I express sincere gratitude to Allan Savory and George Monbiot for your courage and stamina to debate in public the urgent issues of our day. You stimulated our thinking, and this gives me hope.
– Sheila Cooke
Head-on collision.
There was a head-on collision of worldviews at the
debate
between Allan Savory and George Monbiot at Oxford University this past week.
The collision was between the 800-year-old reductionist scientific mindset represented by George Monbiot, and the newly emergent holistic scientific mindset represented by Allan Savory.
We all possess built-in antibodies to new thinking.
Life conditions on Earth are becoming increasingly complex. New worldviews are emerging, out of necessity, to supply us with new thinking to cope with our new problems of existence.
However, the built-in antibodies contained in prior worldviews cause us to resist new thinking in order to prevent the baby from being thrown out with the bath water.
This is why transitions between worldviews stretch over long periods. Nature wants us to thoroughly test out new thinking, to prevent us from making big mistakes. Nature is smart.
Let’s squeeze out every ounce of learning from this debate.
For as long as the
wicked problems we face, such as desertification and climate change go unresolved, we shall continue to see conflicts between reductionist and holistic thinking.
Watch Debate Recording
Four key lessons from the debate.
To prepare ourselves for future collisions, let’s unpack and glean lessons from what was probably the world’s first public debate between reductionism and holism.
- When it comes to complex issues, it is tempting to try to persuade reductionist thinkers by using reductionist tactics, however it is pointless. Only holism can do the job.
- It is difficult to persuade reductionist thinkers by using holistic arguments precisely because they grasp neither the complexity of the problem nor the relevance of the proposed solution. Because they do not grasp the complexity, they perceive holistic solutions as crazy.
- It is not necessary to persuade all of humanity all at once of the necessity of holistic thinking. We need to patiently accept this, and focus on supporting the transition of human consciousness one person at a time, starting with ourselves.
- Until a significant percentage of humans have holistic ecological literacy, it will not be possible to create and implement holistic policy. Educating children in school is an excellent preparatory step.
What is a worldview?
A worldview refers to the meaning-making capacities within individuals that influence what is important to them (values) and what they believe (beliefs). For more information, I encourage you to read or listen to the excellent blog,
The Quantitative Cosmology: The Historical Precedent for George Monbiot's Worldview and its Implications Today, by Jake Marquez, and Maren Morgan.
Differing worldviews can lead to tangled dialogues.
Allan and George got tangled up on the root causes of climate change, and the definition of science. It was like two ships passing in the night. Let’s explore the differences between a reductionist vs. a holistic view of climate change.
A reductionist perspective on climate change:
- It's all about the parts, like carbon, cows and cars.
- All we need to do is put less carbon into the atmosphere, and draw carbon back into soils where it came from. Then climate change will be solved.
- Only peer-reviewed science is valid.
- Technology has the answer.
A holistic perspective on climate change:
- Climate change relates to Earth's natural systems, and nature is made up of complex processes. We cannot understand the problem by just looking at the parts. We also need to look at the whole.
- A singular focus on greenhouse gases is insufficient to address a problem as complex as climate change.
- We are already in a vicious cycle of biodiversity loss, leading to desertification, leading to mega fires burning out of control, contributing to a self-reinforcing feedback loop of climate change.
- In order to address the problem of climate change, it is necessary to identify and treat the underlying root causes.
- We believe the underlying root causes of climate change to be:
- Policies are universally set in a reductionist manner which leads to negative unintended consequences.
- Biodiversity loss in terms of ruminants and their predators leads to desertification whereby plants oxidise rather than decompose on the grand scale, creating dry tinder to feed an explosion of mega fires, further reinforcing climate change in a continuous feedback loop.
- We cannot research our way out of the problem using peer-reviewed scientific research because of the complexity, scale, and urgency of the problem. We are left with science in its pure form, in other words, observation, logic, deduction, testing, and utilisation of the best of our present knowledge.
- After pursuing pure science with 2,000 scientists, Allan Savory concluded that only a short list of solutions appear to address the underlying root causes of climate change:
- The Holistic Management Framework enables holistic policy development, which avoids the unintended consequences that result from reductionist policy.
- The tool of Living Organisms, specifically ruminant animals, can be managed in a way that prevents the build-up of millions of acres of oxidising plants. Additional benefits of well-managed ruminants include: regenerating soils, rebuilding biodiversity, repairing broken water and mineral cycles, improving human health and happiness, and mitigation of the ill effects of climate change by cooling the planet through rapid expansion of green, growing plants.
Lesson 1
When it comes to complex issues, it is tempting to try to persuade reductionist thinkers by using reductionist tactics, however it is pointless. Only holism can do the job.
I had the pleasure of spending most of “debate day” in the company of Allan Savory and his wife, Jody Butterfield. They were completely relaxed and happy, and had fun telling the back story. In preparation for the debate, Allan took advice from many people, and in the end he decided that from the outset, he would remove George’s ability to throw data at him, for that is what reductionist thinkers do, and they easily win because it's possible to impress and manipulate with numbers.
An excellent example of Allan successfully using holistic thinking to make his argument is the topic of desertification, which is an underlying root cause of climate change.
Twice Allan posed the question to George, "if desertification continues due to oxidation of plants due to the absence of livestock, then it doesn't matter what happens to carbon. It will require millions more livestock than we have today to stop this problem. How can we solve this problem with technology?" (With the implication being that livestock are the only known solution that can address the problem of oxidising plants and desertification occurring on two-thirds of Earth’s land.)
Twice George dodged the question by talking about carbon, even though Allan explained that carbon is a moot point if we do not resolve the issue of desertification. Why didn't George respond to this question directly?
It's not because George doesn't understand technology. In George's latest book,
Regenesis, he advocates the solution to climate change is to remove livestock from the land, rewild farmland, and shift to a plant-based diet. What then to do about food for humans? His solution is a technological solution -- precision fermented food.
If George could come up with a technological solution for food, why could he not come up with a technological solution for oxidising plants?
The reason is because ruminant animals are the only known solution to oxidising plants, and this contradicts George's core thesis of removing livestock from the land. There is no technology available today to deal with oxidising plants. The only tool we have available is well-managed ruminant animals – both wild and domesticated.
Contradictions lead to internal struggle which may lead to new thinking.
It's when we face profound contradictions that we are most pressed to emerge into new ways of thinking. You could see it written all over George's face -- he was deeply concentrating throughout the entire debate.
Humans respond to contradictions by up-stretching to new thinking, or by down-stretching to prior ways and means.
So far, George has chosen to down-stretch to reductionist solutions, but Allan gave him a lot to think about, and if he comprehended what Allan said, he will be facing a huge internal struggle until he resolves the contradiction related to livestock.
The incessant exposition of holistic thinking by Allan stymied George on multiple occasions during the debate, which brings us to Lesson 2.
Lesson 2
It is difficult to persuade reductionist thinkers by using holistic arguments precisely because they grasp neither the complexity of the problem nor the relevance of the proposed solution. Because they do not grasp the complexity, they perceive holistic solutions as crazy.
It was easy to see George could not comprehend Allan and perceived his solutions as utterly crazy. George’s cognitive dissonance came out in multiple ways during the debate.
At the outset, Allan reframed the central question, “Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?”, by refocusing the debate away from carbon toward the underlying root causes of climate change, leaving George so bewildered that he completely forgot his third point in his opening remarks, and the audience had to remind him of what he had just said.
Allan stimulated cognitive dissonance in George on multiple occasions and you could see the discomfort all over George’s face. He sat there cogitating, puzzled and frustrated because Allan gave him absolutely nothing that he could refute with facts and figures.
Later, George expressed frustration, "I've spent days preparing this topic. Where's the evidence that livestock help in the fight against climate change?" George expected to be presented with facts and figures from peer-reviewed research. Instead, what he got was peer-reviewed research strung together using observation, logic, deduction, testing; in other words, science in its pure form.
In fact, Allan cited scientific papers to back-up his claims seven times during the debate, whilst George did so only once. I learned this from an audience member who told me that his personal criteria for winning the debate was, "citation of scientific papers as evidence of claims”. He tallied carefully as the debate went along. Allan beat George 7 to 1 at his own game.
George bullied Allan with insults and accusations, whilst Allan remained composed and respectful. We can deduce from this that George simply had no idea what Allan was talking about, leaving him with no ammunition. Bullying was his weapon of last resort. George accused Allan of lying, waffling, mystical processes, magic, not answering the question, etc. He sounded like a school boy in comparison to Allan’s statesman-like behaviour.
George clearly was going through a profound internal change process during the debate that is normal and natural for humans. It will be interesting to read George’s next article to see whether the debate made any impact on him.
Now, I know many of you are feeling quite unsettled at this point. I can hear you asking, “what about the urgent need to do something about climate change”? This question takes us to Lesson 3.
Lesson 3
It is not necessary to persuade all of humanity all at once of the necessity of holistic thinking. We need to patiently accept this, and focus on supporting the transition of human consciousness one person at a time, starting with ourselves.
Allan takes the long view, and so should we. At lunch before the debate Allan told us, "let's say 1% of people think the way we do. If in 50 years’ time the percentage is 5%, then we will have done our jobs."
What a wise statement coming from a person who for years has urgently implored humanity to address desertification.
What we know about the emergence of new thinking in our species is that it takes ages, and the only two reasons it ever speeds up are because we face crisis and/or common enemy.
We are facing the perfect storm of wicked problems, but the “good life”, resulting from technologies developed during 800 years of scientific materialism, continuously draws us back to prior ways and means.
How many times have you heard, or said yourself, “I would quit my job and do something meaningful with my life if only I didn’t have to pay the mortgage, and save for my children’s college and retirement”? This is the voice of a person being drawn back to old ways and means, despite knowing their work contributes to wicked problems.
So, how are we going to get out of the mess we have created for ourselves?
Team humanity simply needs a bit more nudging. As more and more people get the sense of dire life conditions, they will be pushed into questioning everything they believe to be true. However, if life conditions become easy again, the tendency will be to slip back to prior ways and means.
Think about Covid-19 as a case in point. How many people do you know who made positive changes in their lives during the lockdowns? And, how many of those same people went back to old ways and means when life returned “back to normal”?
Allan Savory faced a huge threat in his 20’s when the unsolved puzzle of desertification caused him to order the killing of 40,000 elephants before he realised what a mistake it was. (See the TED Talk,
How to fight desertification and reverse climate change.)
Thankfully, Allan had sufficient cognitive dissonance, and potential in the mind to seek new solutions. This led him on a lifelong journey towards holistic thinking, and what he has left us with is the Holistic Management Framework that supports all of us on the journey to holistic thinking. Allan is what we call a "seed mind". That is, he is a person who responded to complex life conditions before the rest of us, enabling him to develop new thinking we can all benefit from today.
So, we need patience and acceptance that each of us will change when the time is right for us. And yes, it’s likely that many will die before humanity comes to grips with holistic thinking on a large scale. But, when we look at history, that seems to be the way things work here on planet Earth, so having profound acceptance of the way things are is key to our sanity and peace of mind.
If you feel despair, try reframing it as a nudge from nature.
We need not fear or shun despair, but welcome it as a sign of a deep internal change process underway. Questions, doubt and despair occur when we are digging in deep to make sense of the contradictions we face.
If despair is what you are feeling, it may help to know that despair is a normal human response to contradiction. It is nature nudging us to take a time-out and think about what we are doing. Despair can be likened to the deep knee bend required before taking a giant leap to more complex thinking.
In other words, despair can lead to an up-stretch in our thinking, if only we will allow it to happen.
Which takes us to Lesson 4, how do we spread holistic thinking rapidly?
The "after party" at a nearby pub.
Lesson 4
Until a significant percentage of humans have holistic ecological literacy, it will not be possible to create and implement holistic policy. Educating children in school is an excellent preparatory step.
I thought it should have been possible for Allan to explain himself more during the debate to help George understand, until I tried to do so myself.
During the "after party" in a pub, I spoke with a person who said she understood little of what Allan said. I assured her that if she knew the basic principles of Holistic Management, then Allan's talk would have made sense.
She was curious, so I began by explaining
brittleness, thinking that was all she needed to "get it". But the lightbulb did not switch on. So, I explained further. Thankfully, after about ten minutes someone interrupted us, because I was no further along in helping her understand what Allan said. It was then that I realised Allan simply didn't have time during a debate to explain things in detail.
Which led me to appreciate how absolutely brilliant Allan was with his pithy expression of holistic thinking.
A couple of months ago, I asked Allan a burning question, "with the Four Key Insights being so important, why are they not represented in the Holistic Management Framework?" He replied quickly, "because they are part of the body of knowledge a person needs in order to understand and work with the Holistic Management Framework."
There you have it. In order to understand what Allan said during the debate, people need to have holistic ecological literacy already embedded in their thinking.
What would be the best way to develop holistic ecological literacy quickly on a large scale? Certainly it must be to educate school children, who are curious and ripe for learning.
I ask participants in my classes to tell their families at dinner what they are learning in Holistic Management training. A common response from young children is, “of course dad/mum, everyone knows that”! A common response from college-educated children is complete rejection followed by silence. Unfortunately, higher education can knock holistic thinking out of us!
My conclusion is that we need to educate children in holistic ecological literacy on a large scale as quickly as possible, and this is precisely what Allan’s daughter, Sarah Savory is doing.
Read about Sarah’s work here.
Holism has the power to disarm reductionism.
It takes a holistic mindset to puzzle out what is the real problem, what is the underlying root cause of the problem, what are potential solutions, and which solutions are most likely to address the underlying root cause. That is exactly what Allan Savory did during the debate. He demonstrated holistic thinking in spades.
An hour before the debate, we went into the museum's "Green Room", which was a classroom filled with preserved exotic and extinct animals. As a special treat, the director of education invited Allan to hold in his hands a framed box of Tasmanian insects collected by Charles Darwin, labelled in his own precise handwriting.
A little while later, George entered the room and greeted us all with smiles and handshakes. Then he opened his laptop, saying he needed to do some last minute cramming before the debate.
What a pity. All that cramming, and hardly any of it could be used because he was disarmed by more complex thinking.
Solving climate change is about learning to manage complexity.
Climate change is part of a new set of life conditions that are creating the need for humans to learn how to manage complexity together.
When we learn to take responsibility for the healthy functioning of ecosystem processes (the Water Cycle, Mineral Cycle, Energy Flow and Community Dynamics), we will be able to live within the boundaries of our beautiful and magnificent spaceship Earth.
We need courage to speak up.
Thank you Allan and George for the lessons you gave us about the emergence of holistic thinking in our species.
The shift from reductionism to holism begins with ourselves. We cannot continually point the finger at others, for as Allan says, when we point the finger at others, we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves.
Timing is everything. Not everyone is ready to hear about the science of holism. That is okay, and the best thing we can do is accept it.
Nature operates with longer time scales than humans do. Accepting this enables us to have inner peace, which enables us to contribute to the peace and happiness of others, which is probably what is needed in the first place if we are to solve the riddle of climate change. After all, it’s impossible to solve problems when we are in a panic.
We need courage, as Allan and George demonstrated, to speak up in the right place, at the right time, with the right behaviour for the right reasons.
Thank you so much Allan and George for stepping up and speaking out at a time when most people thought it was the wrong thing to do. You have given me profound hope.
Time for all of us to get off the fence.
Watch Debate Recording
Resources for further study.
A common question I received after the debate was, "how can I learn more about what Allan said?" Allan shared with me the following resources to help you study up on what he said during the debate. He invites us to spread this information far and wide.
To learn more about worldviews, particularly as it relates to George Monbiot, please read or listen to this excellent blog. In it, Maren explains exactly why it is not possible to beat George Monbiot with reductionist thinking – only holistic thinking will do.
