Advertisement

Consilience, Global Socioeconomic Political Enlightenment, and Socioenvironmental Restoration

  • Walter Dodds
Chapter

Abstract

Here I provide my view on how global problems might be solved. This chapter suggests that there needs to be a new model of operation for global society and economics. The dangers and potential usefulness of thresholds and social media in the process of solving problems are guessed at. Consilience, enlightenment, and hope will be necessary to solve the worst problems in the world.

References

  1. 170.
    Wilson EO (1999) Consilience: the unity of knowledge, vol 31. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 171.
    Kasper EK, Gerstenblith G, Hefter G, Van Anden E, Brinker JA, Thiemann DR et al (2002) A randomized trial of the efficacy of multidisciplinary care in heart failure outpatients at high risk of hospital readmission. J Am Coll Cardiol 39(3):471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 172.
    Turchin P, Currie TE, Whitehouse H, François P, Feeney K, Mullins D et al (2018) Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(2):E144–E151.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708800115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 173.
    Liu J, Mooney H, Hull V, Davis SJ, Gaskell J, Hertel T et al (2015) Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347(6225):1258832.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 174.
    Liu Y-Y, Slotine J-J, Barabasi A-L (2011) Controllability of complex networks. Nature 473(7346):167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 175.
    Subrahmanian VS, Kumar S (2017) Predicting human behavior: the next frontiers. Science 355(6324):489–489.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 176.
    Hackett CP, Grim BJ (2012) The global religious landscape: a report on the size and distribution of the world’s major religious groups as of 2010. Pew Research Center, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 177.
    Dasgupta P (2002) Is contemporary economic development sustainable? Ambio 31(4):269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 178.
    Dasgupta PS, Ehrlich PR (2013) Pervasive externalities at the population, consumption, and environment nexus. Science 340(6130):324–328MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 179.
    Cumming GS, von Cramon-Taubadel S (2018) Linking economic growth pathways and environmental sustainability by understanding development as alternate social–ecological regimes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(38):9533–9538.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807026115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 180.
    Hauser OP, Rand DG, Peysakhovich A, Nowak MA (2014) Cooperating with the future. Nature 511(7508):220–223.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 181.
    Wike R, Simmons K, Stokes B, Fetterolf J (2017) Globally, broad support for representative and direct democracy. Pew Research Center, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 182.
    Pinker S (2018) Enlightenment now: the case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 183.
    Scheffer M, van Bavel B, van de Leemput IA, van Nes EH (2017) Inequality in nature and society. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(50):13154–13157.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706412114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 184.
    Rifkin J (2011) The third industrial revolution: how lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 185.
    Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 186.
    Centola D, Becker J, Brackbill D, Baronchelli A (2018) Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science 360(6393):1116–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 187.
    Nyborg K, Anderies JM, Dannenberg A, Lindahl T, Schill C, Schlüter M et al (2016) Social norms as solutions. Science 354(6308):42–43.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 188.
    Aral S, Walker D (2012) Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337(6092):337–341.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215842MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 189.
    Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 190.
    Mellers B, Stone E, Murray T, Minster A, Rohrbaugh N, Bishop M et al (2015) Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions. Perspect Psychol Sci 10(3):267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615577794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 191.
    Zlatev JJ, Daniels DP, Kim H, Neale MA (2017) Default neglect in attempts at social influence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(52):13643–13648.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712757114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Dodds
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations