Questions to Map How We See the (Meta)Crisis

General
1

A structured set of multiple-choice questions to map how people understand today’s crises and their underlying causes

This is a first pass on creating a structured set of questions to get a sense of how someone sees our current civilizational situation: both the symptoms we’re facing and how they diagnose their root causes.

The questions are deliberately constrained to make it easier to see where people align, where they differ, and where the real cruxes are.

Whilst the overall structure is generic, it aligns with the metacrisis & Second Renaissance framework we have been developing and its four noble beliefs, specifically here the first two:

  • Are we seeing symptoms of a serious civilizational illness? (First noble belief)
  • And, if so, what is the diagnosis of root cause(s)? (Is this a metacrisis? Second noble belief)
2

Did the homework. Have fun grading it!

3

@rufuspollock I’m not able to answer all of the questions at the moment but I scanned through them, and just wanted to mention that I find the following question a bit confusing:

11. Locating the bottleneck

When you look at current failures (ecology, tech risk, governance), which of these feels like the hardest to shift in practice?

  • A. Formal institutions and laws

  • B. Economic incentives and markets

  • C. Technologies and infrastructures

  • D. Underlying values, norms, and worldviews

  • E. Human psychological capacities (attention, maturity, empathy)

Follow-up probe (if useful): when you say “hardest,” do you mean slowest, most resistant, or least directly addressable?

In my mind, a bottleneck is exactly the opposite: the easiest place to create change, the most directly addressable. If a chain has a weak link, and you know where it is, you know how to make the whole chain stronger. Addressing any other links will be ineffective.

1 Like
4

Here are a couple contrasting views on constraints (i.e. bottlenecks) :

The Theory of Constraints model aims at finding the bottleneck to improve throughput. Of course, that assumes the throughput is desirable in the first place.

Cynefin is more subtle. Constraints in Cynefin can be very generative! Indeed Cynefin change management processes strategically impose constraints here and there to get organizations off their stuck points.

Imagine Brent crude at $200+ per barrel. For the current economy - that’s a disaster. For the long-term future of the world, it might be the very best thing.

5

Given that throughput is defined as measurable progress towards a goal, I’d say it’s desirable by definition!

But to the deeper point: a goal should be defined in a way that enables continual improvement - and adding a constraint can increase throughput in ToC terms too, just as reducing flow through a non-bottleneck decreases work-in-progress and increases flow through the real limiting constraint.

6

I sense there’s something very profound and generative in the Cynefin view of constraints that the ToC doesn’t quite get at, however. ToC is meant to be applied on complicated, not complex, systems. It doesn’t help us navigate in the deepest waters, where the goal we have chosen for ourselves might not be serving us.

7

That’s why I wanted to contrast the ToC and Cynefin approaches to bottlenecks. Current political discourse assumes high GDP is a desired throughput, for example, and high energy prices are a bottleneck constraining that throughput. This by Nate Hagens today suggests a very different process will soon be forced upon us. GDP is simply not a good target over the long haul, and energy prices (at least fossil energy prices) can only tighten from here. Per Hagens, probably the best way to manage the inevitable decline of fossil fuel reserves is to rethink what we are trying to accomplish in the first place.

1 Like
8

The link you posted doesn’t mention bottlenecks. It doesn’t appear to be a Cynefin-native concept as far as I can tell. Bottleneck isn’t a synonym for constraint, it’s a specific type of constraint, directly responsible for limiting throughput, in a flow-dependent system. I believe it is closest to a governing constraint in Cynefin terms.

But trying to understand the spirit of the original question, maybe phrasing it this way would have been clearer:

*When you think about real-world change, which layer seems to be the deepest practical obstacle - the one that most tends to resist, delay, or deflect attempts at transformation?
*
I think that’s what’s being asked.

9

Skipping the “bottleneck” term, which either must be read widely metaphorically (such as a “constraint”), or simply does not apply to several of the question options in any literal way, the main focus of the question seems to be on resistance to change.

One observation on resistance to change is that any system persisting over time has self-replication or self-maintenance functions to keep it persisting. There is no obvious reason why “change” is the default setting and change resistance is some sort of annoying defect (from the change agent POV). Most stuff does not want to change and has specific anti-change mechanisms to prevent it! (That’s the “fitness” part of “survival of the fittest”.) Robust systems are not just clay waiting for some external change agent to shape them. Taleb distinguishes between fragile, robust, and anti-fragile systems. Of these, fragile systems are most changeable, but only in the direction of breaking apart. Robust systems can flexibly absorb change, yet in doing so remain fundamentally what they are. Anti-fragile systems thrive on change and even chaos, but they take advantage of those to grow in scope!

Just now the post WWII order is looking pretty fragile, because it was architected with a single point of failure. Distributed, redundant systems are more robust. The change opportunity is to build something new out of the now liberated components of that which fell apart. To me, current systems are “givens” or “independent variables” or in Cynefin terms, something like “enabling constraints” - the raw material one must work with. New systems are basically rearrangements of the most robust components that become available when fragile stuff breaks. But even then change is at best a new pattern conserving all sorts of persisting components it will be built from.

1 Like
10

1. Overall assessment

Which of these is closest to your view?

  • C. We are facing a civilizational-level breakdown that current institutions cannot handle.

2. Severity

Do you think humanity is currently on a trajectory that includes a non-trivial risk of civilizational collapse or irreversible regression within this century?

  • Yes

3. Symptom cluster: ecology

Which best describes your view of the ecological crisis?

C. A symptom of deeper cultural and civilizational dynamics.

4. Symptom cluster: technology

How do you see advanced technologies (AI, bio, cyber, etc.) in relation to existential risk?

  • D. Not a major existential concern.

5. Symptom cluster: epistemics and governance

Do you think current democratic and knowledge institutions are adequate for coordinating action at planetary scale under conditions of high complexity?

  • No

Second Noble Belief: What is the diagnosis?

6. Root cause framing

If you had to pick one primary diagnosis, which is closest?

  • D. Cultural failure (values, meaning, narratives).

7. Depth of diagnosis

Do you believe the crisis can be resolved without significant changes in prevailing values, worldviews, or models of the self?

  • No

8. Modernity check

Is modernity (as a civilizational paradigm) best understood, in your view, as:

  • A. Fundamentally sound but incomplete.

9. Inner–outer relation

Do you think changes in human capacities (attention, ethics, psychological development) are necessary for resolving the crisis, not just helpful?

  • Necessary

10. Naming the condition

Would you agree that today’s crises are better described as symptoms of a single underlying condition rather than many unrelated problems?

  • Yes

Diagnosis: what is the underlying condition or conditions?

What are the root cause(s) of the issues identified above.

11. Locating the bottleneck

When you look at current failures (ecology, tech risk, governance), which of these feels like the hardest to shift in practice?

  • D. Underlying values, norms, and worldviews

Follow-up probe (if useful): when you say “hardest,” do you mean slowest, most resistant, or least directly addressable?

Most fundamental and therefore most resistant.

12. Direction of fit

Which direction do you think change most often fails in?

  • D. No consistent pattern.

13. Failure mode diagnosis

When reforms fail, which explanation feels closest?

  • D. Incompatible underlying assumptions about humans, nature, or progress.

Rhizomic causation, leverage, and primacy (gently tested)

14. Leverage under constraint

Suppose you had reliable leverage over only one domain for 20 years—which would you choose to maximize long-term flourishing?

  • D. Education, culture, and meaning-making

15. Path dependency

Which layer do you think most strongly conditions the others over long time scales?

  • B. Culture conditions institutions

16. Time-horizon framing

Over a 5-year horizon, where does change matter most? Over a 50-year horizon, where does change matter most? (Forced choice each time from the same list as above.)

Same answer.

Naming what must evolve

17. Steering vs propulsion metaphor

Which feels closer to your view of culture and worldview?

  • C. Culture is more like context: it shapes what is even thinkable.

18. Hemispheric framing (optional)

If forced into a metaphor:

  • C. From imbalance between the two.

Optional follow-up: which side currently sets the terms?
The left, obviously.

19. Evolutionary delta

Which one or two shifts feel most necessary for a next civilizational phase?

  • **E. Model of truth (from certainty to plural sense-making). WRONG

    The REVERSE of E. The idea that “plural sense-making” is the solution and certainty is the problem is the exact opposite of what is required. Epistemological anarchy is not to be welcomed. It is the most direct cause of the whole problem, and cannot therefore be the solution**

20. Closing crystallizer

Even if causation is rhizomic, do you think some layers are better entry points for intervention than others?

  • Yes

If yes: which, and why?

Our broken relationship with truth itself. We must start with ontology and epistemology.