Dissertation_Foundations_Research_Formatted.pdf

学位论文研究基础：多重危机下的人类生存

引言

当今世界面临一系列相互交织的危机——气候变化、生态退化、地缘政治冲突、社会动荡以及快速的技术颠覆——一些分析家将其统称为“多重危机”。这一概念由历史学家亚当·图兹推广开来，描述了多种危机如何“相互作用，以至于整体影响甚至比各部分之和更令人措手不及”。与单一危机不同，多重危机的特点在于经济、政治、社会和环境领域相互关联的挑战彼此助长。本研究旨在探讨人类是否正在进入一个前所未有的多重危机时期，建立一个跨学科的理论视角来理解它，并研究在此种条件下如何实现人类的生存与繁荣。该研究还将审视全球范围的战略和集体应对措施如何演变以应对这一复杂局面。以下部分综合了来自历史学、复杂性科学、韧性理论、系统思维、政治经济学和哲学的见解，为论文奠定知识基础。每一部分均采用滚雪球式文献研究方法，以关键文献为基础直至概念饱和，并建立新颖的联系，以形成对人类前景的变革性理解。

定义新兴的多重危机

“多重危机”一词近年来得到广泛关注，用以捕捉当前多重叠加危机的时代特征。该术语最初由法国哲学家埃德加·莫兰于20世纪70年代创造，后由欧盟委员会主席让-克洛德·容克使用，并于2022年由图兹重新激活。它指的是不同的危机——例如，大流行病、战争、金融崩溃和气候紧急状态——同时发生并相互作用，以至于它们的综合影响超过了各自影响的总和。用图兹的话说，近期的冲击“似乎不再能合理地追溯到单一原因”，也无法通过单一方案解决。相反，我们面临着一场“汇聚的风暴”，它考验着我们的应对能力，甚至我们对现实的认知。

多重危机的关键特征包括：

• 危害的涌现协同性： 危机之间的相互作用产生了新颖的、涌现的效应。整个系统的行为方式与在孤立压力下不同。例如，COVID-19大流行的经济影响因先前存在的全球供应链脆弱性和不平等而放大，而乌克兰战争引发的能源和粮食危机则因气候相关的农作物歉收而加剧。这些交织的危害超过了个别危机之和，或在性质上有所不同。
• 多重成因，无单一解决方案： 与过去的单一危机（例如独立的金融崩溃）不同，多重危机源于多种成因（经济、地缘政治、生态等），因此抗拒任何一刀切的解决方案。解决一个方面的努力可能会加剧另一个方面——例如，推动农业生产以缓解饥饿可能会增加森林砍伐和碳排放。这造成了“棘手问题”，利益相关者甚至在优先事项和补救措施上存在分歧。
• 全球互联性： 在深度全球化的时代，危机很容易跨越系统和国界蔓延。局部冲击在全球传播，快速演变的危机（如大流行病或金融恐慌）与缓慢燃烧的危机（如气候变化、生物多样性丧失）相互交织。联合国开发计划署警告说，全球化已产生“数量空前的生存性和系统性风险”，传统的风险管理难以应对。紧密的相互依存关系意味着一个领域（健康、金融、气候）的失败可能引发其他领域的失败——在某个框架中被描述为共同压力、多米诺骨牌效应和系统间反馈的现象。
• 韧性的侵蚀： 多重危机通过连续施加冲击且几乎没有恢复时间来考验社会的韧性。对卫生系统、经济和生态系统的同时压力可能将全球系统推出平衡状态，进入“不稳定且有害的非平衡状态”。世界经济论坛的《2023年全球风险报告》强调了“并发冲击”和“韧性侵蚀”为多重危机创造条件风险。简而言之，人类面临一个复合的风险格局，在现有范式内难以理解和管理。

本论文首先清晰界定多重危机的概念及其表现。它将审视近期事件——例如2020年的大流行病、2022年能源冲击和通货膨胀、极端气候灾难——如何说明现代危机的交织性质。它还将审视“多重危机”是否真正增加了新的理解，抑或仅仅是一个流行语，并回应那些指出历史上多重并发危机“并非新鲜事”的批评者的观点。在分析其前所未有的方面之前，建立一个可行的多重危机定义至关重要。

历史类比：此次危机是否前所未有？

一个关键问题是，当今的多重危机是历史上独一无二的，还是重复模式的一部分。跨学科的历史分析揭示了当前与过去危机时代之间的相似之处和分歧之处。

历史上的多重危机： 人类历史包含复合危机的时期。学者们研究过诸如17世纪“总危机”这样的时期，当时气候变冷（小冰期）与全球大部分地区的饥荒、瘟疫、战争和革命同时发生。类似地，14世纪见证了大规模饥荒、黑死病和大范围战争的交汇。更近一些，20世纪早期可以被视为一个多重危机：第一次世界大战、1918年流感大流行、大萧条和第二次世界大战形成了一系列灾难。这些例子强调，多重压力在过去也曾汇聚，挑战社会的适应能力。事实上，环境历史研究表明，历史上气候压力与社会脆弱性相互作用，煽动动荡——例如，干旱以级联方式引发农作物歉收、饥荒、疾病和冲突。简而言之，多重危机并非完全前所未有；“这类压力源一直是人类经验的内在组成部分”，并且过去有时会汇聚。

然而，重要的差异使得当前时代与众不同：

• 全球规模与同步性： 过去的危机通常是区域性的；而今天的挑战在范围和同步性上真正是全球性的。有史以来第一次，几乎全人类都互联在一个单一的政治经济体系中，气候变化或大流行病等危机是全球性的。人类世的多重危机以前所未有的同步性为标志——几乎所有区域同时面临严重风险。历史上的危机通常是异步的（例如，一个帝国的崩溃可能是另一个帝国的崛起），而现在“这些威胁的规模和全球同步性带来了新的挑战”。这种全球一致性意味着更少的避风港，以及真正全球性系统性失败的可能性，这是早期局部崩溃中未曾见过的情景。
• 行星边界与生态极限： 人类活动从未像今天这样根本性地威胁地球生态系统的稳定性。当前的多重危机“ truly singular”，因为人类驱动的行星变化（气候变暖、生物多样性崩溃、污染等）正在破坏社会赖以生存的生命支持系统本身。过去的文明曾因资源枯竭或气候变迁而区域性崩溃，但今天的工业文明正将整个星球推向一个新的状态（人类世）。例如，大气二氧化碳水平和物种大灭绝速率在人类时间尺度上没有历史先例——这是与历史在生态上的质的断裂。这意味着当代人类面临着结构上全新的生物物理极限（例如，1.5°C气候阈值），使得当前危机在“危及我们所有其他全球系统”的潜力方面是无与伦比的。
• 复杂的相互依存： 现代全球系统——金融网络、供应链、数字基础设施等——的复杂程度远远超过前现代社会。我们建立了一个“具有无与伦比的复杂性、财富和不平等，严重依赖有限资源的全球文明”。这种复杂性带来了效率，但也带来了脆弱性：一个节点（如金融中心或石油咽喉要道）的冲击可以迅速全球传播。在历史危机中，连接更少且更慢。今天，一次中断（无论是病毒还是冲突）会迅速波及贸易、金融和信息系统，可能引发遥远地区的同时危机。劳伦斯等人的《全球多重危机》研究强调了现代危机如何在各系统间因果纠缠，其方式在任何前时代都难以理解。
• 人类技术力量： 人类现在掌握着能够彻底摧毁文明，或从根本上改变我们未来的技术——核武器、生物工程、人工智能。20世纪中叶引入了核战争作为生存风险，这在历史上没有真正的先例。同样，新兴技术（人工智能、生物技术、地球工程）可能有助于解决危机，也可能引入新的危机（如自我造成的生存风险）。正如卡尔·萨根所言，我们变得“强大却没有相应地变得明智”。技术加速与治理之间的不匹配意味着我们面临着没有先例的威胁（和选择）——例如，专家警告称，如果未来超智能人工智能与人类目标不一致，可能构成灭绝级别的风险。早期的社会从未需要管理这种物种级别的技术危险。

总之，本论文的历史比较分析将论证，虽然多方面的危机并非新事物，但当前的多重危机在规模、复杂性和利害关系上有所不同。它结合了熟悉的模式（多重压力、治理失败、社会动荡）与历史上独特的因素（行星生态破坏、完全的全球连通性和生存性技术）。这种双重视角——既认识到过去的类似情况，也认识到新的困境——至关重要。它既防止了虚假的乐观主义（“我们以前处理过危机，这次没什么不同”），也防止了宿命论的新奇观（“我们注定失败，因为从未如此糟糕过”）。相反，它将当今的挑战置于背景中：从历史中理解社会困境的共同动态，同时也承认我们可能正在进入需要新思维的未知领域。

理论视角：复杂性、系统与韧性

为了构建多重危机的框架，本研究采用了一个跨学科的理论视角，借鉴了复杂性科学、系统思维、韧性理论、政治经济学和哲学。多重危机无法通过单一学科的模型充分理解；相反，需要一个整体的、系统导向的框架来把握不同危机如何相互作用，以及人类如何应对。关键的理论基础包括：

• 复杂适应系统（CAS）： 多重危机可被视为由构成现代世界的复杂适应系统（气候系统、全球经济、地缘政治秩序等）涌现出的现象。复杂性科学指出，在此类系统中，非线性相互作用产生涌现特性——这与多重危机的理念相呼应，即整体不同于（通常更糟于）部分之和。CAS理论强调反馈回路、临界点和不可预测的结果。如果系统接近临界阈值（例如，一家地方银行倒闭引发全球金融崩溃），一个小触发点可能级联成一场大危机。劳伦斯等人（2024）提供了一个有用的框架：一个快速演变的触发事件（比如，一场大流行病）与缓慢演变的压力（如长期不平等或气候压力）相结合，可以将全球系统推出平衡状态，进入危机状态。三种因果路径——共享的潜在压力、多米诺骨牌式的连锁影响和跨系统反馈回路——解释了危机如何同步。使用这种复杂性视角，论文将分析危机纠缠的动态（例如，生态危机如何通过反馈机制刺激经济和政治危机）。它还将借鉴诸如泛层级和适应周期（来自生态学）等概念，以考虑多重危机是否标志着系统性释放和重组的一个阶段（来自下文韧性理论的观点）。
• 系统思维与整体论： 系统思维通过鼓励对问题的整体看法来补充复杂性科学。系统思维强调相互联系和背景，而不是孤立地处理问题。对于多重危机，这意味着要描绘气候、经济、政治和技术如何在全球范围内相互关联。它提供了因果回路图和情景建模等工具来可视化相互依存关系。例如，系统视角可以说明社会动荡与环境恶化之间的反馈回路：政治不稳定可能阻碍气候行动，导致更严重的环境压力，进而助长更多的不稳定。这种方法将有助于识别潜在的杠杆点，在这些点上干预措施可以同时缓解多重危机（例如，可再生能源同时应对气候、经济复苏和地缘政治稳定）。系统思维也与复杂性友好的政策相一致，承认不确定性并避免过于简单的“银弹”。相反，它支持适应性的、迭代的策略，这些策略可以随着条件变化而调整——在快速演变的多重危机中至关重要。应用于全球生存，它表明我们需要打破单一问题思维模式的综合战略和机构。
• 韧性理论： 韧性理论（来自生态学和可持续性科学）关注系统承受冲击和再生的能力。在多重危机的背景下，韧性是指人类社会和全球系统在承受干扰时不崩溃到不可恢复状态的能力。该理论贡献了阈值和状态转换的概念：一个社会可能承受压力到某一点，但超过一个阈值后，它可能发生剧烈转变（例如，在持续危机压力下民主秩序让位于威权主义，或者如果贸易系统崩溃，经济从全球化转向自给自足）。韧性不仅仅是抵抗变化，也包括适应性转型——在面对危机时重组以维持核心功能。值得注意的是，一些学者将“崩溃”重新定义为极端适应：一种强制的重置，最终可能导致新的、可能更具韧性的系统。这是一个发人深省的视角：它表明看似失败（社会崩溃）的现象可能是自然或系统摆脱不适应结构的方式，之后会发生重组（正如霍林的适应周期所述）。论文将探讨正在展开的多重危机是否可能在全球范围内驱动这样一个周期——一场向新文明形式的动荡过渡。韧性思维也引起了对在系统中建立缓冲、多样性和冗余以避免跨越临界阈值的关注。诸如社区韧性、生态韧性和社会资本等概念被检视为决定社会在压力下是适应还是解体的因素。例如，来自危机数据库项目的研究表明，长期的文化和制度结构决定了社会是能够集体应对危机，还是陷入分裂和崩溃。因此，理论框架将整合韧性指标（例如，不平等水平、治理质量、资源储备）来评估不同的多重危机情景可能如何展开。
• 政治经济学： 任何对全球危机的分析都必须考虑塑造脆弱性和应对措施的经济和权力结构。政治经济学的视角审视资本主义世界体系、国家利益和阶级动态如何促成多重危机。一些人认为，当今的多重危机根源于晚期资本主义的危机趋势——例如对自然的过度开发、极端不平等和不稳定的金融化——达到了顶点。例如，气候变化可以被看作是依赖化石燃料和永续增长的经济模式的副产品，而政治两极分化和不平等则与数十年的新自由主义全球化有关。论文将借鉴世界体系理论和伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦或杰森·摩尔（他创造了“资本世”一词）等思想家的观点，将多重危机置于全球政治经济秩序的时代性转变或崩溃的背景下来看待。它还将考虑霸权过渡的概念——历史上，重叠危机的时期往往与全球权力转移（例如帝国的衰落）相吻合。当前的多重危机是否与以美国为首的霸权衰落和向更加多极化或碎片化世界的过渡有关？此外，政治经济学强调了能动性、权力和利益问题：承认“多重危机”符合谁的利益，损害谁的利益？例如，强大的行为者可能会抵制解决危机所需的系统性变革（如化石燃料行业的影响力）。通过纳入政治经济学，理论视角始终关注多重危机背后的结构性驱动因素（如利润动机、治理失败、地缘政治竞争），而不是将其仅仅视为自然发生的事件。这有助于制定现实的生存策略——那些解决根本原因和权力不平衡的策略（例如，改革使较贫穷国家极易受到冲击的债务和贸易体系）。
• 哲学视角： 哲学探究在危机中为人类价值观、伦理和认识论问题提供了深度。多重危机不仅挑战我们的系统，也挑战我们的理解——如图兹所指出的，它反映了我们“ flailing inability to grasp our situation”，失去了以往的自信。哲学可以指导我们如何在物质层面之外概念化“生存”和“繁荣”。例如，存在主义哲学可能将多重危机解释为面对潜在崩溃时，对人类有限性及其意义需求的清算时刻。当选择涉及当代人与后代人之间的权衡（气候正义）或人类福祉与其他生命之间的权衡（生物多样性）时，伦理至关重要。像汉斯·乔纳斯的责任律令或代际正义这样的概念变得相关。此外，当旧的确定性崩溃时，多重危机提出了什么构成美好生活的问题——让人想起强调精神韧性和欲望适应性的斯多葛主义或佛教哲学。论文可能会借鉴哲学中的韧性：例如，马可·奥勒留的斯多葛主义作为应对动荡的内在韧性，或实用主义哲学对适应性解决问题的关注。另一方面，思辨哲学和未来研究（包括乌托邦和反乌托邦思想实验）将被用来想象替代性的未来。在面对前所未有的风险（如核战争或不受控制的人工智能导致人类灭绝）时，我们与生存风险哲学（如尼克·博斯特罗姆、托比·奥德）互动，该哲学权衡确保人类长期未来的道德优先性。这个领域也提出：如果“生存”危在旦夕，我们采用什么伦理框架？有效利他主义者主张最大化物种生存的概率（甚至提议投资于太空殖民或避难所），而其他人则主张现在专注于社会正义。理论视角将吸纳这些辩论，将人类生存与繁荣不仅仅框定为技术问题，而且框定为关于我们在动荡中珍视和希望保存什么的深刻的规范性问题。

通过整合这些视角，本研究构建了一个能够捕捉多重危机全部复杂性的理论视角。它将当前危机视为一个系统性的、适应性的挑战（复杂性/韧性），由结构性不平等（政治经济学）塑造，并需要新的思维方式（哲学和伦理反思）。这一视角将一贯应用于后续分析，为解释证据和制定应对措施提供一个指导性框架。

多重危机的维度与社会影响

在此框架下，我们识别并审视新兴多重危机的主要维度及其对社会的影响。这些维度——环境、社会政治和技术——深度互联。论文将不把它们视为独立的孤岛，而是作为相互作用的领域，它们的碰撞和反馈定义了多重危机。

环境压力源

气候变化处于环境多重危机的核心。随着全球气温上升，我们目睹更频繁、更严重的灾难（热浪、干旱、洪水、野火），这些灾难给基础设施、粮食系统和宜居土地带来压力。气候变化是一个“风险倍增器”，加剧经济和政治紧张——例如，气候驱动的人口迁移已经在挑战边界和社会凝聚力。除了气候，地球正面临更广泛的生态危机：快速的生物多样性丧失（“第六次大灭绝”）、森林砍伐、渔业崩溃、淡水短缺以及空气、水和土壤污染。这些趋势，虽然通常不像气候灾难那样 visibly acute，但仍然侵蚀着支撑人类文明的自然资本和生态系统服务（例如，授粉、土壤肥力、稳定的水文循环）。环境科学家警告我们正在超越行星边界——地球系统的安全运行极限——进入一个不可逆转变化风险加剧的区域。例如，北极冰盖融化和雨林消亡可能触发反馈回路，加速变暖超出人类控制。对社会的影响是深远的：干旱和生物多样性下降对粮食安全的威胁、疾病风险增加（随着气候变化和栖息地破坏）、极端天气对生计和家园的损害，以及因水和耕地发生资源冲突或气候战争的可能性日益增长。环境维度也具有时间特征：一些影响是缓慢燃烧的（海平面上升），另一些是突然的（飓风），这使治理复杂化——社会必须在管理紧迫危机的同时，投资于长期的适应和减缓。总之，环境压力源提出了一个生存性挑战；正如一项分析所指出的，人类压力已将地球系统推向如此之远，“以至于危及我们所有其他全球系统”。本论文将研究环境崩溃情景及其对人类系统的级联效应，使用诸如长期干旱对国家稳定影响的案例研究（例如，叙利亚干旱与内战的联系）来说明环境和社会政治危机如何相互助长。

社会政治动荡

全球各地的社会正在经历社会政治领域的动荡，从日益加剧的不平等和社会分裂到民主倒退和地缘政治冲突。国家内部和国家之间的经济不平等和不稳定性都在增加，部分原因是全球化和新自由主义政策。这助长了社会不满、民粹主义运动，并侵蚀了对制度的信任。我们看到对精英和技术官僚的强烈反对，加剧了两极分化。在许多国家，政治极端主义和威权主义正在抬头，因为民众在快速变化中对自身安全和身份感到焦虑，转而求助于强人领袖或民族主义意识形态。这些趋势可能破坏国际合作，而这恰恰是在最需要的时候，因为各国采取“零和”立场或内向型政策。地缘政治紧张局势也升级——以俄罗斯入侵乌克兰为例，这不仅造成了巨大的人类苦难，也破坏了全球能源和粮食市场的稳定。中美战略竞争进一步增加了冲突风险，并阻碍了在气候等全球问题上的协调。实际上，多重危机包括全球政治秩序的危机：后冷战的多边框架因大国竞争和军国主义复苏（例如，核威胁重新出现）而 strained。此外，社会凝聚力受到文化冲突和错误信息（有时称为“信息疫情”）的威胁。阴谋论和故意散布的虚假信息的迅速传播——通常通过社交媒体——使集体解决问题变得更加困难，因为社会甚至缺乏共同的事实基础。所有这些因素都可能 entrenched 一个恶性循环：在压力下，社会可能变得不那么宽容、不那么民主、更容易发生冲突，这反过来又使它们缓解危机的能力下降（例如，威权政权可能优先压制异见，而不是有效应对饥荒或大流行病）。论文将分析社会政治动荡如何既促成其他危机维度，又作为其结果。例如，它将探讨大流行病和经济冲击如何增加政治不稳定，反之，战争或动荡如何恶化人道主义危机并阻碍气候行动。将借鉴历史类比（如20世纪30年代大萧条导致政治极端主义）以汲取见解，但重点将放在当前的表现上，例如在并发紧急状态下民主和人权所承受的压力（例如，COVID期间的紧急权力、监控技术等）。

技术加速与颠覆

技术在多重危机中是一个双刃剑的维度。一方面，加速的技术变革——数字网络、自动化、人工智能、生物技术等——驱动着大部分快速的社会经济转型，这些转型可能 destabilize 社会（例如，劳动力市场被自动化颠覆，隐私被数字监控侵蚀，网络战能力威胁安全）。另一方面，技术进步提供了可能有助于解决危机的工具（用于气候的可再生能源技术，用于健康威胁的医学创新等），这使得技术治理成为一个关键因素。当前时期被称为“大加速”（最初指1950年后消费及其对地球影响的激增，但也适用于技术创新的指数级速度）。一个核心问题是，技术的演变速度快于我们的社会适应和治理能力。正如一项分析所言，“技术的惊人加速……与人类管理这些趋势的能力之间存在着 ever-growing gap”。这种治理差距在人工智能等领域尤为明显：世界才刚刚开始讨论人工智能伦理和安全的规则，即使算法已经在全球范围内影响经济和舆论。风险在于，强大的技术在缺乏足够远见的情况下被部署，导致新的危机——例如，未能监管人工智能可能导致大规模失业（社会危机），或者如果未来的超智能人工智能行为与人类生存相悖，甚至可能导致生存性灾难。类似地，网络技术引入了网络安全威胁的慢性危机，关键基础设施面临被黑客攻击的风险，这可能与物理危机同时发生（想象一下在热浪期间对电网的网络攻击）。生物技术进步，虽然对健康有前景，但也增加了 engineered pandemics 的危险。此外，信息生态系统已被社交媒体算法彻底改变，在危机期间助长社会两极分化和虚假信息传播（例如，COVID-19期间的反疫苗宣传）。这种技术维度加速了事件的节奏（危机发展更快），并可能放大范围（一个局部事件通过媒体病毒式传播或系统互联性成为全球性事件）。论文将评估技术的威胁和潜力：技术加速如何助长多重危机，能否利用它来摆脱危机？它将审视诸如使用大数据和人工智能的早期预警系统来预测危机（例如，气候灾难预测、流行病建模）等想法，以及技术如何可能提升韧性（例如，用于气候韧性的可再生能源微电网，用于协调灾害响应的数字平台）。相反，它也将讨论技术本身成为危机的情景（例如，目标不一致的人工智能作为生存风险，正如托比·奥德等人所警告的那样）。这种平衡的分析认识到，由政策和伦理塑造的技术发展轨迹，将显著影响人类是屈服于多重危机，还是找到创新的途径穿越它。

协同影响与反馈回路

多重危机的一个标志是这些维度并非孤立运作。论文将特别关注协同影响——环境、社会政治和技术危机相互加剧的方式。例如：

• 气候 ↔ 冲突反馈： 气候压力（环境）可能导致资源稀缺和流离失所，从而加剧种族紧张或地缘政治竞争（社会/政治），可能引发冲突——正如在干旱先于内乱发生的地区所见。冲突随后阻碍环境管理，并可能造成生态破坏（焦土战术、忽视保护）。这个循环可能使地区陷入持续的不稳定。
• 经济冲击 ↔ 政治极端主义： 金融危机或自动化驱动的失业（技术经济危机）增加失业和不平等，助长公众愤怒（社会危机）并催生极端主义政治或保护主义。这些政治回应反过来可能进一步 destabilize 市场或导致国际贸易战，恶化经济危机——一个自我强化的循环，让人想起20世纪30年代，但现在可能具有全球范围。
• 大流行病 ↔ 经济 ↔ 气候级联： COVID-19大流行说明了一个级联：健康危机导致经济封锁；政府以大规模支出（增加债务）回应；供应链崩溃随之而来，助长通货膨胀；然后随着经济重新开放，需求激增加上中断的能源市场（因战争而加剧）导致能源危机，恰逢气候灾难袭击供应（例如，干旱减少水力发电和收成）。这种混合物在2022年被世界银行称为“危机鸡尾酒”。每个要素都放大了其他要素——例如，高燃料价格使食品更贵，最严重地打击了脆弱人群，并在一些国家激起抗议。因此，名义上的健康危机演变成了社会经济和地缘政治危机。
• 政策困境（危机权衡）： 试图解决一个危机可能加剧另一个危机，造成悲惨的困境。例如，密集灌溉以种植更多粮食有助于避免饥荒，但可能耗尽地下水并恶化未来的水资源压力（环境 vs. 粮食安全）。或者，大流行病封锁保护健康但损害生计和心理健康（健康 vs. 经济/社会福利）。多重危机充满了这种交织的选择，政策制定者面临“做也倒霉，不做也倒霉”的情景。认识到这些相互依存关系是制定细致入微的解决方案的关键，这些方案避免简单地转移负担。

研究将利用案例研究来说明这些相互作用。一个可能的案例是叙利亚危机：严重的多年干旱（与气候变化有关）导致农村崩溃和城市迁移，这加剧了先前存在的政治不满，引发内战；战争导致大规模难民潮，影响了远至欧洲的政治，并 strained 国际规范——一场环境、社会和地缘政治危机 rolled into one。另一个案例可能是2022年全球粮食危机，其中冲突（乌克兰战争）、气候（主要粮产区的热浪和干旱）和经济（供应链、化肥价格）因素汇聚，将粮食不安全推向极端水平，威胁到2.76亿人面临严重饥饿（据联合国数据）。通过剖析这些例子，论文具体展示了多重危机如何在现实世界中显现，以及其对人类社会的后果是什么（例如，贫困加剧、流离失所、死亡率上升、发展成果被侵蚀）。它还将强调不确定性和认知超载的有害作用——随着危机增多，领导人和公民 alike 都难以确定优先次序和理解复杂的风险相互作用，往往导致短期修补而非战略性应对。结果往往是政策瘫痪或不连贯，这本身就成为危机的一部分（治理危机）。

总之，论文的这一部分描绘了多重危机的格局，详述了其主要组成部分，并表明它们的交叉点是最危险所在。社会不仅仅是在应对平行的挑战，而是在应对一个紧密的因果网络，这构成了人类生存的新背景。理解这些动态为提出以下问题奠定了基础：在这样的动荡时期，人类的生存甚至繁荣意味着什么？

重新思考多重危机时代的人类生存与繁荣

在界定了困境之后，论文转向审视在多重危机条件下，如何理解和追求人类的生存与繁荣。这涉及既借鉴主流观点，也借鉴边缘案例（替代性）观点，探讨人类在剧变中 enduring and thrive 所需的条件。这是一个 inherently philosophical and scenario-driven 的探究，因为它迫使我们不仅要问“我们如何生存？”，还要问“我们为了什么而生存？”以及“在一个 transformed 的世界里，繁荣可能是什么样子？”

主流观点：韧性、可持续性与改革

面对全球危机，确保人类生存的主流方法已围绕可持续发展、韧性建设和国际合作等理念 coalesced。其核心信念是，通过协同努力——通常在全球层面协调——我们能够减轻危机并使我们的社会适应新的现实，而不会发生文明的 total collapse。

• 可持续发展目标（SDGs）： 联合国可持续发展目标（2015年通过）代表了一个全面的蓝图，旨在到2030年解决贫困、饥饿、健康、不平等和环境可持续性问题。然而，联合国2023年更新报告警告称，多重全球危机正使可持续发展目标“处于危险之中”，逆转了关键目标的进展。尽管如此，SDGs体现了主流的规范性愿景：在平衡行星极限的同时满足人类需求和权利（广义的生存）。确保生存意味着即使在危机中也要加倍努力实现这些目标——例如，气候行动（SDG13）以避免最坏情景，和平、正义和强大机构（SDG16）以管理冲突，以及全球伙伴关系（SDG17）为最脆弱地区提供资金和技术转让。论文将评估SDG框架在多重危机条件下的可行性，以及是否需要重新构建（例如，纳入更明确的风险降低目标或危机后恢复机制）。
• 气候减缓与适应： 主流生存战略的一个重要线索是应对气候变化，将其作为环境危机的关键。这包括积极的减缓（减少温室气体排放以将升温限制在1.5°C以内）和 robust 的适应（加强基础设施、农业和城市以应对气候影响）。《巴黎协定》（2015年）及随后的缔约方大会是该领域的关键努力。其逻辑是，避免失控的气候变化对于人类生存是不可谈判的；如果失败，其他努力可能会被一个不适宜居住的星球所淹没。然而，适应现在同样被强调，因为某种程度的气候破坏是不可避免的。诸如修建海堤、抗旱作物和应急响应系统等策略可以拯救生命。重要的是，适应也意味着社会适应——例如，如果旧模式（如化石燃料工业或高耗水农业）变得不可持续，就开发新的生计模式。“深度适应”的概念（下文作为边缘视角讨论）随着气候影响加剧，甚至已渗透到一些主流话语中，尽管主流方法通常避免宿命论，并专注于预防和准备。
• 减少灾害风险（DRR）和人道主义响应： 全球各地的机构（从国家政府到红十字会）一直在投资改善DRR和应急响应——认识到在并发灾害的时代，通过主动的风险管理可以提高韧性。《2015-2030年仙台减少灾害风险框架》强调理解风险、加强治理以管理风险、投资于韧性基础设施以及加强备灾。用于飓风的早期预警系统、城市热浪行动计划以及全球疾病监测网络（在COVID后得到加强）是旨在危机来袭时保护生命和维护稳定的措施实例。这些措施可能无法阻止危机的发生，但它们提高了生存几率，并可以通过早期控制灾害来防止级联效应。
• 经济和社会改革： 主流思想 often calls for 改革当前体系，使其更加公平和 robust。例如，建立社会安全网（以便经济衰退或大流行病不会使数百万人陷入贫困）和减少不平等（因为极端不平等破坏社会凝聚力和韧性）。有人呼吁制定“包容性和绿色复苏”计划——利用危机后复苏支出将经济转向可持续道路（例如，可再生能源投资以促进就业和气候）。在国际舞台上，向受危机影响的发展中国家提供债务减免和财政支持的提议被视为 vital（其逻辑是，一个国家的违约或崩溃可能蔓延，并且从道德上讲，需要全球团结）。改革全球机构也在议程上：许多人认为，像联合国、世卫组织、国际货币基金组织这样的组织需要被赋权或重塑，以更好地协调对跨国威胁的响应（古特雷斯关于全球机构“改革或破裂”的恳求反映了这一点）。
• 技术创新与治理： 一种主流的乐观观点认为，人类的聪明才智将开发出解决方案，从清洁能源到气候工程，再到先进的医疗保健，使我们能够克服或至少缓冲危机。然而，人们理解到，治理必须引导创新以防止新问题。因此，生存战略的一部分是为诸如人工智能（以确保其有益而非有害）、实验室研究的生物安全措施，以及像《巴黎协定》这样的能源技术转型协议等事物创建国际治理机制。全球规模的思考 here envisions 某种“地球马歇尔计划”——以前所未有的规模动员科学、技术和资源来解决气候变化并支持适应，同时制定规范以避免最坏的技术结果。

本质上，主流观点围绕着一个对 managed transition 的信念：通过改革、合作和创新，人类可以通过更可持续地转型其系统来 navigate 多重危机，而不会发生 total breakdown。因此，人类生存是一个提升韧性和追求可持续性的项目，而繁荣被想象为实现SDGs——一个即使增长和消费模式改变，人类福祉也能与自然和谐共处的世界。论文将批判性地评估这一观点：渐进式改革是否足够，还是“太少、太迟”？有哪些证据表明国家和机构能够迎接挑战， versus 有哪些证据表明政治惯性或利益阻碍了必要的行动？它将探讨成功（例如，关于臭氧层的《蒙特利尔议定书》的成功常被引证为全球行动可行的证明）和失败（例如，尽管进行了数十年的气候谈判，排放量持续上升），以评估主流方法的可行性。

边缘案例视角：崩溃、转型与替代性未来

除了主流观点之外，一系列替代性或边缘案例视角对多重危机中的生存意义提出了非常不同的看法——有些更暗淡，有些更激进或更具想象力。这些视角通常出现在学术或活动家话语的边缘，但随着传统解决方案 falter，正获得关注。它们包括：

• 崩溃学与深度适应： 越来越多的思想家，如杰姆·本德尔（2018年）及其“深度适应”论文，认为我们必须面对因气候及相关压力导致近期社会崩溃的可能性。崩溃学家认为，工业文明在未来几十年内崩溃 either inevitable or highly likely，因此专注于如何为此类崩溃的着陆做准备和 soften the landing。深度适应涉及“4R”：韧性（我们最珍视并想保留的是什么？）、放弃（我们应该放弃什么以避免情况恶化——例如，奢侈排放）、恢复（我们可以从过去的实践中带回什么来帮助，如地方农业）和和解（与我们当前生活方式的终结和解）。这种视角将生存重新定义为既关乎全球也关乎地方和个人：面对基础设施崩溃，建立社区联系、情感/精神韧性和自给自足的实际技能。支持者 often describe 这并非“放弃”，而是当物质增长不能再被视为理所当然时，专注于真正重要的东西（社区、同情心、与自然的联系）。论文将审视深度适应，将其作为对主流否认的批判，以及在一个永久易发危机的世界中生活的可能蓝图。然而，它也将回应针对崩溃学的批评——例如，它可能成为自我实现的预言，或导致宿命论，从而削弱避免灾难的努力。
• 转型/革命性变革： 一些人认为渐进式改革无法拯救我们；相反，需要对我们社会经济体系进行根本性转型。这包括去增长或后资本主义经济的运动，这些经济不依赖于资源的 endless consumption。去增长学者（如杰森·希克尔）认为，通过更低的 throughput 和更公平的分配，关注福祉而非GDP，人类繁荣是可能的—— essentially downscaling human enterprise to fit Earth’s limits，同时通过社区、健康和教育提高生活质量。另一条线索是呼吁“生态文明”（由环境哲学家和中国的政策 rhetoric 讨论），设想一个通过循环经济、绿色城市和文化价值观转变与自然系统重新和谐共处的社会。政治革命也被考虑：例如，为气候正义而进行的全球起义，或将权力置于公民大会手中以采取大胆行动的深度民主化（与受现状利益束缚的当前政治体制相对）。这些边缘视角坚持认为，没有系统性 overhaul，生存是不可能的：在边缘修修补补无法防止崩溃，因此需要某种类似于范式转变（库恩的术语应用于整个社会）或“大转型”的东西。论文可以探讨诸如转型城镇运动（地方社区重新本地化能源和粮食系统），或提议将全球绿色新政作为一揽子方案同时应对气候和不平等（超越新自由主义经济学）的例子。此类剧烈变革的可行性和风险将被权衡——历史表明转型 often come with instability，但支持者认为另一种选择是崩溃。
• 技术乌托邦和超人类主义愿景： 在另一个非常不同的边缘，一些人认为救赎在于技术超越。例如，超人类主义者相信，先进的科学可能允许人类克服传统限制——通过人工智能、基因工程，甚至意识上传——从而解决疾病、衰老等问题，甚至可能扩展到地球之外。一些科技亿万富翁（埃隆·马斯克、杰夫·贝索斯）公开主张使人类成为“多行星物种”，作为对冲地球灾难的手段（殖民火星或太空栖息地以确保文明延续，即使地球遭受灾难）。这方面的另一个想法是，人工智能可以被引导来比人类更好地管理复杂系统，可能通过优化资源利用和协调响应来 navigate 多重危机—— essentially outsourcing survival to superintelligence，尽管存在巨大的警告，即需要使该人工智能与人类价值观一致（正如生存风险文献所强调的）。这些技术乐观的边缘案例将人类的聪明才智视为无限的，设想一个我们通过创新摆脱多重危机，甚至使一些问题变得无关紧要的未来（例如，气候变化可能通过地球工程甚至离开地球来缓解）。论文将批判性地但认真地对待这些观点：这些解决方案是否现实或合乎道德？它们解决了根本原因还是仅仅逃避了它们？重要的是，谁会受益？（许多超人类主义想法可能加剧不平等——例如，只有富人能逃脱）。尽管如此，这些视角迫使我们考虑我们物种的长期潜在轨迹。从哲学上讲，它们提出了一个问题：我们的目标仅仅是智人的生存，还是进化成超越性的东西，作为一种“生存”形式？这触及到作为人类意味着什么以及我们珍视人性的哪些方面的定义。
• 精神与哲学重构： 另一个边缘视角是更精神或文明哲学的转变。一些思想家认为，确保人类繁荣需要意识的深刻改变——例如，采用 indigenous perspectives of living in balance，或广泛的灵性觉醒以认识到我们的 interconnectedness。其理念是，外部危机反映了价值观和愿景的内部危机。像国民幸福总值（不丹）或“美好生活”（南美洲）这样的运动提供了替代性的繁荣衡量标准，强调与自然和社区的和谐，而非物质积累。在多重危机之后，随着人们寻求超越消费主义的意义，此类价值观可能获得关注。在这种观点中，生存既关乎身体，也关乎文化和心理韧性——培养同理心、团结和希望，以避免社会绝望和冲突。叙事和神话的作用 also comes in：人类可能需要新的故事（后启蒙、后资本主义）来指导我们的集体行动。一些人呼吁为人类世进行“新启蒙”或全球伦理，重新定义进步。虽然难以量化，但这些边缘视角提醒我们，人们如何感知和应对危机是由文化、身份和信仰塑造的——所有这些对于我们能否找到积极的道路还是屈服于分裂至关重要。

论文将吸纳这些边缘案例观点，以确保对可能性进行广泛探索。它不会将它们视为边缘干扰，而是视为重要的“假设”情景，可以揭示主流思维中的盲点。例如，考虑崩溃情景可以识别在最坏情况下哪些能力或资源变得 vital，而这些可能在当前投资不足（例如，种子库、知识保存、社区网络）。技术乌托邦想法，虽然是推测性的，但突显了当前技术发展的轨迹及其治理的 imperative。目标是描绘一系列生存策略——从改革派到激进派，从低技术社区到高技术逃避现实——并批判性地评估它们的假设、权衡和伦理含义。这为最后的分析部分奠定了基础：考虑到这些各种想法和现实的约束，全球集体战略在实践中可能如何实际展开？

全球规模战略与集体应对

面对多重危机，人类如何在全球层面形成集体应对？本节将探讨生存战略中全球性思维与行动的演变，考量社会、政治、经济和技术因素。其核心在于提出：何种形式的合作或治理能够促成对地球级多重危机的有效应对？反之，哪些障碍可能阻碍我们共同成功？

将探讨的关键主题包括：

多边主义的命运： 多重危机浮现之时，正值二战后建立的多边体系（联合国、世界银行等）承受重压。一些人将当前的失败——如未能阻止战争、气候行动迟缓——视为多边主义的失败，而另一些人则主张我们需要更多而非更少的多边主义。有趣的是，有论文提出，不应简单地将多重危机视为多边主义的失败，而应视其为推动多边主义适应的催化剂。例如，在COVID-19疫情期间，出现了新的合作形式（科学家全球共享数据，COVAX疫苗分配计划，尽管不尽完美）。展望未来，当正式机构陷入僵局时，我们可能会看到更多”意愿联盟”或针对特定问题的联盟。”多重危机联盟”或特别工作组的构想已被提出，旨在汇集国家、城市、企业和公民社会，以比联合国大会等方式更灵活地应对相互关联的风险。此外，可能会提出诸如扩大联合国安理会或创建”全球韧性理事会”等改革方案，以更好地应对那些不严格归属于单一领域的系统性风险。联合国秘书长安东尼奥·古特雷斯多次呼吁重振全球团结，并警告缺乏团结将导致世界崩解（”碎片化的世界”与需要”全球妥协”的对比[参考文献]）。本论文将审视关于全球治理改革的讨论，包括在联合国设立”未来实验室”或”后代事务特使”（以纳入长远思维）、为气候难民制定更强有力的国际法，乃至成立一个”世界环境组织”以强制执行气候承诺等提案。

多中心与本地化路径： 另一方面，一些思想家（借鉴埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆的研究）提出，多中心治理——即许多半自治但相互连接的中心（城市、地方社区、区域集团）采取行动——可能比依赖单一的自上而下的世界秩序更具韧性。我们已看到实例：城市组成网络应对气候变化（如C40城市气候领导联盟），或区域性的灾害协议。在多重危机中，若全球协调因地缘政治而动摇，次全球联盟或许能接过重任。风险在于应对方式可能碎片化，但好处在于能进行更多样化的试验，避免”把所有鸡蛋放在一个篮子里”。本论文可能会探讨一些情景，例如某些地区（如欧洲的绿色协议等）有效管理转型而其他地区落后，这对全球结果意味着什么。拼凑式的应对是否足够，还是真正的全球公域问题（如气候）需要统一的战线？或许会出现一种混合模式：例如，气候问题全球处理，而粮食安全则在区域层面解决等。

全球公民社会与运动的作用： 除了国家和正式机构，公民社会和人民运动至关重要。多重危机可能催生新一波全球团结运动——类似于1980年代核战争威胁催生了全球和平运动，或格里塔·通贝里的学校罢课如何演变为全球青年气候运动。我们可能会看到跨国倡导网络将气候、贫困及其他危机作为一项综合议程来推动紧急行动（确实，”气候正义”的概念架起了环境与社会问题之间的桥梁）。诸如”全球公民大会”（在COP26期间试行，古特雷斯支持将其作为吸纳公民声音的一种方式[参考文献]）等创新，暗示了更具参与性的全球治理模式。社交媒体和数字通信以前所未有的速度实现了跨国界的基层协调——这有助于组织援助或抗议活动（例如全球游行），但也助长了错误信息的传播。本论文将探讨全球舆论和非国家行为者的倡议如何能迫使政府采取行动或填补空白（例如，在政府失职的地方由非政府组织协调救援）。多重危机也可能大规模考验人类的同理心：相对安全地区的人们会援助深陷危机的人们（如同在某些与气候相关的灾害中所见），还是民族主义将占上风？答案将决定”集体生存”能否实现，抑或是否会沿着特权界线分崩离析。

经济重新定向： 生存战略很可能需要对全球经济进行重新定向。这包括将投资从有害活动（化石燃料、森林砍伐）转向缓解危机的活动（可再生能源、气候适应基础设施）。有人谈论为应对气候危机启动”战时经济”模式——即像二战时期那样动员资源，但目标是抗击碳排放和贫困。诸如各国的”绿色新政”，或为可持续发展而实施的大规模公共工程计划等战略，可以创造就业并缓解危机压力（例如，对城市进行气候适应性改造既能提高安全性，又能创造就业，减少由失业助长的动荡）。在国际层面，有呼声要求建立新的金融机制：设立全球气候损失与损害基金（2022年原则上同意）以帮助受灾国家，或在较富裕国家至少提供普遍基本收入式的支持，以在自动化和冲击中维持社会稳定。有人提出诸如”债务豁免”（取消或重组主权债务）等激进构想，以为发展中国家提供财政空间来适应气候变化并保障公民生计。多重危机可能迫使多年倡导未能实现之事——例如，认识到全球不平等损害所有人的安全，从而促成更公平的经济安排。反之，如果我们改革失败，经济不稳定可能螺旋式上升（金融危机、资源价格飙升）并加剧政治紧张。本论文将权衡这些经济路径：世界将更倾向于合作经济（或许供应链缩短，但仍进行知识和贸易援助），还是竞争性的零和经济（富裕国家筑垒自保，争夺稀缺资源）？危机历史（如1930年代）提供了保护主义和冲突的警示，而其他时刻（如2008年金融危机）则出现了央行的协调行动。21世纪将遵循哪个先例？

技术与科学合作： 全球应对中一个充满希望的方面是，科技有可能为共同利益而共享。疫情已部分展现了这一点：通过全球科学网络快速开发疫苗，尽管分配不均。对于多重危机，诸如开放获取的气候数据平台，或合作研发抗旱作物和电池存储等倡议，可以极大地助力适应努力。此外，为新兴技术建立全球规范与协议至关重要（如前所述）：例如，一项具有约束力的国际人工智能安全协议（类似于核军控，但针对算法），可以降低人工智能无节制竞争导致灾难的风险[参考文献][参考文献]。空间也成为全球战略的一部分——卫星监测用于环境和冲突预警，潜在的地球工程（这将需要前所未有的全球治理来管理风险和道德风险）。关键在于各国是会携手引导科技为人类谋福利，还是任其成为另一个竞争舞台。将某些技术或知识视为”全球公共产品”的概念可能会得到推广——例如，向较贫穷国家免费提供气候适应技术，或全球共享节水农业技术。

文化与教育转变： 长期来看，度过多重危机可能取决于人类是否学会以长远时间跨度思考并接纳地球管家价值观。这可能涉及教育变革（在学校教授系统思维、未来思维和韧性技能）和媒体变革（打击错误信息，培养全球公民意识）。我们可能会见证一些人所谓的”多重危机心态”的兴起——即在不确定性中保持灵活、预期意外并协同工作的能力。韧性不仅是基础设施的韧性，更是精神和社会的韧性。这种心态通过教育和经验的传播，将影响全球战略获得民众支持的程度。例如，人们是否会为了更大的利益接受生活方式的改变（如减少消费，或从高风险地区迁移）？社会心理学和危机沟通领域的研究为如何在不诱发宿命论或否认的情况下激励合作行动提供了见解。

在本节中，论文很可能会运用情景分析：例如，设想一个”大合作”情景，即在险些遭遇灾难的刺激下（或许是在2030年代一场气候灾难震惊世界后），各国团结起来制定一项雄心勃勃的计划；与之对比的是”堡垒世界”情景，即每个大国各自为政，许多脆弱地区任其崩溃（让人联想到”疯狂的麦克斯”般的反乌托邦场景）。通过评估这些情景，我们可以识别哪些因素将我们推向某一结果（领导力、公众情绪、避免触发因素的运气等）。

一个新兴想法是创建致力于未来生存的全球机构，例如”后代理事会”或关于管理全球灾难性风险（不仅包括人为危机，还包括小行星防御等）的条约协议。像托比·奥德（2020）这样的学者提出，承认生存威胁的严重性本身就可能催生政治创新，就像核毁灭的威胁催生了军控条约和超级大国间的热线[参考文献][参考文献]。我们是否会看到针对气候和人工智能的类似举措——例如，气候风险热线或人工智能超级大国协定？本论文将进行类比，并关注任何初步的努力（例如，2023年一些国家倡议制定人工智能治理框架，或关于逐步淘汰化石燃料的气候”不扩散”条约概念）。

最后，本节将考量全球应对的时间维度。多重危机是一个持续发展的过程，而非一次性事件，因此全球战略如何随时间演变至关重要。近期，危机管理占主导；长期来看，可能会出现实施变革性措施的恢复窗口期（如二战后建立了主要机构）。研究将识别潜在的转折点——轨迹可能（向好或向坏）改变的时机。例如，如果全球平均气温达到某个临界点，或某个冲突升级或解决，在我们的集体应对方式中可能会引发怎样的连锁反应？

通过综合这些不同视角，本论文旨在清晰地描绘出一幅连贯的全球生存战略可能包含的要素图景。它很可能论证，没有任何单一层面或部门能够独自应对多重危机——我们需要结合自上而下与自下而上的努力、国家与公民社会、创新与智慧、即时救济与长期转型。如果我们要避免崩溃，多重危机可能首次迫使人类作为一个全球文明来思考和行动。我们能否迎接这一挑战仍是未定之数，但探索这一问题正是本研究的核心目的。

***************************************************

Dissertation Research Foundations:

Humanity’s Survival Amidst a Polycrisis

Introduction

The world today faces a convergence of crises – climate change, ecological degradation, geopolitical conflicts, social upheavals, and rapid technological disruption – that some analysts collectively term a “polycrisis.” This concept, popularized by historian Adam Tooze, describes how multiple crises “interact so that the whole is even more overwhelming than the sum of the parts”. Unlike a single crisis, a polycrisis is characterized by entangled challenges in economics, politics, society, and the environment feeding into one another. This research aims

to explore whether humanity is entering an unprecedented period of polycrisis, to develop an

interdisciplinary theoretical lens for understanding it, and to investigate how human survival and

flourishing might be achieved under such conditions. The study will also examine how global-

scale strategies and collective responses could evolve to navigate this complex landscape. The

following sections synthesize insights from history, complexity science, resilience theory,

systems thinking, political economy, and philosophy to lay the intellectual foundations for

the dissertation. Each section uses a snowball literature approach, building on key sources until

conceptual saturation, and draws novel connections to inform a transformative understanding of

humanity’s prospects.

Defining the Emerging Polycrisis

Polycrisis is a term that has gained traction to capture the current zeitgeist of multiple

overlapping crises. Originally coined by French philosopher Edgar Morin in the 1970s and later

used by EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the term was revitalized by Tooze in

2022. It refers to a situation where disparate crises – for example, a pandemic, a war, a financial

meltdown, and a climate emergency – occur concurrently and interactively, such that their

combined impact exceeds the sum of individual effects. In Tooze’s words, recent shocks

“no longer seem plausibly traced to a single cause” nor solved by a single fix. Instead, we face a

“converging storm” of challenges that strain our capacity to cope and even our sense of

reality.

Key features of a polycrisis include:

● Emergent Synergy of Harms: The interactions between crises produce novel,

emergent effects. The whole system behaves differently than it would under isolated

stresses. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic fallout was amplified by

pre-existing global supply vulnerabilities and inequality, while the war in Ukraine sparkedan energy and food crisis exacerbated by climate-related crop failures. These entwined

harms are more than or qualitatively different from the sum of individual crises.

● Multiple Causes, No Single Solution: Unlike past singular crises (e.g. a standalone

financial crash), a polycrisis arises from multiple causative factors (economic,

geopolitical, ecological, etc.) and thus resists any one-shot solution. Efforts to address

one facet can worsen another – for example, pushing agricultural production to alleviate

hunger may increase deforestation and carbon emissions. This creates “wicked

problems” where stakeholders even disagree on priorities and remedies.

● Global Interconnectivity: In an age of deep globalization, crises readily cascade

across systems and borders. Local shocks propagate globally, and fast-moving

crises (like pandemics or financial panics) intersect with slow-burning crises (like

climate change, biodiversity loss). The United Nations Development Programme warns

that globalization has generated an “unprecedented number of existential and systemic

risks” that conventional risk management struggles to handle. Dense interdependencies

mean a failure in one domain (health, finance, climate) can trigger others – a

phenomenon described as common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic

feedbacks in one framework.

● Erosion of Resilience: A polycrisis tests the resilience of societies by delivering

shocks with little recovery time between them [ref]. The simultaneous stress on health

systems, economies, and ecosystems can push global systems out of equilibrium into

“volatile and harmful states of disequilibrium”. The World Economic Forum’s Global

Risks Report 2023 highlighted the risk of “concurrent shocks” and “eroding resilience”

creating conditions for a polycrisis. In short, humanity faces a compounding risk

landscape that is difficult to comprehend and manage within existing paradigms.

This dissertation begins by clearly delineating the concept of polycrisis and its manifestations. It

will review how recent events – e.g. the 2020 pandemic, the 2022 energy shock and inflation,

extreme climate disasters – illustrate the entangled nature of modern crises. It will also

interrogate whether “polycrisis” truly adds new understanding or is simply a buzzword, engaging

critics who note that multiple concurrent crises are “nothing new” in history. Establishing a

working definition of polycrisis is crucial before analyzing its unprecedented aspects.

Historical Analogues: Is This Crisis Unprecedented?

A key question is whether today’s polycrisis is unlike any before in history or part of a

recurring pattern. Interdisciplinary historical analysis reveals both parallels and divergences

between the present and past eras of crisis.

Historical Polycrises: Human history contains episodes of compounded crises. Scholars have

studied periods like the “General Crisis” of the 17th century, when climate cooling (the Little

Ice Age) coincided with famines, plagues, wars and revolutions across much of the world.

Similarly, the 14th century saw the convergence of the Great Famine, the Black Death

pandemic, and widespread warfare. More recently, the early 20th century could be seen as a

polycrisis: World War I, the 1918 flu pandemic, the Great Depression, and World War II formeda chain of calamities. These examples underscore that multiple stresses have converged

before, challenging societies’ adaptive capacities. Indeed, environmental-historical research

shows climate stresses have historically interacted with social fragilities to foment upheavals –

for example, droughts triggering crop failures, famine, disease, and conflict in a cascading

fashion [ref] [ref]. In short, polycrises are not entirely unprecedented; “these types of

stressors have been an inherent part of the human experience” and at times converged in the

past [ref].

However, important differences set the current era apart:

● Global Scale and Synchrony: Past crises were often regional; today’s challenges are

truly global in scope and simultaneous. For the first time, virtually all of humanity is

interconnected in a single political-economy system, and crises like climate change or a

pandemic are worldwide. The polycrisis of the Anthropocene is marked by an

unprecedented synchrony – nearly all regions facing serious risks at once [ref].

Historical crises were typically asynchronous (e.g., one empire’s collapse might be

another’s rise), whereas now “the scale and global synchrony of these threats present

novel challenges” [ref]. This global alignment means fewer safe havens and the

potential for truly worldwide systemic failure, a scenario not seen in earlier localized

collapses.

● Planetary Boundaries & Ecological Limits: Never before have human activities so

fundamentally threatened the stability of Earth’s ecological systems as they do today.

The current polycrisis is “truly singular” in that human-driven planetary changes (climate

warming, biodiversity collapse, pollution, etc.) are undermining the very life-support

systems upon which societies depend. Past civilizations collapsed regionally due to

resource exhaustion or climate shifts, but today’s industrial civilization pushes the entire

planet into a new state (the Anthropocene). For example, atmospheric CO₂ levels and

mass extinction rates have no historical precedent in human timescales – a qualitative

ecological break from history. This means contemporary humanity faces biophysical

limits (e.g., the 1.5°C climate threshold) that are structurally new, making the current

crisis unparalleled in its potential to “imperil all of our other global systems”.

● Complex Interdependence: The intricate complexity of modern global systems –

financial networks, supply chains, digital infrastructure, etc. – has reached levels far

beyond pre-modern societies [ref] [ref]. We have built a “global civilization of

unparalleled complexity, wealth, and inequality” heavily reliant on finite resources [ref]

[ref]. This complexity brings efficiency but also vulnerability: a shock in one node (like a

financial hub or an oil chokepoint) can rapidly transmit worldwide. In historical crises,

connections were fewer and slower. Today, a disruption (whether a virus or a conflict)

swiftly ripples through trade, finance, and information systems, potentially triggering

simultaneous crises in far-flung regions [ref]. The Global Polycrisis study by Lawrence

et al. (2024) emphasizes how modern crises are causally entangled across systems in

ways poorly understood in any prior era.

● Human Technological Power: Humanity now wields technologies capable of

destroying civilization outright, or altering our future fundamentally – nuclear

weapons, bioengineering, artificial intelligence. The mid-20th century introduced nuclearwar as an existential risk with no real historical precursor. Likewise, emerging

technologies (AI, biotechnology, geoengineering) could either help solve crises or

introduce new ones (like self-inflicted existential risks). As Carl Sagan observed, we

have become “powerful without becoming commensurately wise” [ref]. This mismatch

between technological acceleration and governance means we face threats (and

choices) with no precedent – for example, advanced AI that experts warn could pose

extinction-level risk if misaligned [ref]. Earlier societies never had to manage such

species-level technological dangers.

In summary, the dissertation’s historical comparative analysis will argue that while multi-

faceted crises are not new, the current polycrisis differs in scale, complexity, and stakes.

It combines familiar patterns (multiple stresses, governance failures, social unrest) with

historically unique factors (planetary ecological disruption, total global connectivity, and

existential technologies). This dual perspective – recognizing past analogues but also novel

predicaments – is crucial. It guards against both false optimism (“we handled crises before, this

is no different”) and fatalistic novelty (“we are doomed because it’s never been this bad”).

Instead, it situates today’s challenges in context: understanding common dynamics of societal

distress from history [ref], while also acknowledging we may be entering uncharted territory

requiring new thinking.

Theoretical Lens: Complexity, Systems, and Resilience

To frame the polycrisis, this research adopts an interdisciplinary theoretical lens drawing on

complexity science, systems thinking, resilience theory, political economy, and philosophy. The

polycrisis cannot be adequately understood through a single-discipline model; instead, a

holistic, systems-oriented framework is needed to grasp how diverse crises interact and how

humanity can respond. Key theoretical foundations include:

● Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS): The polycrisis can be viewed as a phenomenon

emerging from the complex adaptive systems that make up the modern world (climate

system, global economy, geopolitical order, etc.). Complexity science teaches that in

such systems, nonlinear interactions produce emergent properties – echoing the

polycrisis idea that the whole is different (often worse) than the sum of parts. CAS theory

emphasizes feedback loops, tipping points, and unpredictable outcomes. A small

trigger can cascade into a large crisis if the system is near a critical threshold (e.g., a

local bank failure triggering a global financial meltdown). Lawrence et al. (2024) provide

a useful framework: a fast-moving trigger event (say, a pandemic) combining with

slow-moving stresses (like long-term inequality or climate stress) can push a global

system out of equilibrium into a crisis state. Three causal pathways – shared underlying

stresses, domino-like chains of impact, and cross-system feedback loops – explain how

crises become synchronized. Using this complexity lens, the dissertation will analyze the

dynamics of crisis entanglement (how, for example, an ecological crisis can spur

economic and political crises via feedback mechanisms). It will also draw on conceptslike panarchy and adaptive cycles (from ecology) to consider if the polycrisis marks a

phase of systemic release and reorganization (an idea from resilience theory, below).

● Systems Thinking & Holism: Systems thinking complements complexity science by

encouraging a holistic view of problems. Rather than tackling issues in silos, systems

thinking stresses the interconnections and context. For a polycrisis, this means

mapping how climate, economy, politics, and technology interrelate on a global scale. It

provides tools like causal loop diagrams and scenario modeling to visualize

interdependencies. For instance, a systems perspective can illustrate the feedback loop

between social unrest and environmental decline: political instability can hinder climate

action, leading to worse environmental stress that in turn fuels more instability [ref]. This

approach will help identify potential leverage points (Meadows, 1999) where

interventions could alleviate multiple crises at once (e.g., renewable energy addressing

climate, economic renewal, and geopolitical stability). Systems thinking also aligns with

complexity-friendly policy, acknowledging uncertainty and avoiding overly simplistic

“silver bullets”. Instead, it supports adaptive, iterative strategies that can adjust as

conditions change – crucial in a fast-evolving polycrisis. Applied to global survival, it

suggests we need integrated strategies and institutions that break out of single-issue

mindsets.

● Resilience Theory: Resilience theory (from ecology and sustainability science) focuses

on a system’s ability to withstand shocks and regenerate. In the context of polycrisis,

resilience is the capacity of human societies and global systems to absorb disturbances

without collapsing into unrecoverable states. This theory contributes the idea of

thresholds and regime shifts: a society may endure stresses up to a point, but beyond

a threshold it could transform drastically (e.g., democratic order giving way to

authoritarianism under sustained crisis pressure [ref], or an economy shifting from

globalized to autarkic if trade systems break). Resilience is not just about resisting

change, but also about adaptive transformation – reorganizing in the face of crisis to

maintain core functions. Notably, some scholars recast “collapse” as extreme

adaptation: a forced reset that can eventually lead to new, possibly more resilient

systems [ref]. This is a provocative lens: it suggests that what looks like failure (societal

collapse) can be nature’s or system’s way of shedding maladaptive structures, after

which reorganization occurs (as per Holling’s adaptive cycle). The dissertation will

explore whether the unfolding polycrisis could be driving such a cycle on a global scale –

a turbulent transition to new forms of civilization. Resilience thinking also brings

attention to building buffers, diversity, and redundancy in systems to avoid crossing

critical thresholds. Concepts like community resilience, ecological resilience, and

social capital are examined as factors that make the difference between societies that

adapt or unravel under stress [ref] [ref]. For example, research from the Crisis

Database (CrisisDB) project shows that long-term cultural and institutional structures

determine whether societies can collectively respond to crises or fall into division and

collapse [ref] [ref]. The theoretical framework will thus integrate resilience indicators

(e.g., inequality levels, governance quality, resource reserves) in assessing how different

polycrisis scenarios might play out.● Political Economy: Any analysis of global crisis must account for the economic and

power structures that shape vulnerabilities and responses. A political economy lens

examines how the capitalist world-system, state interests, and class dynamics contribute

to the polycrisis. Some argue that today’s polycrisis is rooted in the crisis tendencies of

late capitalism – such as overexploitation of nature, extreme inequality, and unstable

financialization – coming to a head. For instance, climate change can be seen as a

byproduct of an economic model reliant on fossil fuels and perpetual growth, while

political polarization and inequality are linked to decades of neoliberal globalization. The

dissertation will draw on world-systems theory and thinkers like Immanuel Wallerstein

or Jason Moore (who coined the “Capitalocene”) to contextualize the polycrisis in terms

of an epochal shift or breakdown in the global political-economic order. It will also

consider the concept of hegemonic transitions – historically, periods of overlapping

crises often coincide with shifts in global power (e.g., the decline of empires). Is the

current polycrisis related to a decline of U.S.-led hegemony and a transition to a more

multipolar or fragmented world? Additionally, political economy highlights issues of

agency, power, and interests: whose interests are served or hurt by acknowledging a

“polycrisis”? For instance, powerful actors might resist systemic change that is needed to

resolve crises (such as the fossil fuel industry’s influence). By incorporating political

economy, the theoretical lens remains attuned to the structural drivers (like profit

motives, governance failures, geopolitical rivalries) behind the polycrisis, rather than

treating it as merely a natural occurrence. This helps in formulating realistic strategies for

survival – ones that address root causes and power imbalances (e.g., reforming debt

and trade systems that leave poorer nations highly vulnerable to shocks [ref] [ref]).

● Philosophical Perspectives: Philosophical inquiry provides depth on questions of

human values, ethics, and epistemology amid crisis. The polycrisis challenges not

only our systems but our understanding – as Tooze noted, it reflects our “flailing inability

to grasp our situation” with former confidence. Philosophy can guide how we

conceptualize “survival” and “flourishing” beyond material terms. For instance,

existential philosophy might interpret the polycrisis as a moment of reckoning with

human finitude and the need for meaning in the face of potential collapse. Ethics is

crucial when choices involve trade-offs between present and future generations (climate

justice) or between human welfare and other life (biodiversity). Concepts like Hans

Jonas’s imperative of responsibility or intergenerational justice become pertinent.

Moreover, the polycrisis raises the question of what constitutes a good life when old

certainties crumble – recalling Stoic or Buddhist philosophies that emphasize resilience

of the spirit and adaptability of desires. The dissertation might draw on resilience in

philosophy: for example, Marcus Aurelius’ Stoicism as an inner resilience to turmoil, or

pragmatist philosophy’s focus on adaptive problem-solving. On a different note,

speculative philosophy and future studies (including utopian and dystopian thought

experiments) will be leveraged to imagine alternative futures. In confronting

unprecedented risks (like human extinction from nuclear war or unchecked AI [ref]), we

engage with philosophy of existential risk (e.g., Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord) which

weighs the moral priority of ensuring humanity’s long-term future. This domain also asks:

what ethical framework do we adopt if “survival” is at stake? Effective altruists argue formaximizing the probability of species survival (even proposing investing in space

colonization or bunker shelters), while others argue for focusing on social justice now.

The theoretical lens will incorporate these debates to frame human survival and

flourishing not just as technical problems, but as deeply normative questions about what

we value and hope to preserve through the turmoil.

By integrating these perspectives, the research constructs a theoretical lens capable of

capturing the polycrisis in its full complexity. It treats the current crisis as a systemic,

adaptive challenge (complexity/resilience), shaped by structural inequities (political economy),

and demanding new ways of thinking (philosophical and ethical reflection). This lens will be

applied consistently in subsequent analysis, providing a guiding framework for interpreting

evidence and formulating responses.

Dimensions of the Polycrisis and Societal Impacts

Under this framework, we identify and examine the major dimensions of the emerging

polycrisis and their impacts on society. These dimensions – environmental, socio-political, and

technological – are deeply interlinked. The dissertation will treat them not as separate silos but

as interacting spheres whose collisions and feedbacks define the polycrisis.

Environmental Stressors

Climate change stands at the core of the environmental polycrisis. As global temperatures rise,

we witness more frequent and severe disasters (heatwaves, droughts, floods, wildfires) that

strain infrastructure, food systems, and habitable land. Climate change is a “risk multiplier” that

exacerbates economic and political tensions – for example, climate-driven human migration

is already challenging borders and social cohesion [ref]. Beyond climate, the planet is facing a

broader ecological crisis: rapid biodiversity loss (the “sixth extinction”), deforestation,

collapsing fisheries, freshwater scarcity, and pollution of air, water, and soil [ref]. These trends,

often less visibly acute than a climate disaster, nonetheless erode the natural capital and

ecosystem services that underpin human civilization (e.g., pollination, soil fertility, a stable

hydrological cycle). Environmental scientists warn we are transgressing planetary boundaries

– safe operating limits for Earth’s systems – entering a zone of heightened risk for irreversible

changes (Steffen et al., 2015). For instance, Arctic ice melt and rainforest dieback could trigger

feedback loops accelerating warming beyond human control. The impacts on society are

profound: threats to food security from droughts and biodiversity decline, increased disease

risks (as climates shift and habitats are disrupted), damage to livelihoods and homes from

extreme weather, and a growing likelihood of resource conflicts or climate wars over water and

arable land. The environment dimension also has a temporal character: some effects are slow-

burning (sea-level rise) and others are sudden (a hurricane), which complicates governance –

societies must manage urgent crises while also investing in long-term adaptation and mitigation.

In sum, environmental stressors present an existential challenge; as one analysis noted, human

pressure has pushed Earth’s systems so far “as to imperil all of our other global systems”. This

dissertation will examine environmental collapse scenarios and their cascading effects onhuman systems, using case studies like the impact of prolonged drought on state stability

(e.g., Syria’s drought and civil war link) to illustrate how environmental and socio-political crises

feed each other [ref].

Socio-Political Upheavals

Societies worldwide are experiencing turbulence in the socio-political sphere, from rising

inequality and social fragmentation to democratic backsliding and geopolitical conflict.

Economic inequality and precarity have grown both within and between countries, partly as a

result of globalization and neoliberal policies. This fuels social discontent, populist movements,

and erodes trust in institutions. We see a backlash against elites and technocrats, contributing

to polarization. Political extremism and authoritarianism are on the rise in many countries, as

populations, anxious about their security and identity amid rapid change, turn to strongman

leaders or nationalist ideologies [ref]. These trends can undermine international cooperation just

when it’s most needed, as nations adopt “zero-sum” stances or inward-looking policies.

Geopolitical tensions have also escalated – exemplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,

which not only caused immense human suffering but also destabilized global energy and food

markets. U.S.-China strategic rivalry adds further risk of conflict and impedes coordination on

global issues like climate. In effect, the polycrisis includes a crisis of the global political order:

the post-Cold War multilateral framework is strained by great-power competition and a

resurgence of militarism (e.g., nuclear threats re-emerging). Additionally, social cohesion is

threatened by cultural conflicts and misinformation (sometimes termed an “infodemic”). The

rapid spread of conspiracy theories and deliberate disinformation – often via social media – has

made collective problem-solving harder, as societies even lack a shared basis of facts. All these

factors can entrench a vicious cycle: under stress, societies can become less tolerant, less

democratic, and more prone to conflict, which in turn makes them less capable of mitigating

crises (for instance, an authoritarian regime may prioritize silencing dissent over addressing a

famine or pandemic effectively [ref]). The dissertation will analyze how socio-political upheaval

both contributes to and results from other crisis dimensions. For example, it will explore how

pandemics and economic shocks increase political instability, and conversely how war or

unrest worsens humanitarian crises and impedes climate action [ref]. Historical analogies (like

the 1930s Depression leading to political extremism) will be drawn to glean insights, but the

focus will be on current manifestations such as the strain on democracy and human rights

during concurrent emergencies (e.g., emergency powers in COVID, surveillance technologies,

etc.).

Technological Acceleration and Disruption

Technology is a double-edged dimension in the polycrisis. On one hand, accelerating

technological change – in digital networks, automation, artificial intelligence (AI),

biotechnology, etc. – drives much of the rapid socio-economic transformation that can

destabilize societies (e.g., labor markets upended by automation, privacy eroded by digital

surveillance, cyber warfare capabilities threatening security). On the other hand, technological

advances provide tools that could help solve crises (renewable energy technology for climate,medical innovations for health threats, etc.), making the governance of technology a critical

factor. The current period has been called the “Great Acceleration” (referring originally to the

post-1950 surge in consumption and impacts on Earth, but also applicable to the exponential

pace of tech innovation). A core issue is that technology is evolving faster than our social

adaptation and governance capacity. As one analysis put it, there is “an ever-growing gap

between the phenomenal acceleration of technology…and the human capacity to manage these

trends” [ref]. This governance gap is stark in areas like AI: the world is only beginning to

discuss rules for AI ethics and safety, even as algorithms already influence economies and

opinions globally. The risk is that powerful technologies are deployed without sufficient

foresight, leading to new crises – e.g., a failure to regulate AI could contribute to mass

unemployment (a social crisis) or even an existential catastrophe if future superintelligent AI

acts contrary to human survival [ref]. Similarly, cyber-technology has introduced the chronic

crisis of cybersecurity threats, with critical infrastructure at risk of hacking, which could coincide

with physical crises (imagine a cyber-attack on a power grid during a heatwave). Biotechnology

advances, while promising for health, also raise the danger of engineered pandemics.

Furthermore, the information ecosystem has been radically changed by social media

algorithms, contributing to social polarization and the spread of false information during crises

(e.g., anti-vaccine propaganda during COVID-19). This technological dimension accelerates the

tempo of events (crises unfold faster) and can amplify the scope (a local event can become

global via media virality or system interconnectedness). The dissertation will evaluate both the

threats and the potential of technology: How does technological acceleration fuel the

polycrisis, and can it be harnessed to pull us out of it? It will look at ideas such as early

warning systems using big data and AI to predict crises (e.g., climate disaster forecasting,

epidemic modeling) and how technology might boost resilience (e.g., renewable energy

microgrids for climate resilience, digital platforms for coordinating disaster response).

Conversely, it will discuss scenarios where technology itself becomes the crisis (for example,

misaligned AI as an existential risk, as warned by Toby Ord and others [ref]). This balanced

analysis recognizes that the trajectory of technological development, shaped by policy and

ethics, will significantly influence whether humanity succumbs to the polycrisis or finds

innovative pathways through it.

Synergistic Impacts and Feedback Loops

A hallmark of the polycrisis is that these dimensions do not operate in isolation. The

dissertation will pay special attention to the synergistic impacts – the ways in which

environmental, socio-political, and technological crises compound each other. For example:

● Climate ↔ Conflict Feedback: Climate stress (environmental) can induce resource

scarcity and displacement, which heighten ethnic tensions or geopolitical rivalries

(social/political), potentially sparking conflict – as seen in regions where drought

precedes civil unrest [ref]. Conflict then hampers environmental management and can

cause ecological destruction (scorched earth tactics, neglect of conservation). This loop

can trap regions in persistent instability.● Economic Shocks ↔ Political Extremism: A financial crisis or automation-driven job loss

(techno-economic crisis) increases unemployment and inequality, fueling public anger

(social crisis) and giving rise to extremist politics or protectionism. Those political

responses can in turn destabilize markets further or lead to international trade wars,

worsening the economic crisis – a self-reinforcing cycle reminiscent of the 1930s, but

now potentially global in reach.

● Pandemic ↔ Economic ↔ Climate Cascade: The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated a

cascade: a health crisis led to economic lockdowns; governments responded with large

spending (increasing debts); supply chain breakdowns ensued, contributing to inflation;

then as economies reopened, demand spikes plus disrupted energy markets

(exacerbated by war) led to an energy crisis just as climate disasters hit supply (e.g.,

droughts reducing hydroelectric power and harvests). This concoction produced what

the World Bank dubbed a “crisis cocktail” by 2022. Each element magnified the others –

e.g., high fuel prices made food pricier, hitting vulnerable populations hardest and

spurring protests in some countries. Thus, a nominally health crisis evolved into a socio-

economic and geopolitical crisis.

● Policy Dilemmas (Crisis Trade-offs): Attempts to solve one crisis can aggravate

another, creating tragic dilemmas. For instance, intensive irrigation to grow more

food helps avert famine but can deplete groundwater and worsen future water stress

(environment vs. food security). Or, pandemic lockdowns protect health but harm

livelihoods and mental health (health vs. economy/social well-being). The polycrisis is

rife with such entangled choices, where policymakers face “damned if you do, damned

if you don’t” scenarios. Recognizing these interdependencies is key to crafting

nuanced solutions that avoid simply shifting the burden.

The research will utilize case studies to illustrate these interactions. One likely case is the

Syria crisis: a severe multi-year drought (linked to climate change) contributed to rural collapse

and urban migration, which compounded pre-existing political grievances, sparking civil war; the

war led to mass refugee flows, influencing politics as far away as Europe and straining

international norms – an environmental, social, and geopolitical crisis rolled into one. Another

case could be the 2022 global food crisis, where conflict (Ukraine war), climate (heat and

drought in key breadbaskets), and economic (supply chain, fertilizer price) factors converged to

push food insecurity to extreme levels, threatening 276 million people with acute hunger (as

per the UN) [ref] [ref]. By dissecting such examples, the dissertation demonstrates concretely

how the polycrisis manifests in the real world and what the consequences are for human

societies (e.g., rising poverty, displacement, mortality, erosion of development gains). It will also

highlight the pernicious role of uncertainty and cognitive overload – as crises multiply,

leaders and citizens alike struggle to prioritize and understand complex risk interactions, often

leading to short-term fixes rather than strategic responses. The outcome is often policy

paralysis or incoherence, which itself becomes part of the crisis (a governance crisis).

In sum, this section of the dissertation maps the landscape of the polycrisis, detailing its main

components and showing that their intersections are where the most severe dangers lie.Society is not just dealing with parallel challenges, but a tight web of cause and effect that

constitutes a new context for human survival. Understanding these dynamics sets the stage for

asking: what would it mean for humanity to survive and even flourish in such turbulent times?

Rethinking Human Survival and Flourishing in a Polycrisis Era

With the predicament defined, the dissertation shifts to examining how human survival and

flourishing can be understood and pursued under polycrisis conditions. This involves engaging

both mainstream perspectives and edge-case (alternative) viewpoints on what it takes for

humanity to endure and thrive amid upheaval. It is an inherently philosophical and scenario-

driven inquiry, as it forces us to ask not only “How can we survive?” but also “What are we

surviving for?” and “What might flourishing look like in a transformed world?”

Mainstream Perspectives: Resilience, Sustainability, and Reform

The mainstream approach to ensuring human survival in the face of global crises has coalesced

around ideas of sustainable development, resilience building, and international

cooperation. At its core is the belief that through concerted effort – often coordinated at the

global level – we can mitigate the crises and adapt our societies to new realities without a

total collapse of civilization.

● Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The United Nations’ SDGs (adopted in

2015) represent a comprehensive blueprint to address poverty, hunger, health,

inequality, and environmental sustainability by 2030. However, the UN’s 2023 update

cautions that multiple global crises are putting the SDGs “in peril”, reversing progress on

key goals [ref]. Still, the SDGs embody the mainstream normative vision: meeting human

needs and rights (survival in a broad sense) in balance with planetary limits. Ensuring

survival means doubling down on these goals even amidst crisis – for example, climate

action (SDG13) to avert the worst scenarios, peace, justice, and strong institutions

(SDG16) to manage conflicts, and global partnerships (SDG17) for finance and

technology transfer to the most vulnerable regions. The dissertation will evaluate how

feasible the SDG framework is under polycrisis conditions and whether it needs

reframing (e.g., incorporating more explicit risk reduction targets or post-crisis recovery

mechanisms).

● Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: A significant thread in mainstream survival

strategy is tackling climate change as the linchpin of the environmental crisis. This

includes aggressive mitigation (cutting greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming to

1.5°C) and robust adaptation (strengthening infrastructure, agriculture, and cities against

climate impacts). The Paris Agreement (2015) and subsequent COP summits are key

efforts in this realm. The logic is that avoiding runaway climate change is non-negotiable

for human survival; failing that, other efforts may be overwhelmed by an inhospitable

planet. However, adaptation is equally emphasized now because some degree ofclimate disruption is unavoidable. Strategies such as building sea walls, drought-

resistant crops, and emergency response systems save lives. Importantly, adaptation

also means social adaptation – e.g. developing new livelihood models if old ones (like

fossil-fuel industries or water-intensive farming) become untenable. The concept of

“deep adaptation” (discussed below as an edge perspective) has even permeated

some mainstream discourse as climate impacts intensify, though mainstream

approaches generally avoid fatalism and focus on prevention and preparedness.

● Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Humanitarian Response: Institutions worldwide

(from national governments to the Red Cross) have been investing in improving DRR

and emergency response – recognizing that in an age of concurrent disasters, resilience

can be increased by proactive risk management. The Sendai Framework for Disaster

Risk Reduction (2015-2030) emphasizes understanding risks, strengthening governance

to manage them, investing in resilience infrastructure, and enhancing disaster

preparedness. Early warning systems for cyclones, heat action plans for cities, and

global disease surveillance networks (strengthened post-COVID) are examples of

measures intended to protect lives and maintain stability when crises strike. While these

may not stop crises from occurring, they improve survival odds and can prevent

cascading effects by containing disasters early.

● Economic and Social Reforms: Mainstream thought often calls for reforms to the

current system to make it more equitable and robust. For example, building social

safety nets (so that economic downturns or pandemics do not push millions into

destitution) and reducing inequality (since extreme inequality undermines social

cohesion and resilience [ref]). There are calls for “inclusive and green recovery” plans –

using post-crisis recovery spending to shift economies onto sustainable paths (e.g.,

renewable energy investments for jobs and climate). In the international arena,

proposals for debt relief and financial support to crisis-hit developing countries are

seen as vital (the logic being that a default or collapse in one country can spread, and

morally, global solidarity is needed). Reforming global institutions is also on the agenda:

many argue organizations like the UN, WHO, IMF need to be empowered or reshaped to

better coordinate responses to transnational threats (Guterres’ plea for “reform or

rupture” in global institutions reflects this [ref]).

● Technological Innovation and Governance: A mainstream optimistic view is that

human ingenuity will develop solutions, from clean energy to climate engineering to

advanced healthcare, that allow us to overcome or at least buffer the crises. However,

it’s understood that governance must guide innovation to prevent new problems.

Thus, part of survival strategy is creating international governance regimes for things like

AI (to ensure it’s beneficial, not harmful [ref]), biosecurity measures for lab research, and

agreements like the Paris accord for energy technology transition. Global-scale thinking

here envisions something like a “Marshall Plan for the Earth” – mobilizing science, tech,

and resources on an unprecedented scale to solve climate change and support

adaptation, while instituting norms to avoid worst-case tech outcomes.

In essence, mainstream perspectives revolve around a belief in managed transition: through

reforms, cooperation, and innovation, humanity can navigate the polycrisis by transforming itssystems more sustainably without a total breakdown. Human survival is thus a project of

improving resilience and pursuing sustainability, and flourishing is imagined as achieving the

SDGs – a world where human well-being is secured in harmony with nature, even if growth and

consumption patterns change. The dissertation will critically assess this view: Is incremental

reform enough, or is it “too little, too late”? What evidence is there that states and institutions

can rise to the challenge, versus evidence that political inertia or interests impede necessary

action? It will explore both successes (e.g., the Montreal Protocol’s success on the ozone layer

often cited as proof global action can work) and failures (e.g., continued rising emissions despite

decades of climate talks) to gauge the viability of the mainstream approach.

Edge-Case Perspectives: Collapse, Transformation, and Alternative

Futures

Beyond the mainstream, a range of alternative or edge-case perspectives offer very different

takes on what survival means in a polycrisis – some darker, some more radical or imaginative.

These perspectives often emerge from the margins of academic or activist discourse but are

gaining attention as conventional solutions falter. They include:

● Collapsology and Deep Adaptation: A growing number of thinkers, such as Jem

Bendell (2018) with his “Deep Adaptation” paper, argue that we must confront the

probability of a near-term societal collapse due to climate and related stresses.

Collapsologists contend that the collapse of industrial civilization in coming decades is

either inevitable or highly likely, and thus focus on how to prepare for and soften the

landing of such a collapse [ref] [ref]. Deep Adaptation involves the “4 R’s”: Resilience

(what do we most value that we want to keep?), Relinquishment (what should we give

up to not make matters worse – e.g., luxury emissions), Restoration (what can we bring

back from past practices to help, like local agriculture), and Reconciliation (making

peace with the end of our current way of life). This perspective reframes survival as local

and personal as much as global: building community ties, emotional/spiritual resilience,

and practical skills for self-sufficiency in the face of infrastructure breakdown. Rather

than seeing this as “giving up,” proponents often describe it as focusing on what truly

matters (community, compassion, connection to nature) when material growth can no

longer be taken for granted [ref] [ref]. The dissertation will examine deep adaptation as a

critique of mainstream denial and as a possible blueprint for living in a permanently

crisis-prone world. However, it will also engage with critiques of collapsology – e.g., that

it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy or lead to fatalism that undermines efforts to avert

disaster.

● Transformative / Revolutionary Change: Some argue that incremental reform won’t

save us; instead, fundamental transformations of our socio-economic system are

required. This includes movements for degrowth or a post-capitalist economy that

doesn’t depend on endless consumption of resources. Degrowth scholars (e.g., Jason

Hickel) argue human flourishing is possible with lower throughput and more equitable

distribution, focusing on well-being instead of GDP – essentially downscaling human

enterprise to fit Earth’s limits while improving quality of life through community, health,and education. Another thread is the call for an “ecological civilization” (discussed by

environmental philosophers and in China’s policy rhetoric), envisioning a society that has

re-harmonized with natural systems via circular economies, green cities, and cultural

shifts in values. Political revolution is also contemplated: for instance, a global uprising

for climate justice or a deep democratization that puts power in the hands of citizens

assemblies to take bold action (as opposed to current political establishments tied to

status quo interests). These edge perspectives insist that survival is not possible without

systemic overhaul: tinkering at the margins won’t prevent collapse, so something akin to

a paradigm shift (Kuhn’s term applied to society at large) or a “Great Transition” is

needed. The dissertation can explore examples like the Transition Towns movement

(local communities re-localizing energy and food systems), or proposals for a Global

Green New Deal that simultaneously addresses climate and inequality as a package

(moving beyond neoliberal economics). The feasibility and risks of such drastic changes

will be weighed – history shows transformations often come with instability, but

proponents argue the alternative is collapse.

● Techno-Utopian and Transhumanist Visions: On a very different edge, some see

salvation in technological transcendence. For instance, transhumanists believe that

advancing science might allow humans to overcome traditional limits – through AI,

genetic engineering, or even mind uploading – thus solving problems like disease, aging,

possibly even expanding beyond Earth. Some tech billionaires (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos)

publicly advocate for making humanity a “multiplanetary species” as a hedge against

Earth-bound catastrophes (colonizing Mars or space habitats to ensure continuity of

civilization even if Earth suffers) [ref]. Another idea in this vein is that artificial

intelligence could be directed to manage complex systems better than humans can,

potentially navigating the polycrisis by optimizing resource use and coordinating

responses – essentially outsourcing survival to superintelligence, albeit with the

enormous caveat of aligning that AI with human values (as the existential risk literature

highlights [ref]). These techno-optimistic edge cases treat human ingenuity as limitless,

envisioning a future where we innovate our way out of the polycrisis or even render

some problems moot (e.g., climate change might be mitigated by geoengineering or

even leaving the planet). The dissertation will treat these views critically but seriously:

Are such solutions realistic or ethical? Do they address root causes or simply escape

them? And importantly, who would benefit? (Many transhumanist ideas could increase

inequality – e.g., only the rich escaping). Still, these perspectives force us to consider

the long-term potential trajectory of our species. Philosophically, they raise the question:

is our goal mere survival of Homo sapiens, or the evolution into something beyond, as a

form of “survival”? This touches on definitions of what it means to be human and what

we value about humanity.

● Spiritual and Philosophical Reframing: Another edge perspective is a more spiritual

or civilizational-philosophical shift. Some thinkers suggest that ensuring human

flourishing requires a profound change in consciousness – for example, adopting

indigenous perspectives of living in balance, or widespread spiritual awakening to our

interconnectedness. The idea is that external crises reflect an internal crisis of values

and vision. Movements like Gross National Happiness (Bhutan) or Buen Vivir (SouthAmerica) offer alternative measures of flourishing that emphasize harmony with nature

and community over material accumulation. In the wake of a polycrisis, such values

could gain traction as people search for meaning beyond consumerism. Survival in this

view is as much about cultural and psychological resilience as physical – nurturing

empathy, solidarity, and hope to avoid societal despair and conflict. The role of

narratives and myths also comes in: humanity may need new stories (post-

Enlightenment, post-capitalist) that guide our collective action. Some have called for a

“New Enlightenment” or global ethics for the Anthropocene that redefines progress.

While hard to quantify, these edge perspectives remind us that how people perceive and

respond to crisis is shaped by culture, identity, and beliefs – all crucial to whether we find

positive pathways or succumb to division.

The dissertation will incorporate these edge-case views to ensure a broad exploration of

possibilities. It will not treat them as fringe distractions, but as important “what if” scenarios

that can illuminate blind spots in mainstream thinking. For instance, considering collapse

scenarios can identify what capacities or resources become vital in worst cases, which might be

underinvested in currently (e.g., seed banks, knowledge preservation, community networks).

Techno-utopian ideas, while speculative, highlight the trajectory of current tech development

and its governance imperative. The goal is to map a spectrum of survival strategies – from

reformist to radical, from low-tech communal to high-tech escapist – and critically evaluate their

assumptions, trade-offs, and ethical implications. This sets the stage for the final analytical

section: how might global collective strategy actually unfold, in practice, given these various

ideas and the constraints of reality?

Global-Scale Strategies and Collective Responses

In the face of a polycrisis, how might humanity collectively respond at the global scale? This

section examines the evolution of global thinking and action for survival strategies,

considering social, political, economic, and technological factors. It essentially asks: What forms

of cooperation or governance could enable an effective response to a planetary polycrisis? and

conversely What obstacles might prevent us from succeeding together?

Key themes to be explored include:

● The Fate of Multilateralism: The polycrisis has emerged at a time when the post-WWII

multilateral system (UN, World Bank, etc.) is under strain. Some see the current failures

– inability to prevent war, slow climate action – as a failure of multilateralism, while

others argue we need more multilateralism, not less. Interestingly, one paper argues to

view the polycrisis not simply as multilateralism’s failure but as a catalyst for its

adaptation. For instance, during COVID-19, new forms of collaboration emerged

(scientists sharing data globally, COVAX for vaccine distribution, albeit imperfectly).

Moving forward, we might see more coalitions of the willing or issue-specific alliances

when formal institutions are deadlocked. The concept of a “Polycrisis Alliance” or

taskforce has been floated, bringing together countries, cities, corporations, and civilsociety to tackle interconnected risks in a more agile way than, say, the UN General

Assembly. Additionally, reforms like UN Security Council expansion or creating a

Global Resilience Council could be proposed to better address systemic risks that

don’t fit neatly into one domain. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres has

repeatedly called for renewed global solidarity and warned that without it, we face a

breakdown (“fragmenting world” vs needing “global compromise” [ref]). The

dissertation will review the discourse on global governance reforms, including proposals

for a Futures Lab or Envoy for Future Generations at the UN (to incorporate long-term

thinking), stronger international law for climate refugees, or even a World

Environment Organization to enforce climate commitments.

● Polycentric and Localized Approaches: Alternatively, some thinkers (drawing on

Elinor Ostrom’s work) suggest polycentric governance, where many semi-autonomous

but connected centers (cities, local communities, regional blocs) take action, could be

more resilient than relying on one top-down world order. We see examples: cities

forming networks to combat climate change (e.g., C40 cities), or regional disaster

agreements. In a polycrisis, if global coordination falters due to geopolitics, sub-global

coalitions may carry the torch. The risk is a fragmented approach, but the benefit is

more diverse experimentation and not putting all eggs in one basket. The dissertation

might explore scenarios where, for example, some regions effectively manage the

transition (Europe’s Green Deal, etc.) while others fall behind, and what that means for

global outcomes. Does a patchwork response suffice, or do the truly global commons

issues (like climate) demand a unified front? Perhaps a mixed model will emerge: e.g.,

climate handled globally, while food security is tackled regionally, etc.

● The Role of Global Civil Society and Movements: Beyond states and formal

institutions, civil society and people’s movements are crucial. The polycrisis might

spur a new wave of global solidarity movements – analogous to how the threat of

nuclear war in the 1980s fueled a global peace movement, or how Greta Thunberg’s

school strike became a worldwide youth climate movement. We could see transnational

advocacy networks pushing for urgent action on climate, poverty, and other crises as a

combined agenda (indeed, the concept of climate justice bridges environmental and

social issues). Innovations like a Global Citizens’ Assembly (piloted at COP26,

endorsed by Guterres as a way to include citizen voices [ref]) hint at more participatory

global governance models. Social media and digital communication enable grassroots

coordination across borders at unprecedented speed – this can help organize aid or

protests (e.g., global marches), though it also spreads misinformation. The dissertation

will consider how global public opinion and non-state actor initiatives could force

governments’ hands or fill voids (for example, NGOs coordinating relief where states

fail). A polycrisis may also test human empathy at scale: will populations in relatively

safer areas assist those in dire crisis (as seen in some climate-related disasters), or will

nationalism prevail? The answer will shape whether “collective survival” is achievable

or whether it fractures along lines of privilege.

● Economic Reorientation: Survival strategies likely require a reorientation of the global

economy. This includes shifting investments from harmful activities (fossil fuels,

deforestation) to crisis-mitigating ones (renewables, climate adaptation infrastructure).There is talk of a “wartime economy” footing for climate – i.e., mobilizing resources

akin to WWII, but to fight carbon and poverty. Strategies like Green New Deals in

various countries, or massive public works programs for sustainability, could generate

jobs and reduce crisis pressures (for example, retrofitting cities to be climate-resilient

improves safety and employs people, reducing unrest fueled by unemployment).

Internationally, there are calls for new financial mechanisms: a global fund for climate

loss and damage (agreed in principle in 2022) to help disaster-hit countries, or a

universal basic income style support at least in richer countries to maintain social

stability through automation and shocks. Radical ideas such as debt jubilee (cancelling

or restructuring sovereign debts) are proposed to give developing nations fiscal space to

adapt and provide for citizens. The polycrisis might force what years of advocacy haven’t

– e.g., the realization that global inequality undermines everyone’s security, leading

to fairer economic arrangements. Conversely, if we fail to reform, economic instability

could spiral (financial crashes, resource price spikes) and exacerbate political tensions.

The dissertation will weigh these economic pathways: will the world lean more towards

cooperative economics (maybe shortened supply chains, but still trading knowledge and

aid) or competitive zero-sum economics (rich nations fortressing themselves,

competition for scarce resources)? History of crisis (like the 1930s) offers warnings of

protectionism and conflict, whereas other moments (the 2008 financial crisis) saw

coordinated central bank action. Which precedent will the 21st century follow?

● Technological and Scientific Collaboration: A hopeful aspect of global response is

the potential for science and technology to be shared for the common good. The

pandemic showed some of this: rapid vaccine development through global science

networks, though distribution was unequal. For the polycrisis, initiatives such as an

open-access climate data platform or collaborative R&D on drought-resistant

crops and battery storage could significantly aid adaptation efforts. Moreover,

establishing global norms and agreements for emerging tech is crucial (as discussed

earlier): e.g., a binding international agreement on AI safety (analogous to nuclear arms

control, but for algorithms) could reduce the risk of unchecked AI competition leading to

disaster [ref] [ref]. Space also becomes part of global strategy – satellite monitoring for

environmental and conflict early warning, potential geoengineering (which would

demand unprecedented global governance to manage risks and moral hazard). The key

is whether nations will come together to guide tech for humanity’s benefit or let it

become another arena of rivalry. The concept of treating certain technologies or

knowledge as a “global public good” might gain ground – for instance, making climate

adaptation technologies freely available to poorer nations, or sharing water-saving

agricultural techniques globally.

● Cultural and Educational Shifts: Over the long term, surviving the polycrisis may depend on humanity learning to think in long time horizons and embrace planetary stewardship values. This could involve changes in education (teaching systems thinking, futures thinking, and resilience skills in schools), and media (combating misinformation and fostering a sense of global citizenship). We may witness the rise of what some call the “polycrisis mindset” – an ability to stay flexible, expect uncertainty, and work collectively despite ambiguity. Resilience is not just infrastructure but mentaland social resilience. The spread of this mindset, through education and experience, will influence how well global strategies are supported by populations. For example, will people accept lifestyle changes (like consuming less, or relocating from high-risk areas) for the greater good? Social psychology and crisis communication fields offer insight into

how to galvanize cooperative action without inducing fatalism or denial.

Throughout this section, the dissertation will likely employ scenario analysis: e.g., envisioning

a “Great Cooperation” scenario where, spurred by a close brush with disaster, nations unite in

an ambitious plan (perhaps after a climate catastrophe in the 2030s shocks the world into truly

collective action), versus a “Fortress World” scenario where each major power fends for itself,

and many vulnerable regions are left to collapse (a scenario reminiscent of the “Mad Max”

dystopia). By evaluating these, we can identify which factors push us toward one outcome or

the other (leadership, public sentiment, luck in avoiding triggers, etc.).

One emerging idea is the creation of global institutions dedicated to future survival, such as

a Council for Future Generations or treaty agreements on managing global catastrophic risks

(including things like asteroid defense, not just man-made crises). Scholars like Toby Ord

(2020) suggest that acknowledging the magnitude of existential threats could itself lead to

political innovations, much like the threat of nuclear annihilation led to arms control treaties and

the hotline between superpowers [ref] [ref]. Could we see a similar move for climate and AI –

e.g., a Climate Risk Hotline or an AI superpower pact? The dissertation will draw parallels and

note any nascent efforts (for instance, the 2023 initiative by some nations to develop an AI

governance framework, or the concept of a climate “non-proliferation” treaty to phase out fossil

fuels).

Finally, this section will consider the temporal dimension of global responses. The polycrisis is

an unfolding process, not a one-time event, so how global strategy evolves over time is key.

In the near term, crisis management dominates; in the longer term, there may be windows of

recovery to implement transformative measures (like after WWII, major institutions were built).

The research will identify potential inflection points – moments when the trajectory could shift

(for better or worse). For example, if global average temperature hits a certain point, or if a

certain conflict escalates or resolves, what chain reactions might follow in our collective

approach?

By synthesizing these diverse angles, the dissertation aims to articulate a nuanced picture of

what a coherent global survival strategy might entail. It is likely to argue that no single

scale or sector can manage the polycrisis alone – we need a combination of top-down and

bottom-up efforts, state and civil society, innovation and wisdom, immediate relief and long-term

transformation. The polycrisis might compel humanity, for the first time, to think and act as a

global civilization if we are to avoid collapse. Whether we can rise to that challenge remains

an open question, but exploring it is a central purpose of this research.