Facing the Metacrisis
Clearing pathways for systemic economic change
Note: This is the sixth essay in an ongoing series.
Introduction
Over 50 years ago, in 1972, a team of the world’s leading complexity scientists at MIT published the Limits to Growth study. With human populations, energy demands, food production, industrialization, consumption, and pollution all growing exponentially in the mid-20th century, the researchers set out to model the ongoing viability of these trends against the finite resources of the planet.1
In their models, the business-as-usual scenario was most concerning for its projections of sudden and uncontrollable declines in human well-being during the early-to-mid 21st century due to overshooting the capacities of Earth’s ecological systems.
Despite these early warnings, much of the global economic system continues to think and operate like business as usual. As a result, humanity now faces a rapidly emerging portfolio of complex, intersecting, and increasingly existential crises. The metacrisis is a catch-all term for these issues that helps us take an overarching view for addressing them.
This essay will unpack aspects of the metacrisis by elaborating on the interrelated patterns and behaviors within corporate capitalism that are generating it. We will then argue why the predominant ideologies behind this system are obfuscating more practical debates about facing these challenges. Towards its conclusion, we will begin to incorporate more holistic foundations for corporate purpose that face up to these challenges.
Aspects of the metacrisis
A proper interrogation of the metacrisis is the domain of entire projects, such as the Consilience Project. In this short format essay, we are introducing this topic where it intersects with our inquiry into corporations and capitalism.
This discussion is divided into four interrelated sections: environmental, social, human, and technological factors.
Environmental factors
Our most recent essay channeled the planetary boundaries model, which features nine distinct planetary boundaries and illustrates five of them to be at crisis levels currently.
Climate change is just one of these five crises. Despite this increasingly existential threat to global civilizations, corporate industries that benefit from unmitigated carbon emissions have played outsized roles for decades in misinforming the public and manipulating political priorities in favor of their financial interests.2
"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not. Did we join some of these 'shadow groups' to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing illegal about that. You know, we were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders." -Keith McCoy, a former senior lobbyist for Exxon Mobil 3
The next boundary in crisis, biogeochemical flows, reflects the ecologically deteriorating effects of nitrogen and phosphorus chemicals when they run off into waterway systems. These chemicals are primarily the outputs of the agricultural and lawn care industries, and their most visible impacts are toxic algae blooms.4
Another urgent boundary, novel entities, reflects the estimated 350,000 industrially-produced chemicals causing polluting and understudied harm to bodily and planetary systems.5 One category of these chemicals, PFAS (per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances), has been recently found in rainwater around the planet and in the blood of 97% of Americans. These chemicals, which are manufactured into many household items, have been linked to fertility problems, development delays in children, metabolism issues, and cancer.6 Since it's a recent and complex phenomenon for these novel entities to circulate through air, land, water, and body systems, it'll take a long time for scientists to decipher how harmful these novel entities truly are.
These three boundaries are interrelated with two other planetary boundaries in crisis: land system changes and biosphere integrity. Land system changes reflect the conversion of natural ecosystems for human development. A leading example is the development of the Amazon rainforest, which is increasingly becoming a drier savannah. Land system changes also accelerate extinction rates from their disruptions of natural habitats (represented as E/MSY, an extinction rate metric that's part of the biosphere integrity boundary).7
Social and economic factors
These environmental crises are all interrelated with factors in the world’s social and economic systems.
At the macroeconomic level, two leading social priorities that have operated out of balance with the planet’s environmental systems are GDP growth and corporate profit maximization. The Limits to Growth study is a leading demonstration of how human activities in the post-World War II era have grown beyond the capacities of Earth’s living systems.
In the social policies of the United States, corporate lobbying toward business-friendly objectives has been a leading force pushing public policies that negatively affect human, social, and environmental health. This project’s essay on extractive cultures elaborated on the externalities of profit-maximizing interests in their stakeholder communities and social systems.
In 1968, Robert F. Kennedy famously spoke about the social costs of maximizing economic growth:
“Our Gross National Product…counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities…
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate, or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
With much of the world’s economic system and social ideology entrenched in the systems of growth, there is an urgent need for alternative models and narratives to steer through the metacrisis. An emerging economic model, called Doughnut Economics, broadly illustrates an optimal zone for social progress while operating within planetary boundaries. The regenerative paradigm offers an overarching perspective for an economy that operates in balance with the planet’s living systems.
Human factors
Bridging into the human factors of the metacrisis, we recognize that corporate capitalism and consumerism are highly interrelated. For the corporate economy to grow continuously, people must also continuously grow their consumption of what corporations are producing — whether or not they are safe, healthy, or sustainable.
The leading causes of death in the United States are highly interrelated to this economic system and culture. Here’s the most recent top 10 list from the CDC with the highlighted items discussed below.
Heart disease
Cancer
COVID-19
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Alzheimer’s disease
Diabetes
Influenza and pneumonia
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis
Among the leading causes of death, the first, fifth, sixth, and eighth all correlate to chronic illnesses resulting from unhealthy consumption habits (e.g., processed foods, overeating, smoking) and sedentary lifestyles (e.g., media binging).
Accidents are the fourth leading cause of death, which are mainly drug overdoses, traffic accidents, and the proliferation of weaponry. Among individuals 44 years old and younger, accidents are the leading cause of death, followed by suicide and homicide. These issues have several interrelated social causes, including the manipulation of politics and public opinion by the pharmaceutical, automotive, media, and weaponry industries.
The employment conditions of corporate capitalism factor in here. For white-collar workers, sedentary lifestyles, stress, burnout, and office-related conditions (e.g., back issues, carpal tunnel syndrome) are typical.
The constant drive to outcompete and endure within these economies fosters work-hard-play-hard cultures. Within these cultures, drug, alcohol, gambling, sexual conduct, and relationship issues can proliferate. These lifestyles also tend to be detached from environmental consciousness.
Yet another way to see the human influence of this economic system is to notice the most frequent mass media advertisers — often processed food and beverage, pharmaceutical, alcohol, and gambling providers.
These economic norms are also cultural norms and are infeasible to address as standalone health and social issues.
Technological factors
Technologies have been the catalysts of human, social, and environmental changes throughout history. Compared to humanity’s shared ancestry of hunting and gathering, technology has shaped nearly every aspect of a much different human experience today. And among living generations today, technological change is occurring at a rate where each consecutive generation has significantly different cultural narratives around technology.
Stewarding a discussion about technology is complex because the same technologies can be at the roots of both humanity's greatest achievements and crises. For example, nuclear fission technology is both a tremendous source of energy and catastrophe. The automobile has liberated human movement while also becoming a leading cause of severe injuries and deaths. Social media has emerged as a powerful technology for both human connection and division.
Industrial agriculture is a complex technology because it has been essential in feeding a global population approaching 8 billion people, yet its techniques also factor into nearly every planetary boundary crisis. To repair these imbalanced relationships with the environment, regenerative techniques are emerging to restore natural conditions for abundant harvests. Notably, these techniques emphasize ecological wisdom rather than technology.
At the time of this publication, several disruptive technologies are emerging in neuroscience, artificial intelligence, blockchains, gene editing, 3D printing, and others. Amidst immense competitive pressures for entrepreneurs to maximize the business potential of these technologies, it is challenging for social thinkers and environmental studies to demonstrate their extractive risks until they proliferate in the marketplace.8
Technological development is ripe territory for shifting business-as-usual behaviors towards more sustainable futures. In Technology is Not Values Neutral: Ending the Reign of Nihilistic Design, the Consilience Project proposes that technology designers have presumed for much of history that (1) technological innovation is a net positive for society or that (2) second and third-order effects on people’s minds and society are not occurring as a result of their designs. Labeling this approach as “technological orthodoxy,” it calls for a shift to “axiological design” that brings more holistic awareness, discernment, and responsibility to how technology affects people’s views of the world and their activities within it. The Center for Humane Technology is an emerging institution focused on aligning technological development with human health and social wellbeing objectives.
Facing the metacrisis
Introducing a different framing for corporate purpose
Thus far, this essay has articulated a series of interrelated crises that are deeply entrenched within the predominant behaviors and cultures of the modern economy. Summarized as the metacrisis, this project is now steered toward a framework for corporate purpose that effectively faces the metacrisis.
With that objective in mind, the predominant shareholder and stakeholder theories are insufficient. Succinctly stated:
Shareholder theory is insufficient because its focus on profit maximization is detached from broader human, social and environmental impacts.
Stakeholder theory is insufficient because its egalitarian rhetoric is in tension with the shareholder-owned and controlled corporations it is most attached to.9
Rather than reducing the social purpose of the corporation to a simplistic doctrine or socially-conscious rhetoric, we propose a more holistic paradigm.
Within a free society, it is the responsibility of its people to shape the purposes and incentives of its corporations.
This statement is rooted in the foundations of what a corporation actually is — an incorporated organization that’s granted rights and privileges under the laws of its society. Primarily, these privileges are:
The rights and privileges to enter contracts, loan and borrow money, hire employees, own assets, pay taxes, participate in the political system, and sue (or be sued) in the justice system.
Limited liability, which excuses the financiers of corporations from personal responsibility over the company’s debts.
Through these rights and privileges, humans can conduct activities in a corporation they otherwise wouldn’t have the resources, capacities, or risk tolerance to conduct.
By starting here, we can strip away the layers of ideologies that are clouding constructive discourse about these issues. By cutting through the noise of biased narratives, we are creating space for more substantive possibilities to emerge.
Throughout this essay series, we have specifically critiqued the capitalism vs. socialism debate and rhetorical claims that shareholder-owned and controlled corporations are conscious, purpose-driven, and stakeholder-driven. Succinctly stated:
A corporation that is owned and controlled by shareholders is not designed to be a conscious entity. Structurally, these organizations are designed and incentivized to achieve an unconscious objective — maximizing their financial returns.
A corporation that is owned and controlled by shareholders is incapable of a higher purpose than maximizing profits. For these corporations, a brand mission10 or a strategic mission11 must ultimately serve a market objective. We clarify a distinction between mission and purpose in the footnotes.12
A corporation that is owned and controlled by shareholders is not designed to be stakeholder-driven. In this type of corporation, there is a clear caste system where the needs of financial shareholders come above all other stakeholders. Symbiotic relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, governments, and local communities may be suitable for profit-making. Still, it is incorrect for corporate rhetoric to suggest that stakeholders are on equal footing with the firm’s financial shareholders.
These concepts may be credited for softening the hard edges of capitalism, but they fall short of sufficiently facing these metacrisis issues. Towards the design of an economy that’s in service to life, our series introduces and will develop upon the regenerative paradigm.
Conclusion
For over 50 years, leading scientists have sounded alarms about the sustainability of post-World War II economic norms. Yet, in 2023, the global order continues to be dominated by nations maximizing GDP growth, corporations maximizing profits, and consumption behaviors that deplete human, social, and environmental health.
In facing the metacrisis, this essay emphasizes a holistic approach that dispels the entrenched myths of business-as-usual. Moving forward in the inquiry, we will genuinely faces these systemic challenges and present opportunities to navigate towards a sustainable and regenerative future.
Published September 12th, 2022 (1.0)
Updated August 5th, 2023 (1.43)
Note: This essay is unaffiliated with Facing the Metacrisis: Conflict, Metamodernity, and Construct Awareness, by Integral Life.
Many Limits to Growth materials are available publicly. Here are links to the original study in 1972, the 30-year update in 2004, and an independent study applying the models in 2020.
In the 30-year update, the study’s original researchers updated the initial business-as-usual (BAU) scenario to double the natural resources (BAU2), which pushed the inflection points of collapse from the 2020s closer to the 2040s.
The models below are from the 2020 study. The most accurate of the four models to present-day figures are BAU2 and CT (comprehensive technology). CT presumes that technological progress accelerates far beyond current rates and still projects disruptive declines approaching the mid-century. The stabilized world (SW) model offers an optimal scenario if drastic reforms are taken to prevent collapse.
A 1972 New York Times article about the original publication quoted one of their own that the study is “likely to be one of the most important documents of our age” and learns from it “the complete irrelevance of most of today's political concerns.”
However, the Times authors reach a different conclusion:
“The Limits to Growth,” in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon… takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science…Garbage In, Garbage Out.”
The Times authors’ views about technology may also interest readers:
“Relatively pollution‐free autos are within reach if we have the political will to insist; electric power could be generated with minimal pollution if we are willing to pay a reasonable price.”
“A virtually infinite source of energy, the controlled nuclear fusion of hydrogen, will probably be tapped within 50 years.”
Here is a recent perspective on nuclear fusion:
“The big national and international efforts won’t succeed soon enough to enable the decarbonization needed to address climate change, although fusion is expected to become a key part of the energy economy in the second half of the century. But private companies hope to have working and affordable devices sooner.” (Nature, November 2021)
On December 5th, 2023, scientists achieved an artificial fusion breakthrough in which more energy was released than was transmitted into the reaction. (New York Times)
The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation (Union of Concerned Scientists)
During a 2021 sting operation by Greenpeace U.K., McCoy was taped making these comments about his company’s campaign to cloud climate science (Unearthed)
The Effects: Dead Zones and Harmful Algal Blooms (EPA)
Lawn Maintenance and Climate Change (Princeton Student Climate Initiative)
This article summarizes the multifaceted environmental issues caused by the lawn care industry.
Safe planetary boundary for pollutants, including plastics, exceeded, say researchers (Stockholm Resilience Center)
Sources:
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)
“PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in 97%–100% of the serum samples.”
Serum Biomarkers of Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Relation to Serum Testosterone and Measures of Thyroid Function among Adults and Adolescents from NHANES 2011–2012 (National Library of Medicine)
Further reading: Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated (Nature)
Perhaps the science fiction genre has served the most effective function of warning about the dystopian possibilities in technology.
A prior essay, Another Look at Corporate Purpose, elaborates on how mainstream corporations obfuscate their businesses as being stakeholder-driven when their underlying designs and incentives are shareholder-driven.
Example of a brand mission:
Dove beauty products
”Dove is committed to helping all women realize their personal beauty potential by creating products that deliver real care. Dove believes that beauty should be for everyone, because when you look and feel your best, you feel better about yourself.”
Example of a strategic mission:
Google
”Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
The words mission and purpose are often used interchangeably among marketers and consultants. This project interprets them as distinct terms.
A purpose statement encompasses a corporation’s reason for existence.
A mission statement encompasses what the company does and for whom it does it.
A purpose statement indicates that structures are in place for a non-financial purpose to supersede the profit motive. A headlining case of this is the Patagonia corporation, which has become governed by a Purpose Trust with its financial profits owed to a nonprofit with a social & environmental objective. (Reimagining Capitalism, Patagonia).
A mission statement serves more of a cultural function in aligning the stakeholders of a corporation. A mission statement can align with the strategic direction of a corporation (reference the Google example in footnote 10) or the brand’s market position (reference the Dove example in footnote 9).