Navigating through an ‘ecological desert and a sociological hell’: a cyber-systemic governance approach for the Anthropocene

Purpose – The governance of the relationship between humans and the biophysical world has been based on a paradigm characterized by dualistic thinking and scientism. This has led us to the Anthropocene. The purpose of this paper is to reframe human-biosphere governance in terms of “cyber-systemics”, a neologism that is useful, we argue, not only for breaking out of this dualistic paradigm in human-environmental governance but also of the dualism associated with the use of systems and cybernetics. Design/methodology/approach – In this paper we draw on our own research praxis to exemplify how the intellectual lineages of cybernetics and systems have been mutually influencing our doings, and how new forms of governance practices that explore different framing choices might contribute to building innovative governance approaches attuned to the problematique of the Anthropocene, for instance through institutional designs for cybersystemic governance. Findings – The growing popularity of the Anthropocene as a particular framing for our circumstances, if it is to transformative and thus relevant demands critique if it is to help change the trajectory of human-life on Earth. We offer arguments and a rationale for adopting a cyber-systemic perspective as a means to avoid the dangers in pursuing the current trajectory of our relationship with the biophysical world, as for example climate change. The essay frames an invitation for a systemic inquiry into forms of governance more suited to the contemporary circumstances of humans in their relationships with the biophysical world. Research limitations/implications – The research essay challenges many taken-for-granted epistemological assumptions within the cybernetics and systems intellectual communities. A case for radical change is mounted; the means to effect this change, other than through changes in discourse remain unclear though it is apparent that changes to praxis and institutional forms and arrangements will be central. Practical implications – Cybersystemic capabilities need to be developed; this requires investment and new institutions that are conducive to cybersystemic understandings and praxis. Social implications – The lack of thriving communities of practice of cybersystemics significantly reduces the choices we humans have in shaping our future. Originality/value – Understanding the global environmental crisis as an emergent outcome of current commitments to dualistic governance choices demands a reframing of much of what humans have done, Re-investment in cybersystemics offers a moral and practical response.