91
Healing Our Relationship with Gaia
2018; Smitsman, 2019; Wahl, 2016). When we look at living systems, the feedback and feedforward
informational loops support the overall thrivability of the whole system in a way that is both collaborative and actualising of consciousness; i.e., it is evolutionary coherent and developmental (Capra
and Luisi, 2014; Laszlo and Laszlo, 2016). This is in stark contrast to many of our current societal
systems where their progress, development and success come at a huge cost to its members and the
environments from which it draws its resources (Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013; Korten, 2015). This
cost is still not accounted for, even though international frameworks such as the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) and Integrated Reporting (IR) are making it possible to broaden the capitalist model
and report not only on the fnancial impacts of businesses but also their impacts on the environment
and society (Hutchins, 2019).
Underlying these mechanistic systems that create more defciencies than prosperity is a growth
model that is completely out of sync with life. Unfortunately, many of our modern food cultivation
methods are part of this vicious cycle (Haukeland, 2013). Research on modern farming practices is
increasingly being linked to the progressive incidence and prevalence of systemic and autoimmune
diseases of people and animals, as well as to contamination and degradation of the land (Sandifer
et al., 2015). The current coronavirus crisis emphasises this even further, calling for a drastic review
of food cultivation approaches as well as our livestock practices (see Van der Poel, 2020). To better
understand why this growth model has turned so destructive, we will frst explore its underlying
worldviews and developmental processes.
COMPARING INDIGENOUS AND MECHANISTIC WORLDVIEWS
To better understand the development of mechanistic worldviews and practices, we offer some key
refections from other worldviews that are founded on a unity view of life and our relationship
within the natural world. Such worldviews can still be found in the cosmologies and practices of
many indigenous communities (Jacobs, 2016; Lane, 2019a; Randall, 2007; Smitsman et al., 2019),
where reciprocity and co-dependency are regarded as guiding principles and which take great care
to safeguard and honour these reciprocal relationships with the natural systems from which food
resources are extracted (Lane, 2019b; Sanchez, 2017).
What we can learn from such indigenous worldviews is the evolutionary perspective of life (Lane
et al., 2019). The health and thrivability of our ecosystems depend on the fne-tuning and intricate
regulation of complex interdependencies that are nested holarchically – as holons within larger
holons (Sahtouris, 2000). The term holarchy was coined by philosopher Arthur Koestler to describe
how each whole thing within nature is a holon, a whole made of its own parts, yet itself part of a
larger whole (Koestler, 1967). Holarchy also describes behaviour that is partly a function of individual nature and partly a function of the nature of the embedding system (Smitsman, 2019), and
contrasts with growth models that developed from mechanistic dualistic worldviews which have
hierarchical modes of organisation.
Such mechanistic growth models originate from societal changes that started about 5,000 years
ago, when warlike kingdoms or empires started to develop (see Sahtouris, 2000). This period is
characterised by aggressive policies for domination and control, driven by zero-sum game, win–
lose, competitive dynamics. Empire dynamics still dominate today through geopolitical shifts to the
empire of corporations (see Sahtouris and Smitsman, 2019).
The modern dominant conception of progress and development originates from the empire dynamics and its mechanistic worldviews (Smitsman et al., 2019). Restoring a wholeworld-view 1 is crucial to
see the full picture and take responsibility for the impacts of the growth and prosperity models that
we employ today for our societal development. No form of progress can be justifed if this entails the
1 The term wholeworld-view is used to differentiate its wholistic understanding of the wholeworld from otherwise fragmented worldviews.
Healing Our Relationship with Gaia
2018; Smitsman, 2019; Wahl, 2016). When we look at living systems, the feedback and feedforward
informational loops support the overall thrivability of the whole system in a way that is both collaborative and actualising of consciousness; i.e., it is evolutionary coherent and developmental (Capra
and Luisi, 2014; Laszlo and Laszlo, 2016). This is in stark contrast to many of our current societal
systems where their progress, development and success come at a huge cost to its members and the
environments from which it draws its resources (Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013; Korten, 2015). This
cost is still not accounted for, even though international frameworks such as the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) and Integrated Reporting (IR) are making it possible to broaden the capitalist model
and report not only on the fnancial impacts of businesses but also their impacts on the environment
and society (Hutchins, 2019).
Underlying these mechanistic systems that create more defciencies than prosperity is a growth
model that is completely out of sync with life. Unfortunately, many of our modern food cultivation
methods are part of this vicious cycle (Haukeland, 2013). Research on modern farming practices is
increasingly being linked to the progressive incidence and prevalence of systemic and autoimmune
diseases of people and animals, as well as to contamination and degradation of the land (Sandifer
et al., 2015). The current coronavirus crisis emphasises this even further, calling for a drastic review
of food cultivation approaches as well as our livestock practices (see Van der Poel, 2020). To better
understand why this growth model has turned so destructive, we will frst explore its underlying
worldviews and developmental processes.
COMPARING INDIGENOUS AND MECHANISTIC WORLDVIEWS
To better understand the development of mechanistic worldviews and practices, we offer some key
refections from other worldviews that are founded on a unity view of life and our relationship
within the natural world. Such worldviews can still be found in the cosmologies and practices of
many indigenous communities (Jacobs, 2016; Lane, 2019a; Randall, 2007; Smitsman et al., 2019),
where reciprocity and co-dependency are regarded as guiding principles and which take great care
to safeguard and honour these reciprocal relationships with the natural systems from which food
resources are extracted (Lane, 2019b; Sanchez, 2017).
What we can learn from such indigenous worldviews is the evolutionary perspective of life (Lane
et al., 2019). The health and thrivability of our ecosystems depend on the fne-tuning and intricate
regulation of complex interdependencies that are nested holarchically – as holons within larger
holons (Sahtouris, 2000). The term holarchy was coined by philosopher Arthur Koestler to describe
how each whole thing within nature is a holon, a whole made of its own parts, yet itself part of a
larger whole (Koestler, 1967). Holarchy also describes behaviour that is partly a function of individual nature and partly a function of the nature of the embedding system (Smitsman, 2019), and
contrasts with growth models that developed from mechanistic dualistic worldviews which have
hierarchical modes of organisation.
Such mechanistic growth models originate from societal changes that started about 5,000 years
ago, when warlike kingdoms or empires started to develop (see Sahtouris, 2000). This period is
characterised by aggressive policies for domination and control, driven by zero-sum game, win–
lose, competitive dynamics. Empire dynamics still dominate today through geopolitical shifts to the
empire of corporations (see Sahtouris and Smitsman, 2019).
The modern dominant conception of progress and development originates from the empire dynamics and its mechanistic worldviews (Smitsman et al., 2019). Restoring a wholeworld-view 1 is crucial to
see the full picture and take responsibility for the impacts of the growth and prosperity models that
we employ today for our societal development. No form of progress can be justifed if this entails the
1 The term wholeworld-view is used to differentiate its wholistic understanding of the wholeworld from otherwise fragmented worldviews.