nd ed., 1989); apocalypticism “belief in an imminent end of the present world” is from 1858. — Etymonline

I really feel like we want to draw the curtains, to close a chapter, but also to open a chapter of what we yet do not know. Apocalypse is what we need if we are to outgrow the childish state that guides our system of consumption. We walk of course with apprehension into the afternoon of life, because we are not prepared, yet intuitively know the dangers of keeping our heads in the ground as the fabled ostridge.

The current system — understanding by “system” the rules, values, authorities, privileges, rights, reputations, etc., on which we run, including the culturally inborn traumas and other factors — is overextended, way too costly, and running with diminishing returns (the side effects annul any incremental gains).

The new models need to emerge a new OS (operating system) that is requisite with the complexity we have unleashed. It cannot be simply an evolution or improvement of what is running the world now.

The old simplified system based on a hierarchy, was good or serves well when we know what to do. But when facing complexity, many viewpoints and lenses brought together are far more effective. When complexity means many spheres of actions, decisions, effects, colliding ecosystems, human needs, nature, planet — this networked approach to life, design, architecture, prototyping, experimenting, iterating and communicating — is far more appropriate than approaches through activism, specialties and experts, ownership or majority vote.

Are we right in looking for an answer in how collaborative structures can work better to solve multidimensional problems? How can agency be restored? contextual knowing taken into account? I would add that the system behavior to change requires this type of OS to work at multiple levels of recursion: small groups is one; neighborhood another; city, region, industry, supply chain, monetary system, all are spheres that need to change and work together, concurrently, co-evolving. This is the hard part because we are so used to decontextualize all data and system parts, look at them in isolation, not seeing how the bigger picture is formed, and how it influences in turn its parts.

If could just figure this out, we could co-create the future now. It needn’t be that difficult. Perhaps it would be impossible to do everywhere, but by selecting one place where to do it collaboratively, at city and region scale, perhaps we could.