Realistic hope in a fragmenting world (1): Some introductory principles

This is article 1 of 5 in Realistic Hope in a Fragmenting World. 

I write this during very troubled times when the primacy of a “might is right” mindset is again being violently asserted in our world. Destruction is raining down on people across the Middle East. Many families are grieving the loss of loved ones.  Matters of sustainability seem far from the headlines as our attention is drawn again to conflict. 

Outside the region, however, life largely carries on with varying degrees of normality, disturbance and confusion. The most widespread concern appears to be the growing disruptions arising from restricted passage of materials through the Strait of Hormuz.

What happens now? What is the outlook?  

It is literally impossible to tell. As an experienced scenario practitioner, I know there are so many currents and counter-currents at play, with so many influential actors weighing up different possible choices, that there are a large number of possible scenarios. The outcome will not be random, but there are many permutations, ranging from the apocalyptic to the merely awful.  

In my experience, however, various considerations point to another long drawn-out affair, even if the US finds a way to declare some false notion of victory and de-escalate its immediate involvement. Even if this particularly dramatic episode of military violence is deemed to be “over” in the near future, regional instabilities will continue to rumble on for years to come. 

In the meantime, the Russian war with Ukraine will be grinding on, and there remains the wildcard uncertainty of China and Taiwan. The way the “middle powers” in Europe, the Middle East and Asia play their roles over the coming years will have a significant influence on the way these conflicts and tensions driven by “major powers” will play out. This includes creating the space and circumstances for future negotiations, and hence impacting the degree of misery that will ultimately be suffered by populations caught up in war.  

This is not a positive outlook. Similarly, looking out over the medium term, most people are increasingly pessimistic about the timely elimination of greenhouse gas emissions from our economies to avoid awful consequences from increased climate turbulence and environmental changes. Inevitably, this will also drive increasing disruption, division and conflict in the world, with the most vulnerable suffering the most as always.  Sustainability issues should be remaining a deep concern for ourselves and for the quality of life of coming generations, but the attention of many is understandably distracted at present.

So, in this shattering world, is it possible to have hope? What does “hope” even mean in these circumstances, and what steps can we take to reach towards more positive and hopeful outcomes?  

My reflections have to begin in the areas of my greatest experience – energy systems, scenarios, and strategy - and to build out from there.  

Just under a decade ago, I contributed a chapter on the Energy System to a book entitled Realistic Hope, edited by Angela Wilkinson and Betty Sue Flowers. The idea behind the title is, of course, to ground positive perspectives in a realistic understanding of current realities and technological possibilities. In other words, to be practical rather than fanciful in highlighting the potential for positive narratives. This reflects the so-called Stockdale Paradox, named after James Stockdale who attributed his survival in horrific circumstances in captivity during the Vietnam War to:

1. The discipline to confront the most brutal facts of the current reality.

2. Never losing faith that you will prevail in the end and persistently working towards this outcome.

This approach has to remain the foundation for the hope that we can eventually evolve more positive outcomes from the troubled times we now find ourselves in.  

The book addressed a broad array of challenges currently prominent in the world, with different specialist authors contributing different chapters. In summarising lessons from the multiple areas considered, Wilkinson and Flowers emphasised the following five general principles for realising realistic hopes:

1. Diversity – combining power from who is involved in progress

2. Dialogue – how players engage with each other  

3. Experimentation – what individual players do

4. Systems Thinking – the context for approaching problems

5. Futures Framing – the purpose of co-creating a more positive future 

Useful as they are, however, these five principles only highlight general sources of realistic hope. An upcoming short series of brief articles posted on Illuminem will dive into more specific possibilities and challenges, building from my experience with the energy system and decarbonisation. As many of the obstacles to positive progress turn out to be socio-political, this will naturally lead into considering the nature of human nature and organisation, the breadth of perceptions of self-interests, and attitudes towards the less fortunate in society.  

As I have noted previously, “We are walking a tightrope, but a “might is right” world has no safety net”. Collectively, guided by the principles above, we must somehow weave this safety net ourselves,  We must  both generate and achieve realistic hopes if we are to avoid the very worst scenarios and at least achieve decent outcomes over the longer term. I hope these articles will provide some useful pointers.