The Myth of the Green Megamachine

The Myth of the Green
 Megamachine 

 

From Gold Rush to a New Financethropocene Era

From picks to batteries 

The story of the goldfields and the story of the green transition are, at bottom, the same story told with different instruments. The first was hammered out with picks, sluice boxes, and steam; the second with spreadsheets, batteries, and algorithms. Both announce themselves as emancipations of mankind, and both threaten to become, instead, new phases in the long subordination of human communities and landscapes to a machinery of profit.

The Gold Rush Megamachine

The California Gold Rush did not merely send men into the rivers with pans; it summoned into being a primitive version of what later generations would recognise as the modern technocracy. A vast authoritarian technological system or sociotechnical apparatus that organises people like machine parts where Gold was its sacred object, but its real genius lay in the giant apparatus that crystallised around the fever. The camps along the rivers were ostensibly collections of free individuals, but in practice they were nodes in an emerging system that converted hope and sweat into capital.

Most miners did not find riches. Their labour, their hunger, and often their lives were the raw fuel. Wealth accumulated elsewhere, in the counting‑houses and warehouses of San Francisco, in the ledgers of merchants like Samuel Brannan who sold tools at inflated prices, and in the durable fabric of Levi Strauss’s work clothes. The banks, express companies, and railroad interests soon learned that the true gold was not the metal in the pan but the flows of men, goods, and information that the metal set into motion.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

For the Native peoples of California, the Gold Rush was less an episode of adventurous migration than a drastic acceleration of conquest. Violence, dispossession, and disease tore through societies that had shaped the land over millennia. Hydraulic mining and industrial extraction did to the rivers and hills what the new order did to the indigenous communities: eroded, uprooted, and washed away. The “frontier” here was not a blank space but a pre existing tapestry, ripped apart to make way for a crude but effective industrial order.

From Aurum to Lithium

Our present “green rush” announces itself as a moral reversal of that history. Where the nineteenth century waded into streams for gold, the twenty first bores into salt flats and mountains for lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals; where the old machinery belched smoke, the new promises clean air and a stable climate. Yet the underlying pattern is hauntingly familiar. 

Again there are the diggers: the installers on rooftops, the workers in battery plants, the communities along new mining frontiers. Again there are the pilgrims who invest their savings or their careers in the promise of a better world. And, once more, the largest rewards gravitate toward the merchants and organisers of the new order: the manufacturers of solar modules and wind turbines, the conglomerates that refine lithium and cobalt, the firms that package “green” portfolios for anxious investors. The names—Tesla, BYD, CATL, Albemarle, BlackRock—are different, but their structural role resembles that of Brannan, Strauss, and the railroad syndicates.

 

generated by Grok

The green transition is frequently described as a race against time, a planetary emergency that brooks no delay. In such conditions, instruments that in quieter epochs might be debated—subsidies, carbon markets, ESG mandates—are ushered in as necessities. The result is an immense redirection of capital, sanctioned by public policy yet orchestrated largely by private institutions, all under the sign of sustainability. As in the mining camps, the rhetoric is one of opportunity and renewal; the ledger may tell a more concentrated tale.  

The Green Megamachine

To echo the Gold Rush Megamachine, the green machine being vast authoritarian technological system or sociotechnical apparatus that organises people like machine parts where sustainability is its sacred object, but its real genius lay in the giant apparatus that crystallised around the fever. The niche industries that developed along the way were ostensibly collections of free individuals, but in practice they were nodes in an emerging system that converted the goal of sustainability and fear of climate change into capital.

The Finanthropocene Era

The term Anthropocene was coined to name an epoch in which human activity has become a geological force. Yet “humanity” here is an abstraction, smoothing over vast disparities of power and responsibility. What stands astride the planet is not an undifferentiated species, but a set of interlocking financial, corporate, and technical systems that bend landscapes, labour, and even climate policy toward specific ends.
For this reason, the age might more accurately be called the Finanthropocene: an era in which financial logics, rather than human needs as such, are the decisive agents remaking the Earth. Carbon itself becomes an entry in the account book; forests, wetlands, and even atmospheric “services” are abstracted into units that can be bought, sold, and hedged. Instruments such as carbon credits, green bonds, and nature based offsets claim to reconcile economy and ecology, yet too often they transpose living systems into a domain where only those with large balance sheets can truly act.

In this new order, the pattern of the Gold Rush repeats at planetary scale. The “miners”—small communities in forest regions, coastal cities facing sea level rise, workers in new energy zones—are promised inclusion in a green future; instead, they frequently find that their lands, data, or labour have been reclassified as assets in distant portfolios. The same operations that once pushed aside indigenous Californians in the name of progress now risk side-lining non Western ways of land and life in the name of climate finance. Migrants are now labelled with the prefix “economic” and indigenous first world communities now fear being eroded, uprooted, and washed away. What appears as planetary stewardship in the prospectus is, on the ground, often a rearrangement of rights and burdens.

Toward a Technocracene

The machinery of the Financethropocene does not operate by money alone. It leans increasingly on vast computational systems: models that forecast climate futures, algorithms that allocate capital, platforms that monitor energy use and credit flows in real time. Decision making retreats into technical enclosures, administered by specialists whose authority rests not on shared judgment but on the opacity of their tools.
This is the emerging Technocracene: an order in which technical and financial elites, armed with artificial intelligence and planetary data, manage both risk and aspiration. In such a world, the promise of participation is often reduced to the promise of optimisation. One is not invited to deliberate on the ends of collective life, but to adjust one’s behaviour to suit the parameters of a system presented as inevitable.
In the nineteenth century mining camp, the machinery was visible: water cannons scouring hillsides, rail lines carving through mountains. In the Technocracene, much of the apparatus disappears into code and contracts. Yet the essential question remains the same: who commands the machine, and for what purpose?

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

Recalling the Human Measure

To place the Gold Rush and the green rush side by side is not to deny the necessity of responding to climate disruption, any more than recalling the brutalities of the nineteenth century is to deny the creative powers it unleashed. It is, rather, to insist that the means by which humanity addresses its crises are never neutral. They either deepen the megamachine or begin to humanise it.
The task, then, is to resist the seduction of an automated salvation in which a union of finance and technology, draped in green, promises to rescue the very world it continues to disassemble. A civilisation worthy of the name would not content itself with substituting lithium for gold, or algorithms for overseers, while leaving intact the underlying structure that treats land, labour, and life as mere inputs. It would recover the human measure: the capacity of communities to shape their tools, their landscapes, and their futures without being reduced to fuel for the latest rush.

Bibliography

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gold_rush

https://www.ncpedia.org/anchor/california-gold-rush

https://understandingrace.org/history/society/manifest-destiny-and-the-california-gold-rush-1840-1850/

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and Civilization. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. https://doi.org/10.5840/zfs19354343

Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and Democratic Technics. In Technology and Culture (Vol. 5, Issue 1). Winter.

The Tragedy of the Global Commons

The Tragedy of the Global Commons

 

Reframing the Tragedy of the Commons in Climate Governance

Rational Interests

The “Tragedy of the Commons,” as originally articulated by Garrett Hardin, describes how individuals or groups, pursuing their own rational self-interests, can collectively deplete or degrade a shared, open-access resource—such as a communal pasture, fishery, or the atmosphere—leading to outcomes that harm everyone involved (Hardin, 1968). In the context of climate change, this typically manifests as nations or entities emitting greenhouse gases for short-term gains (e.g., economic growth), while the long-term costs (e.g., global warming) are externalized onto the global commons. However, I posit a critical inversion: that institutions like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Conference of the Parties (COP) process—exemplified by COP30 in 2025—are not solutions to this tragedy but its embodiment. This view hinges on the premises that UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 promotes corporatism at the expense of common people, and that technocratic schemes, as critiqued by James C. Scott in ‘Seeing Like a State’ (1998), inevitably fail when imposed through authoritarian or centralized structures. Below, this argument is explained by drawing on tthis framing to show how the IPCC and COP30 could be seen as perpetuating a “tragedy” through elite capture, flawed top-down planning, and ineffective outcomes that undermine the very commons they claim to protect.

SDG 17 and Corporatism

SDG 17, formally titled “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development,” is the UN’s framework for mobilizing resources, partnerships, and cooperation to achieve all SDGs, including climate action (under SDG 13), and emphasizes multi-stakeholder partnerships, including public-private ones (Targets 17.16 and 17.17), to pool finance, technology, and expertise. On paper, this includes governments, civil society, and businesses working together—for instance, encouraging private sector investment in green technologies or debt relief for developing nations.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

On paper, this includes governments, civil society, and businesses working together—for instance, encouraging private sector investment in green technologies or debt relief for developing nations.

 

However, it can be argued that SDG 17 inherently promotes corporatism—a system where corporate interests dominate policy-making, often under the guise of “partnerships,” without genuinely benefiting the common people. This manifests in several ways.

Elite Capture

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) sidelined deeper structural reforms, allowing corporations to influence agendas while avoiding accountability. For example, critics note that SDG 17’s focus on voluntary corporate involvement (e.g., through CSR or philanthropy) fails to deliver at scale, as global corporate giving is dwarfed by the trillions needed for SDGs. Instead, it enables “greenwashing,” where companies like fossil fuel giants participate in UN processes to dilute regulations.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

Non-Binding and Vague Nature 

The goals are criticized as non-binding, underfunded, and overly broad, with too many targets (19 for SDG 17 alone), leading to selective implementation that favors profit-driven actors over equitable outcomes. Businesses often ignore or misuse SDGs, treating them as marketing tools rather than mandates, while nations’ priorities are overshadowed by corporate lobbying.

Exclusion of Common People

By design, SDG 17 prioritises institutional players (e.g., international organisations, governments, and multinationals), marginalising grassroots voices. This corporatist tilt means benefits accrue to shareholders and elites—through subsidies, contracts, or market access—while costs (e.g., land grabs for “sustainable” projects or austerity tied to debt relief) fall on ordinary people, exacerbating inequality. In this perspective, SDG 17 does not democratise the commons; it encloses it, turning global resources like the atmosphere into arenas for corporate extraction under sustainability rhetoric.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

Technocratic Schemes and Authoritarian Failures

James C. Scott’s ‘Seeing Like a State’ (1998) critiques “high-modernist” technocratic planning—state-driven efforts to impose simplified, scientific schemes on complex social and natural systems to make them “legible” (i.e., measurable and controllable). These schemes, Scott argues, fail spectacularly when coupled with authoritarian regimes that lack the input from local knowledge or democratic checks. Examples include Soviet collectivization or Brazilian modernist city planning, where top-down blueprints ignored ecological and human variability, leading to environmental degradation and human suffering.

IPCC Hubris

The IPCC aggregates scientific data to inform policy, presenting climate as a “legible” problem solvable through models, targets (e.g., 1.5°C limits), and metrics. While valuable, critics see this as high-modernism: oversimplifying chaotic systems (e.g., ignoring cultural or local adaptations) and enabling centralized control. When linked to authoritarian structures—like UN-mandated reporting or enforcement—it risks imposing uniform solutions that fail in diverse contexts, per Scott.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

COP Process as Authoritarian Imposition

COPs operate under UN authority, with decisions influenced by powerful nations and corporations, often bypassing true consensus. This mirrors Scott’s critique: technocratic elites (scientists, diplomats, CEOs) design schemes without sufficient input from affected communities, leading to bad outcomes.

The Real Tragedy of the Global Commons

Combining these premises, IPCC and COP30 do not resolve the global commons’ tragedy—they embody it by enabling continued overuse through corporatist, technocratic failures.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

Corporate Influence Undermines Action

At COP30 (held November 11-22, 2025, in Belém, Brazil), negotiations were dominated by partnerships akin to SDG 17, but outcomes favored fossil fuel interests. The final draft omitted a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap, despite calls for it, leading to sharp divisions. Finance pledges fell short (e.g., no new commitments beyond vague promises), allowing high-emitters to free-ride while developing nations bore adaptation costs. Critics, including the EU, threatened to block the “weak” deal, highlighting how corporatist lobbying (e.g., from oil states) watered down texts. This perpetuates the tragedy: emissions continue, benefiting corporate profits, while commons degrade.

Technocratic Failure in Practice

IPCC reports fed into COP30’s agenda, pushing metrics like Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Yet, per Scott, this top-down approach—imposed via UN “authority”—ignored local realities, resulting in deadlock and symbolic gestures rather than enforceable action. Authoritarian elements (e.g., opaque negotiations, power imbalances) amplified failures, as vulnerable groups’ voices were sidelined.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

The Net Effect on the Commons

Instead of mutual coercion to protect, these institutions enable a “tragedy” where self-interested actors (nations, corporations) exploit the process for gains, leading to collective inaction. Assuming the transition away from fossil fuels is correct, this implies real harm: delayed transitions accelerate climate breakdown, disproportionately affecting common people (e.g., via disasters, assuming more disasters are related to human activities), while elites profit.

COP30 Ironic Tragedy

Even COP30, held from November 10–21, 2025, in Belém, Brazil—the capital of Pará state and a gateway to the Amazon—brought a mix of economic opportunities, infrastructural disruptions, and heightened visibility to the city’s environmental vulnerabilities for its approximately 1.4 million residents. As the first COP hosted in the Amazon basin, the event symbolised a spotlight on the region, but it also amplified existing inequalities, with benefits unevenly distributed. COP30 can be interpreted as a an ironic manifestation of the Tragedy of the Commons.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Bel%C3%A9m,+State+of+Par%C3%A1,+Brazil/@-1.3388457,-48.7898035,9.54z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x92a461af84756ce1:0x570d540215864c35!8m2!3d-1.4563432!4d-48.501299!16s%2Fg%2F1pxyyzx3r

Protests

Belémand the surrounding Amazon , the Shared “Commons” represent a finite commons. Urban infrastructure, public spaces, and biodiversity being “overgrazed.” by COP30. Global actors (nations, corporations) extracted symbolic and economic value (e.g., photo-ops in the rainforest, bio-economy pilots) with private benefits (e.g., delegate perks, lobbying access), while diffusing costs onto locals (disruptions, inequality). Protests exemplified this. For example, Indigenous locals protested for “territorial protection” highlighting how the event’s “global good” (climate talks) privatised public spaces, excluding those most affected by the very crisis discussed (Sources: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166373, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/14/protesters-blockade-cop30-summit-over-plight-of-indigenous-peoples).

Rational Short-term Goals

Delegates and organisers pursued rational short-term goals (e.g., negotiations, infrastructure for prestige), but without enforceable local safeguards, leading to overuse (e.g., security clashes injuring protesters, fires stalling talks amid drought-stressed conditions). This mirrors atmospheric emissions, each actor gains (e.g., Brazil’s “COP of Truth” branding), but the shared burden (floods, heat) erodes resilience for Belém’s residents, who bear most of adaptation costs despite contributing minimally to global emissions.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

The Corporatist’s

Collateral

As discussed previously, COP30’s corporatist tilt (per SDG 17) and technocratic flaws (Scott’s 1998 analysis) amplified this tragedy. Investments favoured visible projects over equitable distribution, enabling “free-riding” by polluters while key the Amazon’s local stewards, Indigenous voices faced barriers. A summit that spotlighted the commons’ depletion without averting it, leaving locals as collateral in a global corporatist scheme.

Grassroots Governance

In essence, COP30 didn’t just fail to solve the climate commons tragedy—it enacted a localized version, where international ambition trampled community commons, underscoring the need for grassroots bottom-up governance to truly escape Hardin’s dilemma.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-17-enabling-sustainable-future-through-joint-action-countries-and-communities-revitalized

Fit for purpose?

If SDG 17’s corporatism skews benefits away from the masses and Scott’s analysis shows technocratic-authoritarian schemes doom complex interventions, then the IPCC and COP30 represent a global tragedy. The tools meant to safeguard the commons instead facilitate its enclosure and depletion through flawed, elite-driven governance. The corporatist system is inherently unsustainable. To escape the cycle, decentralised, people-centred alternatives are required. Without this, it brings into question whether the UN’s corporatist environmental role is fit for purpose.

Bibliography

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2025, November 15). Indigenous peoples and local communities lead historic march at COP30 in Belém. https://www.cbd.int/article/cop30-indigenous-march

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

Phillips, D., & Correspondent, L. A. (2025, November 15). Tens of thousands march through Belém on sidelines of Cop30 climate summit.

The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/15/tens-of-thousands-march-beleem-cop30-climate-summit

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.

Spring, J. (2025, November 20). Fire forces evacuation of COP30 venue in Brazil’s Belem. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/fire-forces-evacuation-cop30-venue-brazils-belem-2025-11-20/

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals – Targets and indicators.

Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. Retrieved November 22, 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal17

Volcovici, V., & Parraga, M. (2025, November 18). COP30 talks deadlocked over fossil fuel language, finance. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cop30-talks-deadlocked-over-fossil-fuel-language-finance-2025-11-18/

Watts, J. (2025, November 11). “This is our home”: Indigenous protesters storm Cop30 venue in Brazil. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/11/indigenous-protesters-cop30-brazil

World Resources Institute. (2025, November). COP30 in Belém: Tracking progress and outcomes. https://www.wri.org/insights/cop30-belem-brazil
.

The Framing of the Scientific Problem is the Problem

The Framing of the Scientific Problem is the Problem

 

Is our perception of reality influencing our ability to judge reality?

Does our imagination trump reality?

Do Preconceived Concepts Shape Our Reality? - Can We Avoid the Delusion?

This starving polar bear was photographed in the Svalbard Islands, raising more worries about climate change and the fate of species shaping the reality.

The starving polar bear photographed in the Svalbard Islands raised more worries about climate change and the fate of species but this was not true, polar bear numbers were and are increasing with the apparent global warming.

Overview

In recent decades, the world has faced what seems to be an escalating series of ecological crises from climate change to a “tipping point” of environmental collapse. For many, the future is just doom and gloom.

 

Yet is this true? Are polar bear numbers really declining? Can one picture seen around the world give the complete story? Or is this framing reality as a sensational story playing on our emotions? If this topic interests you then you might enjoy this article.

 

How We Perceive Reality Shapes Our World

Frames are abstract language patterns or concepts linked by presuppositions that allow us to conceptualise opinions, formulate or change our mind on a topic. Frames are thus conceptual representations of reality.

 

Rational knowledge may be summarised as a structure of sequential frames, linking concepts. Concepts frame reality in such a manner to presuppose certain outcomes thus shaping our worldview. Our world is influenced by our perception of reality. Without careful attention to the assumptions behind language it is easy for communication to be misinterpreted and divisive.

 

Judgements are based on the perception of reality

A judgement is a frame considered as a statement that is either right or wrong, true or false. For this to be true there must be no error in perception. However, perceptions can be highly distorted. Judgements can be based on a conditional truth, a statement accepted as true due to certain presumptions taken as fact. This implies that an accurate judgment is therefore not possible.

 

Polarisation of science leads to a judgement, a right or wrong answer. This leads to a framing of the ‘normally accepted science’, or dominant paradigm where certain propositions are taken as fact. This provides a framework for the questions scientists ask and how they are answered where anomalies that do not fit the dominant paradigm are normally dismissed or explained away.

 

Scientific theories are merely insights which are neither true nor false but provide clarity within certain boundary conditions. Where the boundaries are perceived as true, and theories seen as absolute facts “the science” is dogmatically believed. This dogma is a barrier against open-minded thinking and prevents dialogue. Whether a conscious or unconscious choice, it perpetuates current understanding constraining meaning with preconceived ideas, and therefore prevents progress.

 

Thoughts are incomplete, The Map, Not the Territory

Scientific progress has shown that older theories, taken as fact that may not be falsified are replaced with newer ones. Instead of presuming one theory was true, and another false they can be considered as insights where we gain new areas of knowledge.

 

It is important to remember that frames are an abstract approximation of reality, the map, not the territory. Understanding that concepts can be framed in such a manner to presuppose certain outcomes allows us to appreciate the lack of permanence in the framing of science.

 

Scientists use inference and inductive studies to provide a guidance to define a working supposition. This is a hypothesis, as the great scientist Richard Feynman stated, just a best guess and the start of the rigorous scientific investigative process. A scientific hypothesis is typically a frame that consists of a clear specific statement of the expected relationship between variables. It is poor scientific practice to start research with a general hypothesis. As David Bohm, the eminent Professor of Theoretical Physics stated, “there can be no conclusive experimental proof of the truth or falsity of a general hypothesis.”

 

The scientific process doesn’t prove; it only disproves. If the empirical investigation does not agree with the hypothesis, then it’s wrong, it is never proven correct. This is why the scientific process identifies the opposite of what you are trying to prove, the null hypothesis. For example, if you want to show that having a pet dog makes you happier, the null hypothesis would be that having a pet dog has no effect on your happiness.

 

The scientific method needs to validate a mechanism of causation rather than infer just correlation. To replicate the result, it requires agreement with, (or consensus in), the experimental process. This is the replication of the experiment for attaining consistency and verification of results. This is a standard process for agreement in the scientific process. However, it is a false presumption to judge “the science” as an absolute fact, this confuses the abstract map with the real territory.

 

Imagination Trumps Reality

The political framing of science can influence public discourse and policymaking. A political consensus is used as justification for a particular abstract problem. Political motivations often associate consensus with science. Consensus of “the science” is a logical fallacy based on an argument from authority, it is a faith (based on false presumptions), not a science. It is therefore not rational scientific thought and implies there is a lack of proper evidence; in certain fields it shows a lack of scientific rigour.

 

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a great metaphor that highlights how reality is shaped by our education and preconceptions. Our conceptual representation of reality is imaginary, this can be far more powerful than reality. Rupert Sheldrake, in his book The Science Delusion (2012), summarises the apparent knowledge of science by the public as Scientism where “the science” is settled whereas in fact conclusions are mere insights. Language and thought are deeply entwined with our cultural conditioning. Most of our basic assumptions and thoughts have been influenced by the whole culture and society. David Bohm discusses this at lengths and highlights the need for an understanding of the presuppositions hidden within the language we use. Neurolinguistic programming, NLP is used in marketing campaigns where propositions are assumed true. NLP, uses presuppositions with so-called “hypnotic language” as powerful persuasion techniques. We can ask different questions when the presuppositions hidden in our language are unveiled. This can lead to new insights and facilitate a paradigm shift in understanding.

 

Encouraging open-mindedness without judgement

The effect of the framing of science stresses the need for scientists to be aware of their own biases and to engage in dialogue without judgment. The concept of “the map is not the territory” emphasises the point that scientific theories are merely representations of reality and should not be confused with reality itself.

 

Furthermore, the significance of framing in various contexts, including environmentalism, education, and public health, influence the conclusions drawn. Different frames can lead to different interpretations and outcomes, and therefore a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry is required to ensure impartiality.

 

Scientific paradigms shape the questions scientists ask and the framing of the problem they use to find answers. It is important to question these paradigms to avoid dogmatic thinking and foster open-mindedness.

 

Being aware that our imagination can trump reality, there is a need to encourage a more reflective and critical approach to scientific research by all scientists, encouraging them to continuously question their assumptions and to remain open to new insights and perspectives that challenge their current understanding. 

This article is an editorial of the article Prepositions & Framing of Science – Ecological Spirit which will provide more clarity on some of the questions this may raise. 

Please feel free to contact the author if you would like a fully reference PDF of this article

Konrad Chapman, ecologicalspirit@hotmail.com

Green Ideology and a Technocratic Future

Green Ideology

 

Is the Green Agenda Paving the Way for a Dangerous Technocratic Dictatorship? The Hidden Dangers Behind the Push for Global Sustainability

The Road to a Green Technocratic Future - Can We Avoid the Pitfalls?

In recent decades, the world has faced an escalating series of ecological crises. From climate change to resource depletion, environmental collapse seems to be just beyond the horizon. For many, the solution is clear: the implementation of large-scale green policies that can guide us toward a sustainable future. However, as we rush to adopt these solutions, a deeper question remains unanswered: Are we, in our pursuit of sustainability, building a more authoritarian global system that suppresses the very freedoms we aim to protect?

 

This editorial explores the rise of a Technocratic Global Ideology, one that seeks to solve the world’s most pressing issues—primarily climate change—through technological and scientific advancements. While this might seem promising, it is crucial to question whether such solutions, if unchecked, could lead to an authoritarian regime where power is consolidated at the top, with little regard for the input of grassroots civil society.

 

The Technocratic Vision

 

Technocracy, as a political and economic system, places decision-making power in the hands of experts—scientists, engineers, and technocrats who are believed to be best equipped to manage societal issues. The promise of technocracy is that by relying on data, science, and technological advancements, we can avoid the chaos and inefficiencies of traditional political systems. However, as we see with the current Green Technocratic Ideology, there is a danger that such a system could evolve into one where the elite control not just the direction of policy but the very framework of society itself.

 

The driving force behind the current Green Technocratic Ideology is the belief that technology can provide the solutions to our environmental crises. Green energy initiatives, from solar power to wind farms, are touted as panaceas for our fossil fuel dependence. These technologies are promoted as not only saving the planet but also leading us toward a new era of sustainability. However, there is an implicit assumption that these technologies, and the policies that surround them, will be managed by a centralized authority—largely devoid of public input or oversight.

 

A Dangerous Authoritarian Drift

 

The problem lies not with the technologies themselves, but with the system under which they are deployed. In the pursuit of a “green future,” many governments and corporations are forming partnerships that increasingly centralize power. This trend is evident in the rise of the “Energy Industrial Complex,” a vast network of state-led and corporate collaborations aimed at simplifying and standardizing energy production. The Green Technocratic Ideology assumes that the answer to our problems lies in top-down control, which, while effective in addressing the perceived urgency of the environmental crisis, has far-reaching consequences for individual freedoms and democratic engagement.

 

By concentrating power in the hands of a few decision-makers, this ideology risks ignoring the input of civil society—the local knowledge, tacit skills, and human creativity that are essential for human well-being. Historically, when these voices are suppressed, the result is often disaster. As Lewis Mumford warned, the consequences of ignoring democratic technics—the technologies that empower local communities and individuals—are profound. Without these participatory elements, the very systems meant to save us could become the mechanisms of our downfall.

 

Mass Cognitive Disempowerment

 

One of the key reasons why these policies and ideologies have gained traction is due to what I term “mass cognitive disempowerment bias.” In simple terms, this bias refers to the widespread belief that individual agency cannot possibly affect large-scale systems. It’s a psychological phenomenon in which people feel powerless in the face of complex global issues like climate change. As a result, they defer to the authorities—be it governments, scientists, or corporate elites—believing that they, alone, have the solutions. This creates a cycle of disempowerment, where the very people who are most affected by environmental policies feel alienated from the decision-making process.

 

This mass disempowerment is a key driver behind the implementation of top-down policies. When citizens feel they cannot change the system, they are more likely to accept whatever solutions are handed down, even if these solutions restrict their freedoms or suppress their voices. In this sense, the Green Technocratic Ideology feeds into a larger cultural narrative of helplessness. Instead of empowering communities to take charge of their environmental futures, we see a move toward centralization and control, where the interests of the powerful are prioritized over those of the grassroots.

 

The Ecological Crisis and Its Political Implications

 

At the core of this issue is the apparent environmental crisis itself. As the planet continues to face ecological destruction, the need for bold action is undeniable. However, we must recognize that the solutions proposed by the Green Technocratic Ideology are not neutral—they come with their own set of political and social implications. When the energy industry is dominated by a small group of corporate stakeholders and state-backed initiatives, we risk not only compromising our environment but also our democratic values.

 

The rise of the “Green Industrial Complex” is a direct consequence of this centralization. The focus is on large-scale, state-managed projects that promise to fix the environmental crisis through technological means. While these projects may have merit, they are often funded by corporate interests that have their own agenda. The result is a system that is increasingly detached from the needs and desires of ordinary people.

 

Grassroots Movements: A Call for Democratic Technics

 

In contrast to the technocratic approach, grassroots movements embody what Mumford called “Democratic Technics.” These are the local, community-based initiatives that empower individuals to take control of their futures, using their own knowledge and creativity to address environmental issues. Grassroots movements are essential for creating a sustainable future because they promote diversity, local knowledge, and innovation. Instead of relying on top-down solutions that ignore the complexities of local ecosystems and cultures, these movements encourage a more inclusive approach to problem-solving.

 

While grassroots organizations may seem small and fragmented, they represent the heart of democratic engagement. It is through these movements that we can build the kind of resilience needed to tackle the ecological problems. By fostering local solutions and encouraging community-driven decision-making, we can ensure that environmental policies reflect the diverse needs of the people they are meant to serve.

 

Toward a New Paradigm

 

The ecological problems are real, and the need for action is clear. However, as we move toward a sustainable future, we must be wary of the dangers posed by the Green Technocratic Ideology. Instead of placing all our faith in centralized, top-down solutions, we must find ways to integrate the creativity and knowledge of grassroots movements into the decision-making process. Only by empowering individuals and communities to take charge of their own futures can we hope to build a truly sustainable and democratic society.

 

As we rewrite the narrative of the future, we must recognize that the solutions to our environmental crises lie not just in technology, but in the empowerment of individuals and communities. Only then can we avoid the impending disaster that looms over us—a disaster driven by the unchecked rise of an authoritarian technocratic state, and the mass cognitive disempowerment that allows it to thrive. 

 

In recent decades, the world has faced an escalating series of ecological crises. From climate change to resource depletion, environmental collapse seems to be just beyond the horizon. For many, the solution is clear: the implementation of large-scale green policies that can guide us toward a sustainable future. However, as we rush to adopt these solutions, a deeper question remains unanswered: Are we, in our pursuit of sustainability, building a more authoritarian global system that suppresses the very freedoms we aim to protect?

 

This editorial explores the rise of a Technocratic Global Ideology, one that seeks to solve the world’s most pressing issues—primarily climate change—through technological and scientific advancements. While this might seem promising, it is crucial to question whether such solutions, if unchecked, could lead to an authoritarian regime where power is consolidated at the top, with little regard for the input of grassroots civil society.

 

The Technocratic Vision

 

Technocracy, as a political and economic system, places decision-making power in the hands of experts—scientists, engineers, and technocrats who are believed to be best equipped to manage societal issues. The promise of technocracy is that by relying on data, science, and technological advancements, we can avoid the chaos and inefficiencies of traditional political systems. However, as we see with the current Green Technocratic Ideology, there is a danger that such a system could evolve into one where the elite control not just the direction of policy but the very framework of society itself.

 

The driving force behind the current Green Technocratic Ideology is the belief that technology can provide the solutions to our environmental crises. Green energy initiatives, from solar power to wind farms, are touted as panaceas for our fossil fuel dependence. These technologies are promoted as not only saving the planet but also leading us toward a new era of sustainability. However, there is an implicit assumption that these technologies, and the policies that surround them, will be managed by a centralized authority—largely devoid of public input or oversight.

 

A Dangerous Authoritarian Drift

 

The problem lies not with the technologies themselves, but with the system under which they are deployed. In the pursuit of a “green future,” many governments and corporations are forming partnerships that increasingly centralize power. This trend is evident in the rise of the “Energy Industrial Complex,” a vast network of state-led and corporate collaborations aimed at simplifying and standardizing energy production. The Green Technocratic Ideology assumes that the answer to our problems lies in top-down control, which, while effective in addressing the perceived urgency of the environmental crisis, has far-reaching consequences for individual freedoms and democratic engagement.

 

By concentrating power in the hands of a few decision-makers, this ideology risks ignoring the input of civil society—the local knowledge, tacit skills, and human creativity that are essential for human well-being. Historically, when these voices are suppressed, the result is often disaster. As Lewis Mumford warned, the consequences of ignoring democratic technics—the technologies that empower local communities and individuals—are profound. Without these participatory elements, the very systems meant to save us could become the mechanisms of our downfall.

 

Mass Cognitive Disempowerment

 

One of the key reasons why these policies and ideologies have gained traction is due to what I term “mass cognitive disempowerment bias.” In simple terms, this bias refers to the widespread belief that individual agency cannot possibly affect large-scale systems. It’s a psychological phenomenon in which people feel powerless in the face of complex global issues like climate change. As a result, they defer to the authorities—be it governments, scientists, or corporate elites—believing that they, alone, have the solutions. This creates a cycle of disempowerment, where the very people who are most affected by environmental policies feel alienated from the decision-making process.

 

This mass disempowerment is a key driver behind the implementation of top-down policies. When citizens feel they cannot change the system, they are more likely to accept whatever solutions are handed down, even if these solutions restrict their freedoms or suppress their voices. In this sense, the Green Technocratic Ideology feeds into a larger cultural narrative of helplessness. Instead of empowering communities to take charge of their environmental futures, we see a move toward centralization and control, where the interests of the powerful are prioritized over those of the grassroots.

 

The Ecological Crisis and Its Political Implications

 

At the core of this issue is the apparent environmental crisis itself. As the planet continues to face ecological destruction, the need for bold action is undeniable. However, we must recognize that the solutions proposed by the Green Technocratic Ideology are not neutral—they come with their own set of political and social implications. When the energy industry is dominated by a small group of corporate stakeholders and state-backed initiatives, we risk not only compromising our environment but also our democratic values.

 

The rise of the “Green Industrial Complex” is a direct consequence of this centralization. The focus is on large-scale, state-managed projects that promise to fix the environmental crisis through technological means. While these projects may have merit, they are often funded by corporate interests that have their own agenda. The result is a system that is increasingly detached from the needs and desires of ordinary people.

 

Grassroots Movements: A Call for Democratic Technics

 

In contrast to the technocratic approach, grassroots movements embody what Mumford called “Democratic Technics.” These are the local, community-based initiatives that empower individuals to take control of their futures, using their own knowledge and creativity to address environmental issues. Grassroots movements are essential for creating a sustainable future because they promote diversity, local knowledge, and innovation. Instead of relying on top-down solutions that ignore the complexities of local ecosystems and cultures, these movements encourage a more inclusive approach to problem-solving.

 

While grassroots organizations may seem small and fragmented, they represent the heart of democratic engagement. It is through these movements that we can build the kind of resilience needed to tackle the ecological problems. By fostering local solutions and encouraging community-driven decision-making, we can ensure that environmental policies reflect the diverse needs of the people they are meant to serve.

 

Toward a New Paradigm

 

The ecological problems are real, and the need for action is clear. However, as we move toward a sustainable future, we must be wary of the dangers posed by the Green Technocratic Ideology. Instead of placing all our faith in centralized, top-down solutions, we must find ways to integrate the creativity and knowledge of grassroots movements into the decision-making process. Only by empowering individuals and communities to take charge of their own futures can we hope to build a truly sustainable and democratic society.

 

As we rewrite the narrative of the future, we must recognize that the solutions to our environmental crises lie not just in technology, but in the empowerment of individuals and communities. Only then can we avoid the impending disaster that looms over us—a disaster driven by the unchecked rise of an authoritarian technocratic state, and the mass cognitive disempowerment that allows it to thrive.

 

This was originally published in VPN – London by Konrad Chapman, ecologicalspirit@hotmail.com

The Road to Hell is Paved with Global Intentions

Technocratic Global Ideology

 

Are Global Technocrats in Partnership with Governments leading us on a road to disaster? 

Edited: 07/04/2025

Science and Technology Policy (STP) is a set of processes and decisions that aim to influence the use of science, technology and innovation (STI) for improving society. We define a High-Modernist Global Ideology as global sociotechnical authoritarian solutions and processes based on the perceived certainty that science and technology will solve the sociotechnical problems and create a better society. However, has STP and a High-Modernist Global Ideology contributed to destroying democracy by the institutional arrangement that gives authority only to those at the top of the social hierarchy (Mumford, 1964).

From the Industrial Revolution to a Global Socio-economic Transition

The Industrial Revolution began in England at the end of the 18th Century, leading to the diffusion of knowledge, complimentary assets, specialisation of skills and creating great wealth for many nations  (Pérez, 2010). The propagation of knowledge, complimentary assets and wealth however, became unevenly distributed around the world (Pérez, 2010) and the current techno-economic paradigm, it has been argued, has had negative consequences on the environment, society, and the economy. Firms are locked into business models stifling new growth with no financial incentive to build to better standards, incumbents need encouragement to change to a sustainable business model and to promote new markets allowing market forces to dictate the outcome or be displaced. Lock-in mechanisms can stabilise a socio-economic system (investments, behaviour patterns, vested interests, infrastructure, subsidies and regulations) (Geels, 2010).

Carson (1962) highlighted how mistakes can be made while attempting to make (perceived) improvements. With contemporary issues in science, the old adage that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is an apt statement; well-intentioned actions (such as a polarised ideological agenda) and policies can have unintended negative consequences if they do not consider the broader context of the whole system (Bohm, 1992; Carson, 1962; Howes, 2014; Pellow, 2014; Watts, 1951).

Silent Spring

Carson (1962) was credited with launching the modern environmental movement and raising awareness about the dangers of pesticides and other chemical pollutants. Carson argued that the extensive use of pesticides, caused serious environmental harm and risks to human health (Carson, 1962). Carson criticises the practices of the chemical industry and government regulators, arguing that they were prioritising industry profits over environmental and public health concerns. The book “Silent Spring” (Carson, 1962) had a meaningful impact on public opinion and led to the banning of several harmful pesticides, including Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an organo-chloride crystalline chemical compound originally developed as an insecticide: it became infamous for its environmental impacts even though it was very effective. Ironically, after the DDT ban in 1972 by the WHO there was a high cost to human lives until new solutions became available (Moore & Albert, 2010) and it has been argued that her book contained many errors and many of the bold claims never happened (Gershon, 2019; Gilmore, 2017; Meiners, Desrochers, & Morriss, 2012; “The Power of a Book,” n.d.). “Silent Spring” was therefore criticised for ignoring the positive benefits of chemicals  (Morriss, Meiners, & Desroches, 2012; Springer, 2017; Twidle, 2013), however, it helped the modern environmental studies and science policy research.

A sustainable paradigm & partnerships between industry and government

Sustainability has been defined as “the particular system qualities of human well-being, social equity and environmental integrity” (Leach, Scoones, & Stirling, 2007). It is associated with the conservation and permanency with regards to protecting the planet, how we perceive it should be, usually on the premise of Mankind verses Nature (Gregory, 2018; Russell, 1928; Sang, 2009; Watts, 1951) although Bohm (1980) emphasised that we cannot control nature. With regards to “sustainable development” it is defined as the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Keeble, 1988).

Due to the perceived concerns about climate change, resource depletion, and increases in social inequality the transition to a sustainable techno-economic regime is important for policymakers around the world (Drechsler, Kattel, & Reinert, 2009; Eyre & Killip, 2019). Achieving a sustainable future could be improved by careful consideration of a range of social, economic, and environmental factors. Sustainability is thus a political process associated with a variety of contested decisions that can be uncertain and ambiguous (Demeritt et al., 2011). Policies are developed in line with sustainability. Policies are methods that can be framed with a defined governing process, and adopted, implemented and enforced by a public body to solve an apparent problem on the political agenda (Knill & Tosun, 2012).

With the framing of climate change as a ‘wicked problem’ it has come to be seen as an existential threat (Massey, 2022). Similarly, the recent pandemic has been framed as a wicked or super wicked problem (Auld, Bernstein, Cashore, & Levin, 2021; Schiefloe, 2021). The concept of wicked problems that was originally developed in the literature by Rittel & Webber (1973) describes policy problems that are complex and difficult to solve. They do not fit into the conventional contemporary models of policy analysis and cannot be clearly defined (Rittel & Webber, 1973). It has been argued that if many of what are contemporarily perceived as ‘wicked problems’ are analysed -using a rigid definition – then they often do not meet the criteria (Peters, 2017).

Science and Technology Policy

Science and Technology Policy (STP) is a set of processes and decisions that aim to influence the use of science, technology and innovation (STI) for improving society. This could be for the purpose of, for example, economic growth, social welfare, environmental protection, or national security (Strings, 2022). STP is very broad, involving many governing agencies causing coordination problems, inconsistencies and confusion between regulatory and promotional policies, a comprehensive policy mix must consider path dependency and lock-in. Policy needs to balance energy security, economic development, with environmental impacts and society concerns (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005). STP can play a crucial role in defining the direction of innovation towards sustainable goals. Innovation is the, often uncertain, process of taking a novel idea, process or product and commercialising it with the aim of making and improving a concept, process or product for successful commercial exploitation (Coad et al., 2014). The partnerships between governments and industry could therefore lead to a more sustainable outcome. However, idealisation of schemes based on the rational design of social order based on natural laws is a ‘High-Modernist’ scheme, as defined by Scott (1998).

A ‘High-Modernist’ scheme was defined by Scott (1998) as idealisation of the rational design of social order based on natural laws. Many of Scott’s examples describe promoting technological process and function over humanitarian and holistic ecological processes where there is a lack of empathic connection between those at the grassroots and the policy decision-makers. Hence, if we fail to consider the broader aspects of democracy, rely on the map not the territory, and science advocacy, there is the risk that it too will promote a high-modernist ideology. A transition to any sustainable techno-economic regime, could therefore be representative of a High-Modernist ideology.

Polarisation in contemporary science

Several scholars have examined the implications of polarisation and division in contemporary science with regards to the pursuit of sustainability (Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, & Braman, 2010; Pumphrey, R. L., Decker, D. J., & Newman, 2017; Stoker & Curry, 2020). Kahan (et al., 2010) argued that the polarisation on climate change issues is driven by cultural and ideological values shaping public perceptions of risk and uncertainty rather than scientific ignorance. Pumphrey (R. L. et al., 2017) suggested that political polarisation hinders the development and implementation of policies and technologies aimed at promoting sustainability and stated that there is a need for greater collaboration among different stakeholders to overcome this obstacle. Stoker and Curry (2020) argue that climate change has become a highly politicised issue, with opinions divided along ideological, cultural, and economic lines.

Some scholars argue that this division between science and academia can motivate researchers to explore innovative approaches for promoting sustainability (Miller, 2019; Schlosberg, Collins, & Niemeyer, 2017). Schlosberg et al. (2017) discuss the concept of “environmental justice” and argue that it can provide a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for promoting sustainability, one that considers issues of power, representation, and social equity. Miller (2019) argues that the pursuit of sustainable development is an opportunity to rethink existing power structures and engage in transformative change at a systemic level: the sustainable Urban Delta is an example of this; it stimulates the population in cities to become food producing communities, thereby creating a healthy and sustainable living environment through inspiring and empowering residents to act (“Sustainable Urban Delta,” n.d.). Similarly, Auroville, an experimental university township developed in partnership with UNESCO in Viluppuram district was founded in 1968 by Mirra Alfassa. Auroville’s vision is to realize human unity in diversity, and to be a site of material and spiritual researches for a living embodiment of an actual human unity (Auroville, 2023; Taneja, 2018). Society can thus avoid polarisation and make effective decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019). However, Kahan (et al., 2010) state that the polarisation of science communication is a contributing factor preventing the development of effective sustainable solutions. This is not a true path (Watts, 1951).

Irrational beings

Democracies rely on norms and ‘the rule of law. This depends on rational analysis (Barnhizer & Candeub, 2019).  Many scholars have argued that the majority of people are possibly irrational and unable to discern what might be considered a logical argument, being influenced by emotion and desires they are susceptible to manipulation (Homans, Pareto, Finer, & Mirfin, 1966; Huxley, 1974; Krishnamurti, 2018; LeBon, 2009; Li, Ashkanasy, & Ahlstrom, 2014; Medearis, 2001; Nye, 1977).

“Once you have crafted lenses that change your perspective, it is a great temptation to look at everything through the same spectacles.”  (Scott, 1998)

The polarisation of science makes the information accessible to the public and can enable saliency in the development of new policy. However, when science is taken as a matter of fact, an ideological belief in the scientific and technical processes can develop where science advocacy replaces honest science (Bohm, 1980; Pielke, 2007). Scott (1998) compared the ideology to being a map, rather than the territory: it is not a complete understanding, it is fragmented (Bohm, 1980; Scott, 1998). When the message is fragmented and polarised, this can lead to conflict or disaster (Bohm, 1980, 1992; Bohm, Kelly, & Morin, 1996; Bohm & Krishnamurti, 2004; Briggs, 2016, 2021). The world is a complex dynamic system and a fixed belief taken as fact is a presumption (Bohm, 1980, 1992).

“If we supposed that theories gave true knowledge, corresponding to ‘reality as it is’, then we would have to conclude that Newtonian theory was true until around 1900, after which it suddenly became false, while relativity and quantum theory suddenly became the truth. Such an absurd conclusion does not arise, however, if we say that all theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear in certain domains, and unclear when extended beyond these domains” (Bohm, 1980).

Ideology & the Illusion of Choice

Governments follow an ideology that is the map not the territory, they direct certain legislative orders, “based on their limited knowledge, their inclinations, their prejudices, and their personal experiences” using propaganda to make the whole country comply (Krishnamurti, 1957). Other political decision-making strategies involve acting before a threat becomes imminent or certain, based on the supposition that inaction will lead to a greater cost than if action was taken (Pielke, 2007). This can create saliency for policy adoption by creating value disputes through information, Pielke (2007) referred to this as “pre-emptive political decisions”. An example of this was the pre-emptive political decision which justified the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent danger to the US and its allies providing saliency for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003  (Pielke, 2007). 

With “pre-emptive political decisions” there can be negative consequences when a government’s – or inter-governmental organisation’s – message is misleading. Without considering the broader context policy-makers risk developing policies that could have unintended negative consequences and potential lock-in to an inferior path. For example, with regards to socio-economic inequality, the push for renewable energy technologies may result in the displacement of workers and the concentration of industry in already affluent regions (Jorgenson, Shwom, & Jordaan, 2018). Without a focus on social equity and justice, initiatives can perpetuate existing inequalities, particularly for marginalised communities (Schlosberg et al., 2017).

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduces them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” 
(Gustave Le Bon, 2009, a standard English translation of the work originally published in 1895 in France as La psychologie des foules).

In La Psychologie des Foules Le Bon stated that those who control the illusion are the masters of the masses (Le Bon, 1905; LeBon, 2009). There are many examples of where the media has a huge influence in the types and ways that information is perceived by the public (Feynman, 1999; Ottati, Wilson, & Lambert, 2016). Barnhizer & Candeub (2019) argued that the illusion of truth, or “fake news”, undermines the rule of law and favours the political control by a dominant oligarchic elite. The media in general agree with the government because their action is dictated by vested ideological or financial interests of the politicians (Krishnamurti, 1957).

“The more cunning the organizer, the greater the possibility of controlling man’s mind” (Krishnamurti, 1957).

Parenti (1986) stated that entertainment and news are tools for advertisers to promote their goals and the corporate and government elites control the news and the opinions disseminated in the media, making choice apparent but, an illusion (Parenti, 1986). With the STP, corporate and government cooperation could therefore inadvertently promote dominant oligarchic elites setting the agenda.

Liberal democracies, elites and charitable foundations

Liberal democracy has been considered the start of fraud masking the continued rule by elites (Fukuyama, 2015). Elites, MNCs (Multinational Corporations) and charitable foundations appear to have control of the media through their partnerships with governments and they in turn enhance polarisation (Dryzek et al., 2019).  Although the media isn’t the only cause of ‘misguided’ information (Rosling, 2019) there is a correlation between the amount of coverage of issues in the media and the public’s level of concern and this may influence policy adoption (Kingdon, 1995; Murphy & Devine, 2018; Mutz & Soss, 1997).

Parenti (1986) states that the media self-censor and “faithfully serves the official viewpoint” but do not always do so in the ways that policy makers want. Priming and telling the public about a topic before they can rationalise it are both tools that are used by the media (Entman, 2007; Lowery, Eisenberger, Hardin, & Sinclair, 2007; Ottati et al., 2016; Parenti, 1986). Misleading the public  creates a false reality (Hood, 2011; Lightfoot & Ratzer, 2022; Parenti, 1986, 1996, 2001; Sobieraj & Berry, 2011). 

“I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television words, books, and so on are unscientific. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science” (Feynman, 1999).

Similarly, planned campaigns to frighten the public create controversy (Catt, 2023; Daily Telegraph, 2023) and this has been called the ‘demonology of spin’ (McNair, 2004). Bertrand Russel (2009) stated that such fear encourages a herd mentality where groups can end up persecuting those who do not comply “Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear” (Russell, 2009). This was seen in the recent pandemic by both government institutes and the general public.

“Under the influence of great fear, almost everybody becomes superstitious” (Russell, 2009).
“Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious beliefs as seem to justify cruelty” (Russell, 2009).

In the UK, this has dominated both British political journalism, and academic writing on public relations (PR) since the rise of New Labour in the 1990s. McNair (2004) stated that there is a need for ethical constraints on both the PR and journalists but also concludes that an antagonistic relationship between both groups protects against the excesses of either, and makes the political process more transparent to the media audience; this however assumes that the public can discern between the spin, cause and effect, and the honest scientific facts, which may not be the case (Medearis, 2001). It also assumes that all opposing parties are not influenced by the same lobbyists (Iftinchi & Hurduzeu, 2018). The media also has an inclination to concentrate on personal traits and values rather than on the real context of an issue  – unless it can be sensationalised (Parenti, 1986).

Democracy & Global Governance

Medearis (2001) examined two different ideas of democracy that have been proposed by the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter, (1) a theory that emphasised the competitive nature of democratic elections and viewed democracy as a means of peaceful and periodic changes in leadership, and (2) a theory emphasised the role of political elites and argued that democracy is based on the idea of competition between leaders and political parties.

Parenti (1986) quoting Davis (1979) stated that the goal of the United States in the 1950 was to make the world safe for multinational corporate exploitation (Parenti, 1986). Fuller (2016) stated that the U.S.A. is the most difficult sovereignty to eliminate yet nations need to evolve into one global government.

At this point in our review of how economic and other social conditions have evolved to such a threateningly devastating future outlook for many if not all humans, we wish to recall that inexorable cosmic evolution is intent on integrating all humanity in one global government and, therefore, on eliminating all of planet Earth’s nations and on doing so in a hurry. The most difficult of all the world’s sovereignties to eliminate is clearly that of the U.S.A. We recall having forecast this termination of the U.S.A. at least fifteen years ago. The 150 nations are 150 clots in the economic bloodstream of our planet. The headlong rush into the atomic holocaust is in fact a far more threatening development than the natural economic demise of the U.S.A., which in fact may be viewed as simply a self-removingplanetary-economics-blood-clot event. -(Fuller, 2016)

In addition to this ‘minilateralism’ has been described (in a variety of policy areas, associated with trade, climate change, security, and development) as a type of global cooperation involving several countries working together on a specific topic or policies. ‘Minilateralism’ is a scaled down version of multilateralism and is potentially a way to dodge the challenges of global governance: it can lead to fragmentation and exclusion in international decision-making, thus undermining the principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency in global governance (Brummer, 2014).

“Authoritarian and Democratic Technics”

Mumford (1984) framed civilisation around two coexisting systems, which are named as, “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics”. “Technics” was defined as the artefacts and processes of science or of an art that can transform our environment (Mumford, 1934). “Authoritarian Technics” refer to a powerful system-centred process by authoritarian institutional or regime associated with central governance. “Democratic Technics” refer to a small personal community at the grassroots bottom-up (local agent).

‘Authoritarian and Democratic Technics’ were seen as two mutually exclusive systems that work in synergy to maintain a healthy equilibrium. Mumford argued that democracy can be destroyed by an authoritarian institutional arrangement that fails to consider the democratic grassroots. However, although the Authoritarian Technics is powerful, it is also inherently unstable, whereas Democratic Technics, although relatively weak, are resourceful and durable human-centred processes.

Authoritarian Technics are processes and procedures that serve the interests of a centralized system of power and control, while Democratic Technics are technologies that empower human creativity and freedom, using the local knowledge, tacit skills and diversity that are essential for human well-being. Examples of Authoritarian technics include national and international governance mechanisms. Examples of Democratic Technics include unions, local organisations and groups activists or protesters.

Disaster due to State-initiated social engineering schemes

Scott (1998) described the administrative ordering of nature and society as a large-scale state-initiated interventions with the intention to simplify, standardize and reform society and nature. Scott (1998) stated that a complete disaster – from a state-initiated social engineering scheme – could occur (1) if there was administrative ordering of nature and society, (2) with a High-Modernist ideology; (3) where a willing and able authoritarian state enabled the High-Modernist ideology; and (4) the civil society was suppressed and unable to resist the plans. A suppressed civil society is defined as one that is deprived of its autonomy and diversity by the state’s intervention: it is one that is subjected to the High-Modernist ideology, where the state imposes the administrative order on the complex and diverse real situation. All four elements (above) are required for a complete disaster (Scott, 1998).

“Where it goes brutally wrong is when the society subjected to such utopian experiments lacks the capacity to mount a determined resistance” (Scott, 1998).

Global governance & NGOs

Global governance organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations’ (UN), are collaborating with elite organisations to develop policies on a global scale. Examples of global policies that involve the WHO, the WEF, and the UN (and other elite organisations) include: (1) the Strategic Partnership Framework between the WEF and the UN (its aims are to speed up the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (WEF, 2019); (2) the Great Reset initiative by the WEF (this proposes to reshape the global economy and society since the COVID-19 pandemic; it has been criticised as enhancing the interests of corporations and elites (Wecke, 2021).

“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd”
(Russell, 2009).

The UN and partnerships

On a global scale, the United Nations (UN) mission statement is “the maintenance of international peace and security” and was originally established to stop the loss of lives through destruction of property from wars (UN, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). The development of policies in line with the United Nations sustainable development goals could also be perceived as instrumental in the creation of a ‘sustainable’ future. These common goals could unite the world. With the growing links and reliance between the UN and partnerships with corporations and philanthropic foundations there is a growing risk that UN agencies, funds and programmes are eroding the multilateral character of – and undermining -democratic global governance (Seitz & Martens, 2017). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 clearly promotes such collaborations. “The SDG 17, Partnerships Guidebook” describes how multi-stakeholder partnerships can build relationships to deliver exceptional results with the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2022). Multinational corporations (MNCs) can reduce risk by engaging with government officials and politicians by lobbying and advocacy to influence policy adoption (Iftinchi & Hurduzeu, 2018). However, Iftinchi & Hurduzeu (2018) discuss the lack of transparency and public disclosure at the UN. Charities such as the Gates and the Rockefeller Foundations have considerable influence on political developments, but they are not accountable to the ‘beneficiaries’ of their activities.

Institutional and market structures can influence policy adoption and can lead to path dependencies. Where the adoption of new policies plays a crucial role in developing new systems, there may be negative consequences and a lock-in to an inferior path, if policy makers are not mindful of their choices (Fouquet, 2016; Unruh, 2000, 2002). This implies that some agents for policy change may not be ‘fit for purpose.’ We can thus define a High-Modernist Global Ideology as global sociotechnical authoritarian solutions and processes based on the perceived certainty that science and technology will solve the sociotechnical problems and create a better society (Scott, 1998).

Examples of administrative ordering of nature

Example 1: Changes in Farming Techniques to Promote the Green Agenda

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) farming can become more sustainable and help fight climate change (WEF, 2021a). The WEF (2021) have listed many ways farming can become more sustainable to fight the perceived climate change agenda. No-till farming is a technique involving planting seeds in small holes in the soil without disturbing the rest of the soil. This reduces CO₂ emissions from soil microbes and preserves soil carbon and quality. Regenerative farming is a technique that focuses on restoring soil health by using cover crops, crop rotation, compost, and animal manures. This enhances soil fertility, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. Organic farming is a technique that only uses natural pest control methods and biological fertilizers, without any chemicals or pesticides. This protects soil quality, water resources, and human and animal health. Technology and innovation use digital tools to monitor and optimize crop production, reduce food waste, and improve supply chain efficiency. This can save water, energy, and land resources, and increase food security. Vertical farming uses innovation to produce food crops in controlled environments reducing the need to use valuable land resources  (WEF, 2021a).

With these farming schemes, the local knowledge, tacit skills and diversity that are essential for human well-being appear to have been ignored. Many farmers are against the proposed and imposed authoritarian changes in farming techniques that are by the global green agenda. Although the dispute is multi-faceted and a complex issue associated with socio-economic issues including cost of living, cheaper foreign imports and global climate change (ideology) (BBC News, 2024; Guardian, 2024), Farmers are concerned that  these new techniques will reduce their productivity, profitability, and competitiveness (The Guadian, 2024). Due to this, protests and conflicts between farmers and authorities have started in France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Italy. According to the mainstream media (MSM) farmers demand more recognition, protection, and assistance from the governments and the EU to cope with the changing market and regulatory conditions (BBC News, 2024; Guardian, 2024). MSM presumes a top-down government solution is required to solve this protest. However, the perspective of Scott (1998) and Mumford (1964) it appears that farmers have not been adequately consulted, compensated, or supported by the policymakers and stakeholders and are therefore sceptical about the effectiveness and necessity of the new techniques to address the perceived environmental challenges.

The farmers dispute illustrates (1) the administrative ordering of nature and society, (2) with a High-Modernist Global Warming Ideology; (3) a willing and apparently able authoritarian state implementing schemes associated with the High-Modernist ideology; This is three out of the four steps that could lead to disaster. The fourth being a suppressed civil society unable to resist these plans (Scott, 1998).

Example 2: Ultra-low emissions zones (ULEZ)

The ULEZ Scheme is an authoritarian policy that aims to reduce air pollution due to perceived climate change (ideology) from drivers of vehicles that do not meet certain emission standards by charging a daily fee in London. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) covers all London boroughs and operates 24/7, every day of the year, except Christmas Day. The daily charge for non-compliant cars, motorcycles, vans and minibuses is £12.50, while lorries and buses pay £100 (“Ultra Low Emission Zone – Transport for London,” n.d.). This has caused much controversy since it’s expansion and local grassroots movements are opposing the scheme (BBC News, 2023; Guardian, 2023; Ma, Graham, & Stettler, 2021). There is however much resistance to these plans by a vigilante group called the Bladerunners (Sayce, 2023; Somerville & Bullen, 2023).

This scheme, according to Scott(1998) is (1) an authoritarian administrative ordering of society, (2) with a High-Modernist Global Warming Ideology; (3) a willing government implementing schemes associated with the High-Modernist ideology; Again, this is three out of the four steps that could lead to disaster (Scott, 1998).

Example 3: 15-Minute Cities and Central Bank Digital Currency

“15-minute cities” are an urban planning concept that aims to create spaces where human needs are within a 15-minutes’ walk from their homes. They aim to promote health and sustainable living. The concept is being adopted in various cities around the world, however it has been criticised as (1) it risks excluding some disadvantaged communities, (2) there are difficulties providing diverse and affordable services in all neighbourhoods, and (3) the potential backlash from car users and businesses (WEF, 2021b).

Some people have concerns that link 15 minute cities to plots to control people’s movements and choices with the use of digital currency (Silva, 2023). Recently the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde stated that “Climate change” requires a redesign to the entire economy and financial system, in line with the “green” Net Zero transition – including the need to “reduce our carbon footprint in everything we do, from banknotes to how we supervise banks” (Lagarde, 2021).

 

These are a high-modernist ideologies associated with climate change and the development of a carbon neutral economy (Lagarde, 2021; Scott, 1998) by an authoritarian regime. Although this is yet to be fully implemented, there appears to be a willing and able European government able to implement the scheme. So far, it appears, local agents have not been involved in the process. Again, if true, this is three out of the four steps that could lead to disaster (Scott, 1998).

Example 4: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Technology has made it possible for humans to exploit the forces of nature, and at the same time also become alienated from it (Bloom, 1991; Lakoff, 2014; Mearsheimer, 2018; Russell, 1928; Spengler, 2015). Modern innovative technology dominates our culture, the natural and organic is put aside (Spengler, 2015). Although Bohm (1980) emphasised that we cannot control nature, Spengler (2015) argued that after humans become the master of nature, humans will end up being a slave to technology and that many of the Western world’s great achievements may soon become spectacles for our descendants to marvel at, like the pyramids of Egypt or the baths of Rome. From Spengler’s perspective, the procedures and processes lend themselves to the AI future, however this may lead to issues at the grassroots, thus according to Scott (1998) this AI Authoritarian System implies a potential disaster.

Is the Road to Hell Paved with Global Intentions?

With regards to the road to hell being paved with global intentions, where the state and elite organisations develop authoritarian policies on a global scale, High-Modernist Global Ideology fails to consider the ‘representatives’ and the civil society at the grass roots (in which there is no direct financial gain). If, as Mumford stated, the Democratic Technics  (i.e. the technologies that empower human creativity and freedom, the local knowledge, tacit skills and diversity that are essential for human well-being) are ignored or stifled, then 3 out of the 4 elements (Scott, 1998) – that lead to a complete disaster – are present; the fourth element being a suppressed civil society unable to resist the plans.

Although the framing of this analysis is weighted towards exposing systemic faults in policy and processes, has global politics contributed to destroying democracy by the institutional arrangement that gives authority only to those at the top of the social hierarchy (Mumford, 1964)? With the implication of impending disaster due to the implementation of the High-Modernist Global Ideology, it is important that we consider how we can prevent a potential disaster. We need to identify policies and processes associated with the Global agenda that might lead to a disaster. We need to identify policies and processes that have been adopted and are leading to a disaster or suppressed civil society. There are a growing number of grass-roots organisations that could mount a determined resistance to a High-Modernist Global Ideology. Are these organisations justified? Or are they aiding the impending disaster? By framing the system around high-modernist ideology it can provide valuable insights that can help polity and policymakers implement impartial schemes that account for a wider aspect of the socio-economic system.

Bibliography

Auld, G., Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., & Levin, K. (2021). Managing pandemics as super wicked problems: lessons from, and for, COVID-19 and the climate crisis. Policy Sciences, 54(4), 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09442-2

Auroville. (2023). Auroville in Brief. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from https://auroville.org/page/brief

Barnhizer, D. D., & Candeub, A. (2019). Elite Theory, Media Regulation, and “Fake News.” SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3449503

BBC News. (2023). Ulez: What is it and why is its expansion controversial? Retrieved September 21, 2023, from BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66268073

BBC News. (2024). Why Europe’s farmers are taking their anger to the streets. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68095097

Bloom, A. (1991). The Republic of Plato. Second edition. Translated with Notes and an Interpretive Essay. In Basic Books. A Division of Harper Collins Publishers.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.

Bohm, D. (1992). Thought as a System. Routledge.

Bohm, D., Kelly, S., & Morin, E. (1996). Order Disorder and the Absolute: An Experiment in dialogue.

Bohm, D., & Krishnamurti, J. (2004). The Ending of Time. In Krishnamurti Foundation.

Briggs, W. M. (2016). Uncertainty. William M Briggs.

Briggs, W. M. (2021). Everything You Believe Is Wrong. William M Briggs.

Brummer, C. (2014). Minilateralism : how trade alliances, soft law, and financial engineering are redefining economic statecraft. Cambridge University Press.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, NY.: A Mariner Book. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Catt, H. (2023). Matt Hancock: Leaked messages suggest plan to frighten public – BBC News. Retrieved March 16, 2023, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106

Coad, A., Cowling, M., Nightingale, P., Pellegrino, G., Savona, M., & Siepel, J. (2014). UK Innovation Survey: Highly innovative firms and growth.

Daily Telegraph. (2023). Matt Hancock’s plan to ‘frighten the pants off everyone’ about Covid. Retrieved March 16, 2023, from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/project-fear-covid-lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp/

Demeritt, D., Dobson, A., Li, T. M., Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2011). Pathways to sustainability: Perspectives and provocations. Environment and Planning A, 43(5), 1226–1237. https://doi.org/10.1068/a227sym

Drechsler, W., Kattel, R., & Reinert, E. S. (Eds.). (2009). Techno-economic Paradigm. Essays in Honour of Carlota Perez. Anthem Press.

Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., … Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.AAW2694

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x

Eyre, N., & Killip, G. (Eds.). (2019). Shifting the focus: energy demand in a net-zero carbon UK. Retrieved from Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions. Oxford, UK. website: https://www.creds.ac.uk/wp-content/pdfs/CREDS-Shifting-the-focus-July2019.pdf

Feynman, R. P. (1999). The Pleasure of finding Things Out. In Basic Books. A Division of Harper Collins Publishers.

Fouquet, R. (2016). Path dependence in energy systems and economic development. Nature Energy, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.98

Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political Order and Political Decay. From the Industril reolution to the Globalization of democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fuller, B. R. (2016). Grunch of Giants. The Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller.

Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022

Gershon, L. (2019). Rachel Carson’s Critics Called Her a Witch. Retrieved January 18, 2024, from SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY – JSTOR Daily website: https://daily.jstor.org/rachel-carsons-critics-called-her-a-witch/

Gilmore, N. (2017). The Deafening Criticism of Silent Spring. Retrieved January 18, 2024, from Saturday Evening Post website: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/09/deafening-criticism-silent-spring/

Gregory, J. (2018). Effortless Living. Wu-Wei and the Spontaneous State of Natural Harmony. Simon and Schuster.

Guardian. (2023). Ulez: what is it, how much does it cost and why is it so controversial? Retrieved September 21, 2023, from Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/23/ulez-london-what-is-it-how-much-does-it-cost-and-why-is-it-so-controversial

Guardian. (2024). Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? Retrieved February 4, 2024, from Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/02/why-are-farmers-protesting-across-the-eu-and-what-can-the-bloc-do-about-it

Homans, G. C., Pareto, V., Finer, S. E., & Mirfin, D. (1966). Sociological Writings. Political Science Quarterly, 81(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.2307/2147682

Hood, C. (2011). The Blame Game. Spin, Bureaucracy, and self-Preservation in Government. In Princeton University Press.

Howes, M. J. (2014). Environmental Policy & Regulation – is it necessary? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29453551

Huxley, A. (1974). The art of seeing.

Iftinchi, V., & Hurduzeu, G. (2018). How Multinational Corporations Use Lobbying and Advocacy To Mitigate Political Risks. Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 3(Special), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.47535/1991ojbe040

Jorgenson, A. K., Shwom, R., & Jordaan, S. M. (2018). The economic implications of renewable energy transitions in fossil fuel–dominated economies: An analysis of the South African case. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.001

Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246

Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment, 47(3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444/ASSET//CMS/ASSET/73E57DAF-0B5E-4DFA-85D7-AE834CC32E8A/00139157.2005.10524444.FP.PNG

Keeble, B. R. (1988). The Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future.” Medicine and War, Vol. 4, pp. 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783

Kingdon. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.

Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public Policy: A New Introduction. In Culture. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Krishnamurti, J. (1957). The collected works of J. Krishnamurti, Volume 10, A light to lighten (Vol. 10).

Krishnamurti, J. (2018). Meeting Life. Writings and Talks on Finding Your Path Without Retreating from Society. Krishnamurti Foundation America.

Lagarde, C. (2021). Christine Lagarde : Climate change and central banking. International Climate Change Conference, (January), 1–5. Retrieved from https://www.bis.org/review/r210712b.pdf

Lakoff, G. (2014). Praise for The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Praise for the first edition, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green Publishing.

Le Bon, G. (1905). Psychologie des foules. Édition publiée par Félix Alcan (9th ed.). Retrieved from www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/lebon2.pdf

Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2007). Pathways to Sustainability: an overview of the STEPS Centre approach. Retrieved from www.wave.coop

LeBon, G. (2009). The Crowd. A Study of the Popular Mind. The Floating Press.

Li, Y., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ahlstrom, D. (2014). The rationality of emotions: A hybrid process model of decision-making under uncertainty. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9341-5

Lightfoot, H. D., & Ratzer, G. (2022). The Sun Versus CO2 as the Cause of Climate Change Projected to 2050. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 18, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2022.18.03

Lowery, B. S., Eisenberger, N. I., Hardin, C. D., & Sinclair, S. (2007). Long-term effects of subliminal priming on academic performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331718

Ma, L., Graham, D. J., & Stettler, M. E. J. (2021). Has the ultra low emission zone in London improved air quality? Environmental Research Letters, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AC30C1

Massey, A. (2022). Editorial: Silent Spring: can we fix wicked problems? Public Money and Management, 42(2), 53–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2022.2003595

McNair, B. (2004). PR must die: Spin, anti-spin and political public relations in the UK, 1997–2004. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670042000246089

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). Great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. In Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2019.1613054

Medearis, J. (2001). Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy. In Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674186439

Meiners, R., Desrochers, P., & Morriss, A. (Eds.). (2012). Silent Spring at 50: The False Crisis of Rachel Carson. Cato Institute.

Miller, T. R. (2019). Environmental justice as a movement-building paradigm for a just sustainability transition. Sustainability Science, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00716-w

Moore, & Albert, P. (2010). Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. In Beatty Street Publishing, Inc. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=PT%0Ahttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0011:pt:NOT

Morriss, A., Meiners, R., & Desroches, P. (2012). Silent Spring at 50 : the False Crises of Rachel Carson. 377.

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and Civilization. https://doi.org/10.5840/zfs19354343

Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and Democratic Technics. In Technology and Culture (Vol. 5). Retrieved from Winter website: https://about.jstor.org/terms

Murphy, J., & Devine, D. (2018). Does Media Coverage Drive Public Support for UKIP or Does Public Support for UKIP Drive Media Coverage? https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000145

Mutz, D. C., & Soss, J. (1997). Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment. JSTOR, 61(3). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749580

Nye, R. A. (1977). The anti-democratic sources of elite theory: Pareto, Mosca, Michels in SearchWorks articles. Retrieved from https://searchworks.stanford.edu/articles/edshlc__edshlc.000788501.6

Ottati, V., Wilson, C., & Lambert, A. (2016). Accessibility, priming, and political judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.010

Parenti, M. (1986). Inventing Reality. The Politics of the Mass Media. St. Martin’s Press Inc. New York.

Parenti, M. (1996). Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, Ethnic Life, and Class Power.

Parenti, M. (2001). You are being lied to (R. Kick, Ed.). The Disinformation Company Ltd.

Pellow, D. N. (2014). Total Liberation – The Power and Promise of Animal Rights and the Radical Earth Movement. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from University of Minnesota Press website: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Total_Liberation/-S90DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+power+and+promise+of+animal+rights+and+the+radical+earth+movement.&pg=PT10&printsec=frontcover

Pérez, C. (2010). Technological dynamism and social inclusion in Latin America: A resource-based production development strategy. Cepal Review, (100), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.18356/7dce2f27-en

Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633

Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, 1–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

Pumphrey, R. L., Decker, D. J., &, & Newman, C. E. (2017). Collaborative governance, political polarization, and the natural resources management professional. Journal of Forestry, 115(4), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-048R1

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 1973 4:2, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Rosling, H. (2019). Factfulness. In Review of Global Management. https://doi.org/10.19083/rgm.v4i1.924

Russell, B. (1928). Skeptical Essays. In Philosophical Studies (Vol. 31). https://doi.org/10.5840/philstudies1986/19873154

Russell, B. (2009). Unpopular Essays (Routledge Classics) Paperback (1st ed.). Routledge.

Sang, L. H. (2009). The Daodejing of Laozi The Living Dao: The Art and Way of Living A Rich & Truthful Life translated with annotations by The Daodejing of Laozi 2 2 Acknowledgements. Retrieved from https://www.ln.edu.hk/econ/staff/daodejing%2822 August 2002%29.pdf

Sayce, R. (2023). Who are the ULEZ Blade Runners? Story behind the name given to camera vandal. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from Metro News website: https://metro.co.uk/2023/08/01/ulez-blade-runners-london-camera-vandals-19228527/

Schiefloe, P. M. (2021). The Corona crisis: a wicked problem. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970767

Schlosberg, D., Collins, L. B., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Theorizing power in justice and environmental governance: The complexity of rights and the politics of knowledge. Environmental Politics, 26(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1199624

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state, seeing like a city. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. In J. C. Scott (Ed.), Politics of Urbanism. Yale Agrarian Studies Series.

Seitz, K., & Martens, J. (2017). Philanthrolateralism: Private Funding and Corporate Influence in the United Nations. Global Policy, 8(August), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12448

Silva, M. (2023). 15 minute cities: How they got caught in conspiracy theories. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66990302

Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360

Somerville, E., & Bullen, J. (2023). Watch: Anti-Ulez ‘Blade Runner’ vigilantes vandalise cameras in London. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from The Telegraph website: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/30/ulez-vandals-say-damaging-cameras-is-voluntary-work/

Spengler, O. (2015). Man and Technics A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life. Arktos Media Limited.

Springer, N. (2017). An analysis of Rachel Carson’s : silent spring. 96.

Stoker, G., & Curry, J. (. (2020). Polarized climate politics. Oxford Research. Encyclopedia of Climate Science.

Strings. (2022). CHANGING DIRECTIONS Steering science, technology and innovation towards the Sustainable Development Goals. https://doi.org/10.20919/FSOF1258

Sustainable Urban Delta. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://sustainableurbandelta.com/

Taneja, R. (2018). What Is Auroville In India? 5 Facts You Should Know. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from NDTV website: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-is-auroville-in-india-5-facts-you-should-know-1817268

The Guadian. (2024). EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from The Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/31/eu-delays-biodiversity-rules-amid-rising-protests-from-farmers

The Power of a Book. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2024, from Environment & Society Portal website: https://www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/rachel-carsons-silent-spring/power-book

Twidle, H. (2013). Rachel Carson and the Perils of Simplicity: Reading Silent Spring from the Global South. Ariel: A Review of International English Literature, 44(4), 49–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/ARI.2013.0028

Ultra Low Emission Zone – Transport for London. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2024, from Transport for London website: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

  1. (n.d.-a). Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet. Retrieved from United Nations. website: https://www.un.org/en/our-work/maintain-international-peace-and-security
  2. (n.d.-b). United Nations Charter. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
  3. (2022). THE SDG PARTNERSHIP GUIDEBOOK A practical guide to building high impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals First Edition. UN.

Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding Carbon Lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7

Unruh, G. C. Escaping carbon lock-in. , 30 Energy Policy § (2002).

Watts, A. W. (1951). The wisdom of Insecurity. A Message for an Age of Anxiety. Vantage Books.

WEF. (2021a). Agriculture: Evaluating sustainable farming techniques. Retrieved August 14, 2023, from World Economic Forum website: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/sustainable-farming-techniques-agriculture-climate-change/

WEF. (2021b). The 15-minute city meets human needs but leaves desires wanting. Here’s why. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from World Econmic Forum website: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/15minute-city-falls-short/

Bibliography