Cadmus is a journal for fresh thinking and new perspectives that integrate knowledge from all fields of science, art and humanities to address real-life issues, inform policy and decision-making, and enhance our collective response to the challenges and opportunities facing the world today.

News

The Globethics.net library contains articles of Cadmus as of vol. 1(2010) to current.

Recent Submissions

  • Who should Govern on what Principles? The Future of Decision Making Combining Nudge with Scenarios to reach Eutopia

    Elif Çepni (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    The main aim of this paper is to discuss the theories of decision-making, the problems of predictions and how the tools utilized for the process of decision-making at the macro-level could be enhanced for policy makers in our post-normal times. Decision-making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker deriving from several perspectives (psychological, cognitive, and normative). Decision theory (or the theory of choice) is the study of the reasoning that underlies the choices adopted by an agent. Normative (Prescriptive) decision theory gives advice on how to make the best decisions with a set of uncertain beliefs and a set of values. Descriptive (positive) decision theory analyses how existing, possibly irrational agents actually make decisions (Grunig and Kuhn, 2013). Political decisions or governmental policies are devised using the normative decision theory. The values, beliefs and ideas of policy makers inevitably have a great impact on the formulation of policies. When examining the questions on right and wrong, they will habitually prompt variable answers from different individuals and groups. Therefore, the manner in which governments or institutions, in particular universal organisations, should be governed raises many complex questions. The dilemmas of our time, energy, environment, climate change, food security, and financial security cannot be understood in isolation. They are systemic problems, which mean that they are interconnected, and interdependent (Capra and Luisi, 2014). In a number of situations, political leaders are unable to draw conclusions from facts. They fail to appreciate how the major problems of our time are all interrelated. They do not see how their declared solutions may affect future generations. Yet, if issues are to be viewed in a holistic sense, a further crucial threat of the fashion in which power is distributed would present itself. On occasions, global and national decisions may contradict themselves or periodically, populism might dominate the decisions of policy makers. The world consists of multiple diverse groups; consequently, the governance of humanity is not straightforward. Most people in our modern society, especially those in our large social institutions, use concepts of an outdated worldview; their perception of reality is inadequate for dealing with our overpopulated, globally interconnected world. The age that we live in is more frequently called “post-normal times.” It is characterized by complexity, chaos and contradictions (Sardar, 2010). The main aim of this paper is to discuss and assert the need for new alternative decision-making systems which could eliminate the basic deficiencies of the current systems. We need to raise the awareness of people and educate them about “how they can be more anti-fragile and enjoy the complexity of our daily life.” Modernity has brought significantly enriched improvements into our daily lives but it has also been instigating additional complications. Sequentially, citizens and consumers of today are experiencing a growing sense of alienation, loss of values and flexibility (Zajda, 2009). This is a further attempt to show that reconsideration is clearly needed to determine the relevance of the certainty and stability of the Newtonian paradigm in decision-making and the governance process.
  • System Change Investing and the Sustainable Development Goals

    Frank Dixon (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are one of the most important milestones of the sustainability movement. Broad embrace of the goals by companies and governments shows growing awareness of the need to effectively address major environmental, social and economic problems. In his 2019 letter to CEOs, Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager ($6 trillion in assets), said that companies should expand their purpose from narrowly benefiting shareholders to broadly benefiting society. Over 8,000 companies are striving to do this by voluntarily adopting a B-Corp (Benefit Corporation) structure that seeks to benefit all stakeholders. Voluntary efforts such as these provide many benefits, but cannot come close to achieving the SDGs. Economic and political systems often place shareholders before all other stakeholders and do not hold companies fully responsible for negative environmental and social impacts. These systems compel all companies to degrade the environment and society. They are the root causes of the environmental, social and economic problems addressed by the SDGs. System change is the most important action needed to achieve the goals. This article provides a big picture view of system change and discusses practical options for achieving it. System Change Investing (SCI), a high-leverage, short-term system change strategy, is emphasized.
  • Contribution of the Economy to Emerging Global Governance*

    Erich Hoedl (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    Accelerating globalization leads through its rapidly increasing interconnectivities to a highly interdependent global whole with different functional subsystems, which are currently divorced from each other. The economy is separated from the society and within the economy financial, man-made, natural and human capital are divorced from each other, which leads to crises. Preserving economic wealth needs a reintegration of all capitals. Global governance in the future has to concentrate on the beneficial impact of global cooperation. Historical experiences show that pure competition is in contradiction with globalization. As nation-states have lost their influence, global governance has to enhance cooperation between all capitals. In face of the global limits of natural capital and the abundance of financial capital, man-made capital has to be increased, which in turn requires higher human capital. The future evolution of global governance needs a democratization of the economy and an enlargement of the present voting democracy to a politico-economic democracy. Implementing a global constitution based on human rights and human dignity will question the presently dominating Bretton Woods Agreement fundamentally.
  • Mankind at the Crossroads: Civilizational Shift or Self-destruction

    Dimitar Tchurovsky (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    Society has two parallel lines of development—the Course of History and the Spiral of Social Evolution. Development is determined bilaterally by objective and subjective factors. The subjective factor determines the content of society; the objective factor determines the structure of the society. The upcoming transition of mankind is evolutionary by nature, i.e. it represents a change in social consciousness, the structure of society and the ruling elite. This is a transition from a hierarchical to a network social structure. Evolutionary transitions have always been very painful for society. The upcoming change is a great danger because it is related to the survival of man as a species. In this situation, the economy and money lose their importance. The peaceful transition to a new form of social organization and a new type of society can be accomplished by the emergence and strengthening of social self-awareness. This is a civilizational change. The alternative is the self-destruction of society, which is not an option for discussion.
  • Ideas that Changed the World

    Ashok Natarajan (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    Ideas have catalytic power to change the world. They are leaders of social evolution. Evolutionary developments in science, religion, art all have at their roots mental ideas that later realize themselves through physical acts. Ideas release the human energy of the collective. That energy is directed into a force for action and becomes effective when it is organized by society. Thus, society is a living organization. History is replete with examples of how major events such as the French, Russian and American Revolutions, India’s call for independence, the emergence of Capitalism and Communism, the environmental movement stimulated by publication of the Limits to Growth, had their origins in simple, revolutionary ideas that shook society to its very foundations. Collaborative action is essential to address pressing global challenges. Piecemeal, sectoral strategies of the past may help to an extent, but cannot forge the much-needed psychological unity needed to address global challenges. Unity is possible only in the measure equality in all its forms is made real. Economic equality is the essential basis for sustainable political and social equality. Studied in terms of the evolution of ideas and values, history reveals the pathway of humanity’s evolutionary ascent into the future, the problems it has confronted, the errors we should avoid repeating, and the untold opportunities that await development of effective systems of global governance. New economic theory, a human-centered, transdisciplinary education system and a governance model based on psychological, social and economic equality are the foundation for achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
  • What is Reason?

    William Byers (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    This paper considers the central paradox of our time, namely, the triumphs of reason as reflected by the advances in scientific disciplines versus the seemingly inexorable increase in unreason as seen in the growth of authoritarianism and the rejection of science. The roots of this contradiction lie in a circularity in the scientific method itself, which becomes especially prominent in the project of reifying human consciousness. The crux of the problem lies in a misunderstanding of scientific rationality. I shall take another look at what is meant by the “rational process,” differentiate it from formal logic, and emphasize its key dimensions of intuition and insight. Creativity is the essential aspect of the rational process. In our discussion we will argue that creativity, seen as reframing or paradigm change, is fundamentally non-algorithmic. Indeed it often finds productive uses for non-logical factors such as contradiction and ambiguity. Rationality, like science and mathematics, cannot be separated from its intrinsic connection to the human mind. Much of the damage that follows from technological advances stems from reifying human capacities and then imagining that they stand alone, independent of the human capacities that gave birth to them. Keeping human beings at the heart of scientific and technological developments will allow us to reap the benefits of these advancements and avoid the enormous downside that current social and political trends show us may be coming.
  • Towards a New Economic Theory of the State

    Ruslan Grinberg; Alexander Rubinstein (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    The present article traces the authors’ approach to constructing a new economic theory of the modern state, considering the theory of patronized goods and a general concept of mixed economy failures as its two important components. This approach is based on the original interpretation of the term ‘irrationality’ and proposes a more general definition of ‘paternalism’, revealing negative consequences of its present interpretation. Along with the other failures of the mixed economy, the authors describe a special case—‘paternalist failure’—that may be considered a combination of failures in social choice and irrational government bureaucrats’ activities. There are five types of bureaucratic irrationalities: Vyazemsky’s law, dilettantism, ‘cashier effect’, Parkinson’s law and government officers’ ‘rent seeking’ behavior, that lead to their failure. The authors show that in contrast to market failures impacting government activities, paternalist failures require other responses demanding different activities,—democratic procedures for creating paternalist lines and the introduction of the procedures limiting bureaucratic tyranny.
  • Inside this Issuse

    Orio Giarini; Garry Jacobs (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
  • Educating for the Future: Empowering the Human Mind and Redefining Values and Citizenship in the Age of Technological Disruption*

    Carlos Blanco-Pérez; Alexandre Pérez-Casares; Ramón Rodrigáñez-Riesco (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    What are the goals of education, and how should they be interpreted in our time? The challenges posed by the emergence of technologies like Artificial Intelligence demand a renewed reflection on the nature and scope of the educational process, in order to address the question of how to educate the human mind to cope with these problems and opportunities. The aim of this paper is to explore a framework for the relationship between education, values and new technologies within the present social and economic context. In it, the role of rationality, emotions, empathy, creativity and the possibility of developing a broader concept of “mind” for empowering human beings and helping us to better understand ourselves and the world will also be examined. In essence, the paper contains a summary of the main ideas discussed in the Fifth Altius conference on “Educating for the Future” at the Oxford Union,† which took place between September 28 and 30, 2018.‡ Due to the Chatham House Rule requirements, attribution has been avoided. Thus, the report is focused on the presentation of the most relevant concepts and arguments expressed by the speakers and exchanged with the audience. In any case, the report is not exhaustive and it does not necessarily reflect the order of events followed at the Oxford Union. Rather, it is aimed at exposing, in a concise manner, the principal themes that were explored during the conference and the key practical suggestions drawn from different sessions.
  • Some “New” Governance Models for Europe and the United States

    Philippe Destatte (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    We live in an age where populism, as both a totalitarian and a Manichean political attitude, is becoming more established on both sides of the Atlantic. An age, also, in which there is a proliferation of democratic innovations attempting to address the issues of the 21st century and the crises in representation and delegation. The question of public confidence in institutions is key, but it is based, first and foremost, on the way in which these issues should be resolved and, therefore, on the mechanisms that allow this to happen. In this respect, questioning governance in terms of its relationship with law, as the World Bank and the World Academy of Art & Science are doing, makes sense, particularly in as turbulent a context as the one we live in today. In addressing some “new” governance models for Europe and the United States, we will first review the definition of the concept and the organisation of its models in three spheres. We will then move on to examine the six mutations which have influenced and developed this model, before turning our attention to a 21st century form of governance, as advocated by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration in the United Nations Economic and Social Council which, during its 2018 session, proposed a form of governance for Agenda 2030. The conclusion stresses the need for rationality and organisation in democracy.
  • Ten Essential Ideas for Sustainability Leaders in the 2020s

    Michael Marien; David Harries (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    This Discussion Outline was prepared for the WAAS-organized March 17, 2019, Special Meeting on Global Leadership for the 21st Century—Ideas That Can Lead to Action, which followed the VII Global Baku Forum, March 14-16. Its statements are derived from or supported by the contents of The Security & Sustainability Guide (www.securesustain.org; in development) and include current and emerging ideas deserving more attention from leaders: 1) we cannot have security without sustainability, and vice versa; 2) security is worsening worldwide, making sustainability more vulnerable; 3) still, an under-appreciated transformation to sustainability is underway; 4) but fragmentation within the transformation is widespread; 5) the intensifying global information explosion is out of control; 6) global population in 2050 will likely grow by 30% to 10 billion people; 7) a new political continuum is needed to supplement traditional “left-right” thinking; 8) a new economics for the 21st century is needed to supplement and eventually replace industrial-era economics; 9) new sources of non-polluting energy and new foods and food production methods are emerging; 10) the climate change problem is understated, but climate is only part of a wider set of urgent environmental problems.
  • Power and Climate Change Governance: Negative Power Externality and the Brazilian Commitment to the Paris Agreement

    Danielle Sandi Pinheiro (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    Brazil is facing a climate change governance puzzle in which we can identify economic and political instabilities interacting in a conflicting manner with power relations. The exercise of institutionalized power through the national government and international institutions should be enough to reach an environmental second best outcome—the institutional power coordination of the environmental agenda. However, domestic governance and institutionalized power relations are working in a contradictory manner, since the second best solution is not enough to reach an effective agenda for climate change and sustainable development. We call this situation as a negative power externality. This could be a signal that the strictly economic view of the free market system is not sufficient to handle the environmental concerns and sustainable development policies.
  • Toward a New Paradigm of World Governance

    Fadwa El Guindi (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    The article presents a critical analysis of the existing order of globalism, which imposes Western values and constructs on the human universe. This in turn leads to adverse results. It produces tensions, wars, conflicts and racial and cultural divides. Alternatively, this analysis puts together ideas from the Ancient Egyptian vision of world order and universal stability with contemporary experimental modes of governance, as represented by Egypt’s post-revolution (2011-2013) model. The innovative kind of governance that the model embodies was born out of Egypt’s historical identity, the national character of Egyptians, and the unique societal fabric of integrated diversity that rejects extremism and western-imposed models. This article also invokes some ideas on conceptualizations of governance from China, to propose an out-of-the-ordinary and a new paradigmatic path.
  • Fragile Contexts & People-Centred Preventive Actions

    Donato Kiniger-Passigli (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    Human tragedies continue to repeat themselves in the same hotspots of the planet. The inadequacy of all remedial policies is in front of our own eyes, but preventive measures are not put in place due to multiple interests and causes. However, a shift to prevention is required if we want to avoid further intensification of destructive phenomena such as violent conflicts, forced migration, poverty, diseases and environmental degradation. It is very clear that the only way to prevent further intensification of extreme man-made and natural disasters is to ensure stable, peaceful productive environments for people in their own lands. That requires a global conception and capacity for action beyond anything done so far. There are many new threats on the horizon: climate change, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, etc. all of which have implications for human societies. We are entering uncharted waters and the international system is very fragmented and reactive. Countering fragility means primarily providing people with tools and means for a dignified life. A problem-focused and context specific approach is required at all times. Ultimately, solutions that are not truly shared by the local communities are not likely to be taken up and succeed. A people-centred approach is based on enhanced awareness of the impact of potential risks and benefits for the beneficiaries and individuals of a given community, from a cultural, gender and socio-economic standpoint. There is a dire need for an understanding of needs and aspirations that provides a clear pathway to empower those who are at risk of being left behind.
  • The Need for a Global Government: Democracy in the Planetary Age

    Jo Leinen; Andreas Bummel (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    One of the key challenges of modern times is the increasing gap between accelerating technological innovation and slow political adaptation. Economic, social and technological developments have led to the emergence of an interdependent world system that revolves around the entire Earth. The functioning of this complex system and perhaps the survival of human civilization depend on the provision and management of global public goods. Abolishing nuclear weapons and halting anthropogenic climate change are just two of a myriad of unsolved global challenges and new ones such as artificial intelligence that are emerging rapidly. The enduring fragmentation of the world’s political order in around 200 nominally sovereign nation-states makes effective global action impossible. While this status quo represents a threat to humanity and helps erode the institutions of the nation-state, there is a growing transnational elite that benefits from weak political processes and institutions at the global level. Based on their book ‘A World Parliament: Governance and Democracy in the 21st Century’,1 the authors argue in this piece that achieving a peaceful, just and sustainable world community requires an evolutionary leap forward towards a federal global government.
  • The Politics of Connectivity

    Hazel Henderson (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    This article is an exploration of humanity’s evolution from our earliest expansion out of Africa to today’s colonization of planet Earth. It traces how humanity’s success was predominantly based on our ability to bond, communicate, share and cooperate in ever larger organizational forms. Competition was also key, along with individual creativity, as our forebears developed the technological prowess now dominating all species and ecosystems in today’s Anthropocene age. The article also explores why our cognitive abilities have lagged behind our technological reach, so that humanity now faces its final existential challenge: our self-inflicted crises of biodiversity and species loss, climate change and our behavioral and cognitive limitations. We possess all the technological and organizational means to create our next stage of evolution, as embodied in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). If we reach the maturity and wisdom needed to overcome the global political and educational imperatives for our survival, we might then graduate to become a suitable inter-planetary species.
  • Global Leadership in the 21st Century

    Garry Jacobs; Donato Kiniger-Passigli; David Chikvaidze (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2019-05-01)
    The world today possesses unprecedented opportunities and capabilities to promote global human welfare and well-being. But it is in urgent need of leadership to tap the opportunities and address the multidimensional challenges confronting humanity today. These challenges are a reflection of the urgent need to project a unifying global vision, build international support and multi-stakeholder commitment, enhance institutional effectiveness, and mobilize global society for effective action. The optimistic consensus that fueled progress at the end of the Cold War has disappeared. The momentum for collective action has dissipated. The recent retreat from multilateralism, democracy, economic cooperation, regional integration, arms control, cooperative security and multiculturalism undermines global cooperation at a time when it is urgently needed to achieve the development objectives of Agenda 2030, address existential ecological challenges, and prevent a relapse into strident nationalism and the Cold War competitive security.
 
 The world is desperately in need of leadership at this critical juncture. Although leadership has most commonly taken the form of great personalities in the past, it is no longer limited to individuals. Leadership is a way of acting. It is a living social process that encompasses the whole society in which and on which it acts. It may be initiated by idealistic individuals or innovative organizations, but ultimately it has to percolate down to influence the actions of many others in order to generate results. Outstanding individual leaders and the aspiring social collective are complementary forces. The essence of leadership is an inspiring vision of the future. That vision usually encompasses higher values, insightful ideas and growing awareness of untapped opportunities. It is fueled by the rising aspirations of the population transformed into intense social energies released into action. The results it achieves depend on the intensity of society’s aspiration for accomplishment, the organization of the ideas and knowledge on which it is based, the clarity of the goals and plans, and the effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms through which it is implemented. Individuals can play a key leadership role in all stages of this process.
 
 The process of leadership transcends the action of one or a few individuals. It includes generating awareness of unutilized social potentials, projecting higher organizational ideas, mobilizing the available global social energies and resources for practical application, strengthening the effectiveness of existing institutions of governance, and releasing a broad-based social movement to transform the compelling challenges confronting humanity today into catalysts for rapid global social evolution.
  • On the Monetarized and Non-monetarized Contributions to National Wealth

    Marta Neškovic; Nebojša Nešković (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2018-05-01)
    We consider here the necessity of redefining the concept of economic value and the system of measuring the contributions to national wealth, to be included in a new paradigm in economics, whose application should guarantee constant improvement of human well-being. Such a paradigm should be based on an adequate cultural value system. We begin with a brief description of the traditional concept of value, in which the price of a good is determined by the equilibrium between its supply and demand resulting from an unimpeded exchange. Then, the concept of value that should be the basis for the future system necessary for measuring contributions to wealth is introduced. In this concept, the value of a commodity should comprise all the costs that appear during its entire lifetime as well as a margin of profit, and the resulting value ought to be compared with the value corresponding to the utility coming out of its consumption. The corresponding prices are called the total production price and the utilization price, respectively. This comparison should lead to the proper price of the commodity, to be determined using the tools of economic anthropology. This concept of value is nondeterministic. We further discuss the various forms of capital, which are physical, biological, human, social, manufactured and financial. We assume that capital as a whole cannot behave as a simple sum of its forms, and propose that the evolution of capital is modeled as the evolution of a complex system. Application of this approach may show that capital exhibits novel properties, which cannot be explained via the properties of its forms. The central part of the paper is devoted to clarifying the wrong assumption that each monetarized activity positively contributes to human welfare and security. It is explained that there are many such activities whose contributions to wealth are negative. Besides, there are numerous non-monetarized activities that substantially contribute to improving human well-being. We emphasize and illustrate the fact that the non-monetarized sector is a rich source and breeding ground for future progress. In the final part of the paper, we outline that the future system of measuring contributions to wealth should consist of three components— measuring the flow of all monetarized activities, the flow of all non-monetarized activities, and the resulting stocks of all forms of capital. Each component should include a set of indicators. The first component is well-known, but the comprised calculation should include the proper prices of commodities. The second and third components ought to be developed. The results obtained in measuring the value of the whole stock of capital would indicate whether the society is on the path toward sustainable development or not.
  • Cryptocurrencies & the Challenge of Global Governance

    Garry Jacbs (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2018-05-01)
    The recent explosive development of new forms of digital currency opens up unprecedented opportunities and poses significant regulatory challenges. This new form of digital currency lowers the costs and other barriers to the global movement of money, international trade, foreign investment and speculation, while simultaneously enhancing the anonymity on which tax evasion, money-laundering and other illegal activities thrive. It also liberates the creation of money and regulation of economic activities from the political control of national governments and central banks. Since the value of a currency is related to the size of the population, strength of the economy and value of transactions that utilize it, a basket of cryptocurrencies could emerge as the first prototype of a world currency whose value is backed by the total productive capacity of the entire human community. Moreover, the triad of Internet, distributed ledger technologies and cryptocurrencies could serve as the basis for the development of new global economic potentials in a manner similar and a degree far exceeding the economic impact of the World Wide Web over the past two decades. At the same time, the rapid deployment of cryptocurrencies could have profound impact on the capacity of governments to tax transactions, income and wealth, one of the main pillars of the modern nation state. The development of autonomous global cryptocurrencies could dramatically reduce the control and effectiveness of existing regulatory mechanisms at the national level and generate considerable pressure for the evolution of more effective institutions for global governance. They could provide compelling incentives for national governments to enhance international cooperation and strengthen the functioning of international institutions to fill the regulatory void. International organizations will play an important role in harnessing the potentials and minimizing the risks arising from the growing usage of cryptocurrencies. Most of the research conducted by central banks on cryptocurrencies over the past four years has focused on risks and benefits as viewed from the perspective of national economies and national monetary systems. This paper explores the global prospects and potential implications of the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies for cross-border transactions and the role of international institutions in their regulation and global fiscal governance.
  • The Future of Democracy: Challenges & Prospects

    Garry Jacobs; João Caraça; Rodolfo Fiorini; Erich Hoedl; Winston P. Nagan; Thomas Reuter; Alberto Zucconi (Risk Institute, Trieste- Geneva, 2018-05-01)
    Unprecedented speed, interconnectivity, complexity and uncertainty are impacting all spheres of global society today, presenting challenges that were not foreseen even a few years ago. The end of the Cold War was interpreted by many as the final victory for democracy and capitalism over authoritarian socialism. A quarter century after the sudden collapse of communism and the emergence of a new democratic consensus, liberal democracy itself is under threat. Former bastions of democracy are exhibiting a level of populism and polarization previously associated only with nascent, tenuous democracies in countries with low levels of education and economic development. The shared vision that constituted the foundation for the democratic consensus is breaking down. Doubts, fears and insecurity have shaken faith in the institutions of governance and the confidence of youth in a better future. Nations are closing their borders, retreating from global cooperation, and casting the blame on minorities and foreigners in a manner reminiscent of an earlier century. Participants in the WAAS Roundtable on the Future of Democracy at Dubrovnik on April 3-5, 2018 recognized that this shift in direction is the result of a complex nexus of forces that have been shaping the future for decades. The group shared valuable insights into our present dilemma while maintaining the diversity of perspective essential for understanding a complex, multidimensional global phenomenon still in the process of unfolding. The discussion identified numerous practical steps that can be taken to moderate extreme aberrations resulting from the misuse of social power. It also recognized that fundamental changes are needed to develop more effective systems of governance capable of fully supporting the aspirations of humanity, maximizing the equity and effectiveness of social institutions and the future evolution of global society.

View more