Systemic Drivers of Collapse (Part 2 – An Overview)

The phase “systemic drivers of collapse” refers to dynamic factors contributing to past, present and future instances of societal collapse. In our current case, they also relate to concerns about ecological disasters and the prospect of human extinction. They also contain profound guidance for social transformation. In this post I include a list of more than 30 drivers for your reflection.

The use of the term “systemic drivers” suggests these dynamic factors are significantly “built into” the cultural stories and paradigms that shape our social systems. They are deeply embedded in how our economic, political, governance, education, health care and other systems function, such that they “drive us” towards collapse simply through those systems’ everyday functioning.

I – and my primary mentor in this regard, Daniel Schmachtenberger – believe that two fundamental underlying drivers of today’s meta-crisis and civilizational collapse both arise from our failure to engage with the holistic, interconnected nature of reality.

These two fundamental drivers are:

FRAGMENTING CONSCIOUSNESS that sees reality as made up of separate entities and forces. This consciousness enables us to attend to, care about and benefit one thing at the expense of other things.

and
FRAGMENTING INTELLIGENCE which, empowered by linear rationality, frames, pursues and achieves narrow, short-term goals.

Fragmenting consciousness can be contrasted with HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS that perceives, experiences and thinks about reality in terms of wholes, wholeness, and interconnectedness.

Fragmenting intelligence can be contrasted with the intelligence of WISDOM which, grounded in wholeness and interconnection, frames and pursues broadly beneficial long-term goals.

So, in order to not serve societal fragmentation and collapse, intelligence needs to be bound and driven by wisdom. In other words, we need to arrange things so that intelligence – most importantly AI, the powerful offspring of our own fragmenting intelligence – serves the broad, inclusive, long-term goals of wisdom.

ALIENATION & WISDOM

I find it useful to frame the primary systemic drivers above within the familiar concept of ALIENATION [1] – the experience of separateness from self, others, nature, and life in general. This alienation is pervasive as both a personal and a cultural phenomenon. Through it we lose our sense – and the reality – of individual and collective meaningful participation in the ongoing mutual thriving of life.

I find it interesting to contemplate the role of wisdom in this. Wisdom is about the big picture, the whole picture. Ideally, wisdom would enable us to meaningfully participate in the ongoing mutual thriving of all life, in all circumstances, as we meet each new issue, challenge and opportunity. That’s an ideal to strive for, over and over – to do the best we can, learning together as we go, growing into greater wisdom together.

The opposite of alienation is reciprocity and the opportunity to bring our gifts to Life and to be appreciated and welcomed because we’re participating in the great collective life project of mutual thriving. Beyond alienation we are no longer alone in the universe seeking our own separate benefits and survival. And, significantly, moving together beyond alienation – really and truly – frees us from structures that make our lives so out-of-touch that we become toxic not only to the aliveness of the world but to the aliveness within us.

So understanding the alienating sources and influences of the systemic drivers of collapse can provide guidance for creating social systems and cultures that help everyone involved find meaningful ways to participate in the ongoing mutual thriving of life. And every failure, success and realization in that effort can provide lessons for the ongoing development of our wisdom together.

SAMPLES OF THE DRIVERS

So what are these systemic drivers of collapse? Let’s do a quick dip into some of them now.

Over the last several weeks, I attempted to model those drivers – to identify overarching frames that would make sense of them all, make them all easier to understand. But so far I have found bugs in each of my models.[2] Since I don’t want my modeling to keep delaying my sharing the drivers with you, I offer below just a start-up list to give you a sense of what they’re about.

It’s a pretty naked list. I don’t want to belabor it with descriptions and nuances you might get lost in. So some things that would ideally be explained here, aren’t. I suggest that you skip over anything below that you don’t understand – or look up relevant words or phrases online. But even if you don’t really “get” some of the items, I think the list will give you the gist, which is my aim in sharing it.

If you want to go deeper with this in your own mind and heart, you might imagine examples and how each one of these – separately or in synergistic combinations – could influence the collapse of civilization. Or you might reflect on where you see these drivers at work in and around you now….

Short-termism
One-sidedness
Anthropocentrism
Hubris / techno-optimism
Lopsided opportunity/risk dynamics
Imbalanced polarities
Rivalrous relationships
Materialism
Linear approaches to complexity
Intelligence overwhelming wisdom in the short term
Toxic polarization, schismogenesis
Toxic concentration of power
Dangerous distribution of power (e.g., democratization of WMDs)
Freedom/constraint imbalance
Misinformation, deep fakes
Tech potentials for mass destruction
Increasing ethical ambiguity
Toxic monetary reductionism
GDP growth
Extreme inequality
Materialism
Private ownership of commons
Globalization
Extractive economics
Perverse incentives
Confirmation bias
Scale overreach (beyond human scale)
Systemic ignorance
Externalizing costs
Ratchet effect
Jeavons Paradox
Multi-polar traps
First mover advantage

Whew!

SOME CHALLENGING IMPLICATIONS

I’d like now to offer a little window into my efforts to work with these.

I chose not to label capitalism as a driver in its own right, despite the urgings of some of my associates. I see capitalism as a composite of a number of the other drivers (e.g., toxic monetary reductionism, GDP growth, extractive economics, externalizing costs, private ownership of commons, anthropocentrism, etc.) many of which are shared by other approaches to political economy, including state communism and democratic socialism. So although this analysis justifies targeting capitalism for deep transformation or replacement, that focus can be a distraction if capitalism’s component drivers are not adequately understood.

Also note that many threats to our favorite Enlightenment and progressive values – like freedom, justice, and the value of individual human life – do not feature prominently in this list. That’s because some of those threats are not only not directly related to collapse, but also that some of those values can end up actually serving or amplifying some of the drivers. For example, when justice is viewed as equal opportunity to participate in the systems destroying the world or to live a middle class lifestyle based on extractive economics, we SEEM to face a case of “increasing ethical ambiguity”. But that ambiguity vanishes if we reframe justice to include future generations and all non-human life – i.e., if we seek fair opportunities for “meaningful participation in the ongoing mutual thriving of life.” What would a just society look like if THAT were its primary cultural aspiration?

Likewise, a health care system built on the sustained bodily functioning of individual human beings, regardless of the costs to them, society, or living systems around them can be seen as (a) an ultimate driver of systemic collapse and (b) a threat to the quality of life of that person and many lives around them. This analysis calls for a deeper, wider, more nuanced and aliveness-nurturing definition of “health” – as well as a renewed appreciation of the important role of death in the health of all living systems.

The enlightenment ideal of “individual freedom” is also thrown into question – as noted in the “Freedom/constraint imbalance” driver. Individual freedom needs to be reconceptualized in the context of the tightly interdependent fabric and family of nested living systems. In many Indigenous tribal and major civilized traditions, we find ethical standards emphasizing obligation to the larger wholes we are part of and depend on. Reductionist libertarian views of decontextualized freedom exemplify the kind of one-sided imbalance – especially in economic and political realms – that is destroying the world. We can learn that freedom is not just the opposite of tyranny but – if it is based on reality – a new version of freedom arises in contexts of mutual, reciprocal relations with the aliveness around us, within which we can express and fulfill ourselves in healthier ways than are possible through extreme pursuit of “liberty”.

And so it goes, on and on. The systemic drivers of collapse and alienation challenge and invite us to deeply re-think our assumptions about the world, in ways that move us towards greater, fuller belonging in the family of Life.

Coheartedly,

Tom

[1] Thanks to John Abbe for suggesting the concept of alienation as fundamental here.

[2] If you are inclined to modeling or organizing ideas, feel free to send me workable models or lists you’ve made of these drivers, or post them in the comments section.

PS: My interest in the systemic drivers of collapse derives not only from the Schmachtenberger-Hagens podcast noted in my first post in this series, but also from my earlier exposure to William Catton’s watershed 1982 book OVERSHOOT: The ecological basis for revolutionary change which covers much the same territory from a different angle. I find the systemic drivers analysis identifies more distinct drivers, while Catton’s work embeds civilizational dynamics in a deeper ecological reality. The two complement each other. (I learned of OVERSHOOT from Michael Dowd – also mentioned in my previous post – and his wife Connie Barlow.)

Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440

Evoking and engaging the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole

*** Visit the Wise Democracy Pattern Language Project ***

*** Buy a Wise Democracy Pattern Card Deck ***
Read

Please support our work. Your donations are fully tax-deductible.

14 Responses to "Systemic Drivers of Collapse (Part 2 – An Overview)"

skreutzer says:

September 7, 2023 at 8:01 am

So this offers a list of identified “anti-patterns” or “problems” if you want (which are patterns,, “dynamics”, “mechanisms” too observed in a system’s operation/structure/setup, just undesired ones according to some metric or value judgement). A more healthy/beneficial/a positive/productive pattern could be contrasted to some/each of these. Each time an anti-pattern is recognized to be at work in a system, is the idea to stop it and replace it with a more healthy alternative pattern?

No need to go through the exercise of identifying individual instances of the anti-patterns at work (who’s/what’s enacting them where when how) if a system per its structure/setup as a whole is mostly comprised of anti-patterns, and the particular system in question is mostly a destructive one. Then the task would be to come up and implement an alternative system that’s more constructive/productive/healthy (more long-term stable/sustainable), which then needs to actually replace the destructive system. Otherwise, the destructive system will just continue to drive us towards collapse, if nothing is or can be done about it. Identifying these drivers/anti-patterns being at work around me is of little use if I fail to stop + replace these. Given these drivers/anti-patterns are relatively well-known, not too hard to recognize.

Yes, it’s not capitalism per se, but many of these problems/anti-patterns are relatively modern and too in their magnitude, so it’s mostly industrialized consumerism, for which capitalism is naturally/inherently an excellent arrangement to drive it to the worse.

If the system collapses/collapsed and is not sustainable long-term, then that results in a tyranny of lack of options and death, so the freedom enjoyed on the way towards collapse could be only a short-term one.

“Private ownership of commons” is a contradiction – stuff stops to be part of the commons once it’s privatized and exclusively owned, thus reduces the commons. OK, it’s a minor semantic thing, what’s likely meant here is that we see the continued shrinking of the commons.

Alienation is a term/concept promoted by Karl Marx as well. His analysis might be right, while we don’t need to agree with his proposed solutions, his historical speculations, or him as the person.

Reply
1. Tom+Atlee says:
  
  September 7, 2023 at 7:02 pm
  
  Thanks for your comments, Stephan.
  
  I haven’t worked specifically with “anti-patterns”. These systemic drivers of collapse may or may not qualify as anti-patterns. But a number of people have commented to me that I should present each one along with a positive alternative. (I have mixed feelings about that, which are too complex to put here.)
  
  But I was planning to get into that in subsequent posts in this series. But a provocative article with a new perspective has interrupted my plans and I’m not sure how the series will proceed. I will be sharing that article in the third post very soon and we shall all see what happens next….
  
  You suggest that a system “as a whole [may be] mostly comprised of anti-patterns, and the particular system in question [may be] mostly a destructive one. Then the task would be to come up [with] and implement an alternative system that’s more constructive/productive/healthy (more long-term stable/sustainable), which then [would need] to actually replace the destructive system.”
  
  I think that may well be the case in this mega-predicament. But I’m sensing that there are fundamental paradigmatic aspects of this that need to be understood more first before envisioning the alternative system. Part of what’s compelling about the aforementioned article is its observation that the system (e.g., your proposed villain of “industrialized consumerism”) isn’t just “out there” but also embedded in ourselves and our lives so deeply that we are co-creating it all the time. We need to recognize that before we’d be able to truly “change” this thing called “the system”. Without that realization, we’ll fail to dig deep enough and continue our co-created slide towards collapse. As far as I can see, that’s a dimension of this that is not actually “relatively well-known” or fully come to terms with, at least at the depth that is needed here.
  
  The intention of my phrase “private ownership of commons” was to point to the widely acknowledged historic phenomenon called “enclosure”. Enclosure of the commons is the taking over of commons by private entities which then prevent others from using it. So many spaces and resources that were previously commons have thus been (and still are being) withdrawn from common use and ownership that we find ourselves left with “private ownership of [what was and should rightfully be] commons”. My intention was to leave the bracketed phrase implicit, while making the dynamic more readily understandable for those not familiar with the literature on “enclosure”. If your response is any indicator, I may not have succeeded with that.
  
  Coheartedly,
  Tom
  
  Reply
  1. skreutzer says:
    
    September 8, 2023 at 8:26 am
    
    “Anti-patterns”: usually a term from software development/architecture, for common but harmful idioms/patterns, which appear like a constructive/productive pattern, but turn out to be actually damaging. Software development/architecture gets its “design patterns” (here it’s just common recipes, not a real pattern language, Christopher Alexander pointed that out) from Alexander, so of course can reverse-introduce anti-patterns to architecture (building construction), or governance, or other domains where patterns and/or pattern languages are used/developed. Of course, not all individual anti-patterns, especially in their isolated/recipe form, are necessarily identical to systemic drivers. For the latter, it’s probably more of an “anti-pattern language”, which comprise a system/set that drives the system towards collapse/instability. But the harmful drivers (vs. positive drivers) are probably a set/selection of such individual mechanisms/anti-patterns.
    
    Kind of the point/benefit here is, you already have a constructive/productive/healthy pattern language, so that might be somewhat easy to link anti-patterns to patterns, the anti-pattern language to the pattern language. Alexander too started out with the observation of the negative practices of commercial architecture, which focuses on low cost and being easy/quick to build (short-term), which on the other hand results in “dead” buildings, and as these are the dominant factors in the majority of commercial architecture, of course the built environment, our cities and most buildings are alienating to the inhabitants, as no/little care was spent to design for more aliveness. Of course is an option to spend the time to rigorously study/analyze the many aspects of what can be wrong, but that’s not too helpful towards a better alternative, so the pattern language as a solution is developed and promoted (but not much adopted), because that’s then a tool/framework people can use to not repeat/participate in the old style/system, but design/implement better alternatives and replacements.
    
    Reply
    1. skreutzer says:
      
      September 8, 2023 at 8:43 am
      
      Update: Systemic drivers can be and likely are particular entities, actors, organizations, who invent/introduce, deploy, benefit-from, rely-on anti-patterns, but your list primarily describes the mechanisms in the abstract (per the system setup/structure), which is why it might be more similar to an “anti-pattern language”, a system with a defunct structure/setup. Point being, systems sometimes are constructed, can/do change sometimes, especially the system you’re talking about is not a product of nature. Yes, a parasite gaining the short-term benefit ultimately ends up killing the host and itself, so that can be a “driver”, that’s a particular arrangement/setup. The parasite might not be on its own constructive/productive, may not be able to per its structure, killing a/some host might be its only way to live. Does it clean up weak hosts? Will excess/destructiveness ultimately undo itself? That’s one possible solution for the problem, running out of hosts.
      
      Reply
    2. skreutzer says:
      
      September 8, 2023 at 8:53 am
      
      Update: Most patterns can probably negated to their destructive counter-parts, and anti-patterns could be replaced by more healthy alternatives. Might not be a 1:1 relation, but 1:n or n:m. With stating a pattern, you implicitly suggest that this is a better approach or solution of a problem you want to avoid/replace by it. Often, patterns of a pattern language as well as the pattern language as a whole start with a problem statement, and offer the patterns + languages as solutions and better alternatives.
      
      Reply
  2. skreutzer says:
    
    September 8, 2023 at 9:25 am
    
    Yes, you’re right: paradigm/framework/model/system, the actual problems/causes, harmful/counter-productive structures/flows/processes/activities and reasons for them are indeed not that well understood, and even less so potential and possible solutions and alternatives. Because for the latter, would want to and need to make sure that these new alternatives don’t come with other destructive, unintended, undesired side-effects (otherwise, nothing won/gained). However, I think it’s easy to recognize + demonstrate that there’s some big issues at this point in time, particularly for the increasing scale and uninterrupted growth, which is impossible to continue at this rate indefinitely, while at the same time nothing is much prepared for or designed to or fine with some stagnation or recession of these harmful, damaging activities. Given that we’re not far ahead with even understanding the problems properly, can’t really have much of a clue about potential solutions nor how to get to these, which means the system active and in place right now only gets us closer to collapse at an increasing speed, too eating away capacities/options, even too with our/my active participation in these things to some degree, and not much put forward to counter and/or undo it. Could be some other people somewhere else made more progress towards alternatives, it’s just I too struggle with finding a whole lot of it.
    
    Reply
skreutzer says:

September 8, 2023 at 9:33 am

“Privatization/enclosure of commons”: Of course, is the classical erection of walls which turned the commonly shared landscape as pasture grounds into private property in the UK, then invention of barbed wire fences for the US, the 3-mile zone vs. international waters (and lack of regulation/protection for these commons), airspace over an owned plot of land, space, etc. Then, there’s too the digital commons, which are naturally abundant and not scarce, so there’s technical, legal, administrative enclosure of putting up artificial walls (siloing), etc. Regarding the terminology of “private ownership of commons”, I just want to point out and make sure that there can’t be, per definition, any commons that are privately owned. Stopped to be a commons, if one or a few entities hold exclusive access/ownership.

Reply
Keely Maitland says:

September 9, 2023 at 1:04 am

The results we see in the world are exactly what the designers intended. We have been socially engineered, lied to, had the truth hidden from us, and history rewritten. We’ve been taught to be afraid, docile and compliant. We’ve been taught to hate our fellow man. We’ve been taught to be tolerant of the intolerable. We’ve been taught that we are small, insignificant and not good enough. All of this is a lie. The biggest lie that we’ve been told is that there are limited resources in the world. Limited amounts of money, energy, food, water, land – we’re overpopulated and consuming natural resources faster than they can be replaced. Part of this lie is the climate emergency. The logical solution to all these lies is to reduce the population to a sustainable level. Sounds like the opposite of thriving (at least for those people being depopulated). With these lies held as truth is it any wonder that we are destroying ourselves.

In my view three things need to happen:-
– all power is taken away from the designers/perpetrators of this plan (the cabal, the elites, the illuminati etc.) and all their minions
– The lies are exposed and we collectively wake up
– During the waking up process we learn why these perpetrators were able to do what they did so that we know how to stop it from happening in future.

We understand the world works a certain way but it doesn’t. We truly are living in a matrix and the only way out is to wake up from the slumber. That’s what’s happening now – the Great Awakening.

The good news is that most of the power has been taken away from the perpetrators – the public just hasn’t seen it yet – and the truth is starting to peek through. Soon there will be a flood of truth and a flood of new technology and systems that enable thriving.

Reply
1. skreutzer says:
  
  September 9, 2023 at 7:15 am
  
  There are limited resources in this world that don’t regenerate. There’s a finite amount of rare earths on the planet, Helium is another one, there’s peak oil. OK, maybe some more reservoirs can be discovered, till these too run out. Deep mining maybe, but that takes a lot of effort/energy. Synthetic production (Hitler did that with oil, or gold can be created in the lab, it’s just far more expensive than being mined and only in very small quantity, per atom fusion, so that’s not a viable option for the huge increase in energy demand). Space, but that too takes immense material + energy on transportation alone. Forests, these need to take a very long time to regenerate, a young forest with just some plants around is not the same as an old-grown forest – both give some wood, but the young forest is weak to defend against intruders, because is not a well-established home for animal + insect ecosystem. So if some of the resources are finite/constant in terms of their current cheap price + availability, not a lot of other viable sources/options available, then OK you’re saying population should be decreased (or actually, it’s their consumption of these resources, which takes the resources from a pocket/concentration and scatters it as waste all over the place, so ends up effectively “lost”). Then, if you look at the charts, population only goes up, does not at all balance out to a stable level, doesn’t even have any dent (WW2 is a barely noticeable dent). So, what’s the idea here? Practically? One-/no-child policy, that’ll take some effort to promote/enforce that, no?
  
  Reply
  1. Keely Maitland says:
    
    September 9, 2023 at 6:56 pm
    
    I obviously didn’t explain myself very well. Thanks for the opportunity to help me clarify my thinking on this.
    
    There may be limited resources in the world that don’t regenerate but that is not the cause of our collapse. We have free energy and 6000 patents that haven’t been released to the public yet. I was certainly not advocating for the depopulation agenda. That is the antithesis of thriving.
    
    The point that I was trying to make is that we have been lied to and socially engineered for centuries and that is the underlying cause of all our problems.
    
    Here is an article summarising those lies as they relate to our enslavement. It explains another area where our non-thriving has been purposefully created and maintained.
    
    https://newsletter.martingeddes.com/p/how-we-were-legally-enslaved?publication_id=457557&post_id=136847072&isFreemail=true&r=ncti
    
    Reply
Keely Maitland says:

September 10, 2023 at 12:41 am

Here is a link to a short video on Telegram that explains Agenda 21 now called Agenda 2030. It is a plan that was agreed to by 179 Nations in 1992 to build a totalitarian state worldwide. It clearly explains the root cause of the collapse that we’re seeing in the world.

https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordWDSGroup/117374

Reply
Tom+Atlee says:

September 15, 2023 at 5:51 pm

It’s interesting that Keely has brought up Agenda for 2030 (formerly Agenda 2021, which incorporates the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals) in the context of this blog post. It provides a provocative touchstone for examining diverse views of our planetary conundrum – e.g.,

1. This global strategy for sustainable development is important if we’re to maintain economic growth while providing fair access to resources and opportunities and a healthy ecosystem. Governments, corporations, and civil society just need to get to work making good progress on the 17 SDGs and participating in global coordination.

2. This global strategy for sustainable development is a cover story enabling elite power to centralize into a totalitarian world government, using scarcity and fear to build popular support. On the positive side, technologies have been developed behind the scenes that can provide prosperity for all as long as we can topple the elites who are driving us towards totalitarian elimination of our freedoms.

3. This global strategy for sustainable development is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions that economic growth can be maintained on a finite planet when the planet cannot support material prosperity for 8+ billion people. We need to come to terms with intrinsic limits on our extraction, commerce, consumption, and waste, but may be able to develop high quality SIMPLE living locally for most people if we constrain toxic monetized economics and dangerous high tech developments.

4. I had a socially conservative Mormon friend who was puzzled about how his progressive friends were so worried about climate change. His own sense of Apocalypse was the return of Jesus for the start of a millennium of heavenly rule on Earth. I asked him what preparations he and his fellow believers were supposed to make in preparation for that. He said they were to build loving communities and responsible stewardship of Nature. It blew me away: I saw these as powerful intervention in the climate challenge. So there were many overlaps between our two worlds, even though the stories we were living in were quite different!

There’s more – MUCH more – to each of these worldviews than I’m describing – and more different worldviews and variations regarding this challenge. But the above three indicate the kind of fundamental differences that are emerging around important social issues. A blog post with comments is a way to discuss such issues, but it is a totally inadequate forum (or space or “container”) within which to actually hear each other well, identify the grain of truth and value in what each of us are asserting, to evolve our thinking together, and to work together to develop new approaches that make sense to all of us.

We need publicly visible citizen deliberations (“minipublics”) that involve people selected from a full spectrum of perspectives getting briefed by written and video materials and live experts from a full spectrum of perspectives using processes, facilitation and exercises that enable the kind of mutual understanding described in the previous paragraph. And we need media coverage of such forums that shows how people with widely different views can, in fact, come together to do real creative work on public issues. Lots of evidence exists that this is possible – and working towards.

Reply
1. Susana Rinderle says:
  
  September 24, 2023 at 2:50 pm
  
  Tom, I really appreciate you calling out the similarities with your Mormon friend. Indeed, I find there’s much we have in common with many folks “on the other side” (politically) but unfortunately I believe the barriers between us (human cognitive biases, human nervous system overload, too much harm done and no space to repair, powerful interests committed to keeping us fighting) won’t allow us to come together in time.
  
  Sadly I think too many good folks — many of whom are commenting here — don’t entirely understand the nature, depth, and breadth of what we’re facing. The perpetrators aren’t some bad guys “out there” — they are *us.* No governmental, international, or institutional body is, or will, be the solution.
  
  Indeed, there may not be a “solution” at all. When faced with collapse and possible extinction, people understandably want something to DO or some “hope.” We want to hear solutions, alternatives, or something “positive.” But what if there are none? What is possible then? This is the focus of Deep Adaptation and Deep Adaptation Forum.
  
  I invite folks to check out Schmactenberger’s work and also Nate Hagens. I provided two links below to two of their most recent talks.
  
  Reply
Susana Rinderle says:

September 24, 2023 at 2:36 pm

Hi Tom! You are SPOT ON with this. 👏👏👏 As a fellow fan of Daniel Schmachtenberger, I say AMEN especially about what you add regarding capitalism, freedom, and human life. THANK YOU! I entirely agree, and I appreciate you maintaining clarity, a wide aperture, and integrity in the face of peer pressure.

Speaking of peer pressure, if you and your readers missed Daniel’s talk last week in Stockholm, it’s a must-watch. The first 20 minutes or so aren’t new to those familiar with his work, but I think what he says and *how* (the look in his eyes) are critical viewing. Nate Hagens also gives a very dense yet clear overview of all things in his wheelhouse.

Nate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN87PWfj7LA

Daniel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kBoLVvoqVY

Reply

ALIENATION & WISDOM

SAMPLES OF THE DRIVERS

SOME CHALLENGING IMPLICATIONS

Related posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply