Co-Evolution

Co-Evolution as Alternative Globalisation

A discourse on ‘co-evolution’ can be discerned through literature on world futures (which preceded alternative globalisation research by decades (Jungk, 1969)), and futures studies, with associated aspects of the evolutionary sciences. This emerging co-evolutionary vision incorporates somewhat eclectic and wide-ranging influences. The evolutionary discourse is valuable because it dramatically transforms of the ontological and temporal frames which are generally used to make sense of human life (and as contrasted with other discourses in this study). Unlike other discourses, it situates humanity outside of history, as part of millions / billions of years of biological evolution, and thousands / millions of years of cultural evolution.

In conceptualising the dynamics of change, Laszlo and Raskin use concepts like ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to describe movements from dynamic equilibrium states, turbulence and bi-furcation points to new system states (Laszlo, 2001, p. 172; Raskin, 2002). Their frameworks correspond with systems theories, complex adaptive systems, and complexity research, where the evolutionary branching model is used (Gunderson, 2002). Agency in this respect can be seen as humanity’s wise intervention and skilful action when faced with planetary (tipping) points of turbulence, ‘bifurcation points’, and critical thresholds (Raskin, 2006). Such authors argue for requisite consciousness toward planetary sensitivity in understanding potential tipping points in the planetary system we live in as a species, for example Spratt and Sutton’s discussion on potential climate change induced tipping points (Spratt, 2008 ). In this context, agency implies co-evolution (Hubbard, 1983), expressed as wise or unwise co-evolution within the ecological contexts of the species. The future is expressed as a vision of human co-evolution in and with an evolving Earth (transcending anthropocentrism) and the development of planetary consciousness.

One metaphor often used is the Earth as ‘spaceship’ signifying humankind’s dependence and unity with Earth (Boulding, 1966 / 1995; Fuller, 1978; Ward, 1966). A less mechanistic metaphor is ‘Gaia’, popularised by Lovelock (1979), in which Earth (as a totality) displays self regulating and homeostatic qualities, in which ‘life maintains conditions favourable to the existence of life on Earth’ (Jones, 1997, p. 152). The Gaia hypothesis is ‘a holistic theory of our planet as a living organism’ (Jones, 1997, p. 157).

Viewed through these metaphors, the planet and its biosphere are considered absolute. This position began to emerge in the early 70’s as a number of reports projected near future resource depletion coupled with population growth, which would push the limit of the planets’ capacity to sustain life (Meadows, 1972). Alternative world futures modelling efforts, in particular the Bariloche team’s (1976) Catastrophe or New Society? suggested that Western over-consumption was as foundational as population factors which were emphasised in the Club of Rome’s thesis (Hughes, 1985, pp. 12-25). Nevertheless, both studies shared the ontological orientation that offered the planet as a unit of analysis, or as Raskin writes: ‘Thought and action must rise to the level of this emergent totality, as well as to its separate manifestations, ontologically, epistemologically, and politically’ (Raskin, 2006, p. 2).

However, ‘planet’ is not just an exterior and material reality, it is also a mode of consciousness brought forth by human beings; planetary consciousness itself is foundational. Thompson argues we are undergoing ‘planetization’ – a shift toward a planetary culture involving the capacity to cognize a global reality of mutual interconnectedness, and charts the evolution of human culture and perspective, from antiquity to the present and future (Thompson, 1974, 1987b).

Harman also makes consciousness foundational by charting the paradigmatic shifts of three metaphysical trends in human culture: from a sensate and matter based worldview, to a dualistic mind-matter based worldview, and to an emerging creative-consciousness based worldview (Harman, 1998). Likewise, Sahtouris articulates the need to rebalance indigenous inner knowledge with industrial outer knowledge (Sahtouris, 2000). Hubbard argued for the need to add a spiritual futures outlooks to the evolutionary and ecological crisis perspectives, to arrive at a holistic view of human-planetary co-evolution (Hubbard, 1983). Weinstein argues that we are experiencing a movement toward ‘creative altruism’ (as the ideational transformation which will enable the self realisation of humanity) (Weinstein, 2004). Humanity’s evolving consciousness, therefore, is seen as coupled to our emerging planetary predicament, as Henderson writes:

This is the birth time of planetary human awareness and global citizenship. The planet is our vast programmed learning environment – which faithfully mirrors back to us all our errors and behavioral shortcomings. As we’ve learned – planetary citizenship as part of the six billion member human family is a cooperative affair. (Henderson, 2005)

The evolutionary and planetary view locates human beings as a species among species. In Avadhuta’s vision of ‘Neohumanism’, all living beings have intrinsic or existential value, regardless of their utility to human beings’ (Avadhuta, 2006). Neo-humanist discourse shifts focus from inter-cultural categories (culture nationalism) to trans-cultural ones (species). Yet, the anthropological view equally emphasises a cultural maturation. As Kapoor writes:

Human intelligence has been highly successful in relating to and mastering nature, but, by the same yardstick, it has failed miserably in coming to terms with the plural representations of its own self! It is in correcting this imbalance that a wise path to the future lies. (Kapoor, 2006, p. 127)

The past is not seen through the lens of history so much as through evolutionary science (corresponding with the fields of biology, anthropology, and geology). Biological and cultural evolution are seen as foundational processes (with their correspondingly long time frames). Laszlo, for example, argues humanity is shifting from a 10,000 year phase of ‘extensive evolution’ where the species moved in physical space to inhabit and conquer the entire planet, with ecological limits triggering an ‘intensive’ phase of evolution typified by the ‘development of mind and consciousness and greater depth in the grounding of community life and inter-community relations’ (Laszlo, 2001, p. 111). He argues we have experienced transformations of human culture from mythos (mythic consciousness), to theos (theistic consciousness), logos (rational consciousness) and now to an emerging holos (holistic consciousness) (Laszlo, 2001). Generally, the evolutionary view of time is grand. In considering human sustainability, Tonn writes:

Humans ought to believe and behave as if they and their descendants will inhabit this earth many millions of years into the future. Humans ought to believe that it is important to protect the environment and behave accordingly because we know today that we are unlikely to survive into the distant future if we fail on this point. (Tonn, 2005)

Such an evolutionary view also reminds us that 99% of the species that have emerged on this planet have also become extinct. From this grand evolutionary view, a sensitivity to humanity’s tenuous place on the planet must emerge. In this vein, Lowe writes:

As to whether we will survive the twenty first century, if you were a gambler, you wouldn't back us with stolen money. We show no sign as a species or as a civilisation of even recognising the scale of the problem, let alone developing solutions... In ecological terms, I don't think there's any doubt that we're booked on the Titanic and steaming towards the icebergs. (Lowe, 2005)

Yet Elgin argues we must do more than just survive: ‘To be sustainable, a civilisation must maintain the integrity of the physical, social and spiritual foundations upon which it is established. To seek only to survive – to do no more than simply exist – is not a sufficient foundation for long-term sustainability’(Elgin, 2005). In this respect, Elgin uses the metaphor of human life cycle, arguing that humanity is undergoing a ‘growing up’ process. He argues we are an adolescent species out of control, and must mature, so that we can create a ‘‘species-civilisation’ on a planetary scale which lives in harmony with the rest of the web of life’ (Elgin, 2005, pp. 16-29). This species wide growing up process can be considered from the point of view of the leadership within civil society. Civil society is conceived as a new force for planetary change. For Boulding it was key in building a culture of global citizenship (Boulding, 1988). Other authors argue the coping capacity required for humanity to deal with the mega-challenges of the 21st century will depend on the quickening of a Global Citizen Movement (GCM) (Kriegman, 2006; Raskin, 2006). As Raskin argues:

We are drawn to the judgment, then, that the development of global coping capacity will be highly correlated to the parallel development of a GCM. One sees a harbinger of such a movement in the explosion of international civil society efforts on a host of global issues, conducted by spontaneous citizens campaigns and tens of thousands of international non-governmental organizations. The annual gatherings of the World Social Forum draw over 100,000 people in a week of celebration, education, and networking, an early suggestion of the immense popular energy that might propel a GCM. (Raskin, 2006, p. 16)