First we must ask ourselves, for whom? Who is this we of whom I refer? We will get to “for what” in good time, this demands a firm answer to the who. A strategy for the world might create an orientation for life, for all the planets shone upon by the sun, for land (perhaps, Aldo), for the living humans, or for the chronologically vague “humanity”. The boundaries of an approach are crucial: the constituents of a tribe determine what they will fight against, care about, and narrate meaning into. Can members see non-similar members as similar enough to bond and congeal with? Cross species caring among humans for plants and animals seems to point to yes. Can life commune with non-life? Humans are often fascinated with and attached to inanimate possessions and other objects; yes again. Is the whole solar system too broad a system to design for? Space billionaires have earned skeptics who would say yes, thank you, we only have earth for the foreseeable. I tend to agree that the earth (notwithstanding the relationship with the sun) is the key level of analysis for our time (particularly with the somewhat recent measurable anthropogenic impacts to this mostly closed system).
So we follow in Buckminster Fuller’s footsteps: what do we do with this spaceship earth? Besides remaining thankful that we’re still just about the right distance from the sun as we fly, we need to take a detailed stock of where we are at, evaluate what we find, come up with a way of seeing, and then get to work.
What exactly do we mean by strategy? Read some of Henry Mintzberg’s work on the topic if you really want the full answer, but in lieu: a narrative, a framework, a method, an organizational design, a way of seeing, a viral notion; a series of these things and several others. It’s important to note that in the case of earth, this is not the type of strategy that corporate and government strategy types do (come up with a compelling way of seeing and fit that way of seeing onto the face of a few leaders who have a ton of power). This system not only has lots of leaders with overlapping and conflicting power, most of whom are not likely to change their minds on account of even their own strategy people, there are forces and living things and components that do not exert or accept power, many of which cannot and will not read. So we are crafting a strategy for the people who can and will read it to interpret and propagate, while the total intended community will not be reached by the strategy itself. This creates challenges that Buckminster Fuller did not sufficiently reckon with: effective strategy takes into account the mechanisms and individuals who will receive and interpret and propagate it.
None of these considerations make the effort less worth doing. Philosophy has tried to do this in a manner of speaking for years, with little embarrassment about its purposes (though many aspersions as it crosses into esoteric territories). We will not be “correct” or “right” or “certain” about anything. Everything will be contingent, but hopefully crossing the threshold of knowing that allows some action (unless our strategy points to motionlessness as the appropriate course). We shall wish ourselves luck as we go down a road we’ve already been on together for a long time.
Roman Ryan 