July 15, 2025 • 24 mins
As Peter Drucker so aptly stated in his book "Managing in Turbulent Times," the greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence itself but acting with yesterday's logic. In this episode of "Reimagining Our World," I will highlight and explore 10 new ways of thinking proposed by Stephen Heintz in his report "A Logic for the Future," that should be included as foundational assumptions upon which to build a better world.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Sovaida (00:08):
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast
dedicated to envisioning abetter world and to infusing
hope that we can make theprincipled choices to build that
world.
We all know that our world isfalling apart at the seams and
that the processes ofdisintegration are accelerating
(00:31):
from day to day.
It is clear to many of us thatthe world needs a new logic upon
which it builds a better world.
The old ways of thinking andperceiving and understanding our
reality no longer serve us.
So we need a new logic, a newway of thinking.
(00:51):
In this episode, I'd like toshare with you some highlights
from a document entitled A Logicfor the Future by the President
and CEO of the RockefellerBrothers Fund, Stephen Heintz.
I was very excited when Idiscovered this document,
because it demonstrated thatthere are people out in the
(01:14):
world who have new ways ofthinking that are fit for
purpose for this 21st centuryand for the challenges that face
us.
It's heartening, it gives ushope, and it helps us reimagine
the possibilities for this newbetter world that we want to
build.
I want to start with a quotationfrom Mr.
(01:36):
Heintz, in which he says"The oldorder is dying and a new order
is demanding to be born." Thisis so true.
This is definitely what Ibelieve and what many of these
episodes in the seriesRe-imagining Our World have
focused on.
How the old ways of doing thingsare not working and how we can
(01:59):
replace them with new ways, bothof thinking and acting, new
habits.
Mr.
Heinz says that the fact thatthe old order is dying out
simply means that there is nowan opportunity before us for
inspiration and invention.
In other words, we need toactivate our powers of
(02:20):
creativity and imagination inorder to come up with a better
system for governing our world.
There's a very interestingquotation from Peter Drucker, an
Austrian American managementconsultant, educator and author.
He says this in a book.
He wrote that the greatestdangers in times of turbulence
(02:44):
is not the turbulence itself.
Rather it is acting withyesterday's logic.
What do we mean by yesterday'slogic?
It means the old set ofassumptions that underlie and
underpin the systems we havebuilt and all of our thinking.
So let's move on.
I want to get straight to tennew ways of thinking that have
(03:11):
been presented to us by StevenHeinz in his document, A Logic
for the Future, and you can seeand judge for yourselves what
you think.
Okay.
The first old assumption thatneeds to be replaced is that of
great power dominance.
He says, we need to replace itwith an idea of collaborative or
(03:35):
pooled or shared globalleadership.
Wow.
This is an amazing statement.
Straight off the bat.
So essentially what he isproposing is that we shift our
mindsets and assumptions fromthe idea of great power
dominance, which he points outhas been rejected by the global
(03:55):
majority, to the idea of amulti-nodal power.
So the shift from what we knewas unipolar power at the end of
the Cold War, to what is thereality of today, which is
multi-nodal power.
He says that the age ofturbulence and the challenges of
the 21st century essentiallydemand a new, more equitable
(04:19):
distribution of power.
He says, we therefore need newinternational, planetary bodies
responsible for managingplanetary challenges.
In other words, we need to crafta new collective system of
governance.
Now note how this tracks withseveral conversations we've had
(04:41):
over several episodes,particularly episodes 9, 10, 11,
and 15, for those of you whowant to go back and take a
listen, in which we proposed anentire framework to accomplish
this, including the creation ofa World Parliament, a collective
decision making legislativebody.
In other words, a worldexecutive and a massively
reformed international court ofjustice.
(05:04):
So the time has essentially cometo move to a system, a model of
collective governance,collaboration, and collective
decision making.
At the same time as he proposesbasically the supernational
approach to governance, he alsoproposes devolving sovereignty
(05:28):
to smaller units within nations,a concept known as subsidiarity.
In other words, he says thatwithin nations we should think
about moving decision makingfrom centralized sovereignty,
the central government tosubnational levels of governance
to the extent possible, in otherwords, to cities, to states and
(05:48):
provinces.
And the reason he gives is thatby 2030, according to the UN
estimates, one third of theworld's people will live in
cities with populations of500,000 or more.
And then he also suggestsformalizing the connections
between these subnationalgovernments and the
(06:10):
international system, socreating a balance.
In order for this to be donewell.
He says that leaders have todevelop the capacity for honest
and courageous reflection, whichis something that we really
don't see very often.
And once they do that, they canthen also harness their
(06:33):
imagination and free will inorder to come up with these new
systems.
And in fact, he says that thecreation of the United Nations
itself was an act ofimagination.
And that since then, leadersseem to be suffering from a
failure of creativity andimagination to keep up with the
needs of the time and createinstitutions and processes and
(06:59):
ways of thinking that are fitfor purpose for the challenges
of our times.
The second assumption we need todispose of is that of
nationalism and adhering tonationalistic interests and
making them the primaryinterests in any decision
(07:20):
making.
And he says, we need to replacethat with an assumption that
what is good for the world isgood for our nation.
Now, he's writing in the UnitedStates, and he's definitely
talking to America and theAmerican nation, but it applies
equally to all nations.
He says that if we in Americaand other nations pursue
(07:44):
national interests with anunderstanding that in an
interdependent world ourwell-being is directly tied to
peaceful and prosperousconditions elsewhere and to the
fate of the planet, then we'llbe better off.
And he also says that ournational goals can only be
(08:05):
achieved in concert with othersand by forging common ground to
generate collective benefits.
And he ends this segment of thisdocument with the statement,
which I found very interestingthat we need to get to the point
where we understand thatAmerica's role in the world is
(08:29):
based on the premise that whatis good for the world is good
for us.
We've talked about this, again,a lot in these episodes: the
idea that in an interconnectedworld, the good of the part,
i.e., any one nation can only beinsured by guaranteeing the good
of the whole.
And we gave many analogies,including the analogy of the
(08:51):
human body, where any singleorgan cannot ensure its own
health unless the entire bodysystem is healthy.
Or that of cabins on a shipwhere each cabin may be very run
very well internally, but ifthere's no captain or crew
minding the helm of the ship,then in times of turbulence and
(09:14):
storm the ship is in danger ofsinking.
Right on to the thirdassumption.
He says, we have to identify andagree upon a set of shared
values and principles.
Now, this is something that wehave spoken about at length.
And he proposes that we startwith the principles enshrined in
the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.
(09:37):
We've talked a lot in ourepisodes, again, for those of
you who want to look, episode 35lays this out very well with the
idea that we first need toidentify a set of shared global
ethics, then achieve consensusaround them, and then apply them
methodically to solving anygiven challenge.
The fourth concept and newassumption that he introduces is
(10:02):
this idea of replacing what hecalls strategic narcissism with
strategic empathy.
I love both these terms.
So strategic narcissism was aphrase that apparently arose in
1978 with a particularinternational relations
theorist, and it's basically theinability to see beyond the
(10:26):
narrow viewpoint of one's ownnational experience, perceptions
and self-interest.
And he suggests that we replacethis notion with the idea of
strategic empathy, whichencourages deep listening in
relation with others and seekinga greater understanding of their
(10:46):
views and needs, and investing,therefore less effort in
persuasion.
So remember we had a wholeepisode on consultation as a
practical expression of justice.
This is essentially what he'stalking about.
The idea, not of going into aconversation, trying to persuade
the other person, but going intoit in a spirit of openly
(11:09):
offering one's views andopinions, and then detaching
one's ego from them, and thenthrough the clash of the
opinions, rather than the egos,that the spark of truth is able
to come forth.
And so we then we don't findourselves in a position of
trying to persuade each otherand talk over each other and
dominate each other.
(11:30):
The next idea he proposes isthat we replace this notion we
have that peace is merely an endto war, with the idea of a
positive peace which is groundedin justice, and which he
describes as the elimination ofviolence that stems from social
(11:53):
injustice and systemicconditions like hunger, poverty,
inequality, racism, patriarchy,and so on.
And that we need to focus onconflict prevention, not just
how to win a conflict, which iswhere we are right now, and
we're seeing a plethora ofconflicts.
(12:14):
The system of our body, thehuman body is flaring up.
Think of it as suffering from anautoimmune disease.
We're flaring up in Ukraine, andwe're flaring up in Gaza, and
we're flaring up in Myanmar andthe DRC and Yemen, and so on and
so forth.
The entire body is on fireessentially, and flaring up and
(12:36):
it needs something to calm itdown and to restore it to
healing.
So this, again, is in completealignment with the views we
articulated about justice beingthe driving force and the
indispensable foundation forcreating a peaceful world.
Without justice, there can be nopeace.
(12:58):
And again, you can go back andfind the episode that talks
about that.
Okay.
The next idea that he posits isthat we need to shift from the
idea of a mutually assureddestruction.
Remember, this is what we weredoing, especially during the
Cold War, and we seem to bereverting to it.
Like"if both sides have nuclearweapons, then neither side will
(13:21):
use them, because if they do,then they know that both sides
will destroy themselves and eachother." So this idea of mad, and
it really is mad, M-A-D,mutually assured destruction.
So he suggests replacing it withan assumption of mutually
assured survival.
I would go a step further andsuggest that we think in terms
(13:43):
of mutually assured thriving.
It's not enough anymore for usto just look to survive in this
world, whether as individuals ornations.
We can and must find ways ofcreating systems that ensure
that we thrive.
The next idea that he proposesis that we link national
(14:07):
militaries.
We replace national militarieswith a global system of
collective security.
Now, you've heard me hold forthon this topic a lot.
It's a topic very dear to myheart, and there are two
episodes in particular that Iwould recommend and commend to
you episodes 23 of thisReimagining our World Series and
(14:31):
episode 30, which takes Ukraineas a case study and it
demonstrates what a globalsystem of collective security
ought to or could look like, howwe can attain it and what the
benefits would be of it.
What would be the benefits ofconstraining the number of arms
that each nation can have to acertain amount to maintain order
(14:54):
within their borders.
And what would it look like todestroy the excess and then to
set up a global system based ona global agreement of collective
security that if one nationbreaches this collective
agreement, all the nationscollectively would arise against
it, having at their disposal aninternational standing police
(15:15):
force.
So all of these details and thesteps we can take to get from
here to there are laid out inthose episodes that I referred
you to.
The next idea he talks about isshifting from the idea that our
democracies have becomefraudulent to the idea that our
(15:35):
democracies are merely flawed.
He says this is important,because democracy facilitates
the identification of commonground and requires compromise.
But it requires a lot ofrehauling to be made more
inclusive, more fullyrepresentative, more
participatory, and moreeffective, so that it can assist
(15:58):
us in creating a more peaceful,equitable, and sustainable world
in this century.
And he points to the danger thatif we think that our democracies
have become fraudulent, that wewill then chuck them out.
And he argues that an imperfectdemocracy is better than having
no democracy at all, which iswhy he says a better premise, a
(16:21):
better new assumption to buildour thinking and actions off of
is to say that yes, ourdemocracy's flawed, acknowledge
it, identify the weaknesses, andthen seek to fix those.
The next really big idea, whichis very important, is his very
(16:41):
candid assessment that the worldneeds a new global economic
model, a change in our globaleconomic model.
Given who he is, the presidentand CEO of the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund, he's somebody whoknows a lot about this topic and
somebody who it might be worthlistening to.
(17:04):
He argues that in pursuit ofneoliberal economic policies,
greed has been rewarded, andthat this is dangerous and that
the accumulation of materialpossessions is celebrated and he
categorically denouncesmaterialism as the answer.
(17:25):
He says, materialism cannot bethe answer, the solution to
providing us with happiness orsystems that work, a political
economy that works.
He says we need to move awayfrom materialism and rewarding
greed towards human and economicglobal well-being, so we need to
create a new model.
(17:47):
He also says, and I found thisreally interesting and wanted to
share it with you, that we needto stop conflating materialism
with democracy.
And he offers an example of thekind of damage done to the idea
of democracy in Russia in theaftermath of the Cold War when
the West came in and offeredcapitalistic economy in the name
(18:12):
of democracy.
So Russians came to associatedemocracy with massive economic
benefit.
Except it turned out that wasonly true for a handful of
people.
The rest were not so well off,and so they concluded why would
one want a democracy if we'renot all going to be better off
(18:34):
economically?
So this conflation of the ideasof materialism and democracy
really did us in.
So he proposes that it's time toput our thinking caps on.
And again, exercise creativityand an active imagination and in
consultation with each other,come up with a new political
(18:55):
economy.
At least our leaders need to bedoing this.
The next big idea is that weneed to have institutions,
especially global ones, toensure accountability and
sustainability in the use ofresources.
Ensure their equitabledistribution.
(19:16):
So there's a clear need for theequitable management and
distribution of criticalresources like rare earth
minerals, which we've beenhearing about a lot, and the
sharing of the global commons.
And how is this done, again, onthe basis of justice and
fairness.
We have talked again in theseepisodes a lot about a vision of
(19:39):
a future in which a world globallegislature, like a World
Parliament, would act as thetrustee of the world's resources
and would ensure that they wereexploited in a sustainable
fashion and were properlydistributed for the benefit of
all.
And there's a whole episode onan of the idea of the global
(20:00):
commons and of how we can set upa supranational system for
pooling the management of theseresources.
That's episode 34 for those ofyou who are interested.
The last idea that I want toshare with you is he says that
ignoring the need for reformconstitutes a greater failure
(20:22):
than striving for reform andfalling short.
And he reminds us that historyis replete with examples of
hinge moments when change wasthought improbable or even
impossible, and then ithappened.
The fall of the Berlin Wall,many of us my generation
remember that collapse of Sovietcommunism, Nelson Mandela's Long
(20:47):
Walk to Freedom.
Another example of a visionaryact was the Atlantic Charter
that was conceived by WinstonChurchill and Franklin Delano
Roosevelt in a ship off thecoast of Newfoundland in 1941,
boldly articulating a vision fora post-war world in which all
(21:09):
people would live in freedomfrom fear and want, and in which
all nations would eschew the useof force and work collectively
to advance peace.
And it was on the basis of theprinciples that they adumbrated
that the United Nations cameinto being.
I want to end with another quotefrom Steven Heinz, from this
(21:29):
amazing document.
He says, we need to act, now,exercise free will choice Again,
one cannot emphasize thisenough.
We have free will choice.
We need to exercise and harnessimagination, creativity in order
to do what?
In order to ensure this isquoting Steve Heinz,"that the
(21:54):
age of turbulence does notbecome the age of catastrophe."
In other words that this shipthat at the moment appears to be
rudderless and lacking a captainand crew, to use the metaphor
that we've used in a number ofepisodes, does not sink when it
(22:15):
hits the iceberg in turbulentseas, or when those storms come
and it gets tossed around andbattered and buffeted around.
So we need to act swiftly inorder to bring the ship of
humanity into safe port and safeharbor.
(22:36):
All right, I hope that you allhave enjoyed today's episode.
Please feel free to give yourcomments on the YouTube channel,
and I'd like to end by remindingyou all that all of these
episodes are now available onyour favorite podcast platform.
(22:57):
So if you prefer to listen whiletaking a walk or doing housework
or driving, or doing somethingelse, running errands, you can
listen to these episodes onSpotify, on Apple Podcasts, on
Podbean, whatever your platformof choice is, and you can still
also watch and listen to them onthe CPGG Center for Peace and
(23:18):
Global Governance YouTubechannel.
Please share it with yourfriends, and I look forward to
seeing you back here again forthe next episode.
Thank you so much.
Have a wonderful month.
That's all for this episode ofReimagining Our World.
I'll see you back here nextmonth.
If you liked this episode,please help us to get the word
(23:40):
out by rating us and subscribingto the program on your favorite
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast
dedicated to envisioning abetter world and to infusing
hope that we can make theprincipled choices to build that
world.
We all know that our world isfalling apart at the seams and
that the processes ofdisintegration are accelerating
(00:31):
from day to day.
It is clear to many of us thatthe world needs a new logic upon
which it builds a better world.
The old ways of thinking andperceiving and understanding our
reality no longer serve us.
So we need a new logic, a newway of thinking.
(00:51):
In this episode, I'd like toshare with you some highlights
from a document entitled A Logicfor the Future by the President
and CEO of the RockefellerBrothers Fund, Stephen Heintz.
I was very excited when Idiscovered this document,
because it demonstrated thatthere are people out in the
(01:14):
world who have new ways ofthinking that are fit for
purpose for this 21st centuryand for the challenges that face
us.
It's heartening, it gives ushope, and it helps us reimagine
the possibilities for this newbetter world that we want to
build.
I want to start with a quotationfrom Mr.
(01:36):
Heintz, in which he says"The oldorder is dying and a new order
is demanding to be born." Thisis so true.
This is definitely what Ibelieve and what many of these
episodes in the seriesRe-imagining Our World have
focused on.
How the old ways of doing thingsare not working and how we can
(01:59):
replace them with new ways, bothof thinking and acting, new
habits.
Mr.
Heinz says that the fact thatthe old order is dying out
simply means that there is nowan opportunity before us for
inspiration and invention.
In other words, we need toactivate our powers of
(02:20):
creativity and imagination inorder to come up with a better
system for governing our world.
There's a very interestingquotation from Peter Drucker, an
Austrian American managementconsultant, educator and author.
He says this in a book.
He wrote that the greatestdangers in times of turbulence
(02:44):
is not the turbulence itself.
Rather it is acting withyesterday's logic.
What do we mean by yesterday'slogic?
It means the old set ofassumptions that underlie and
underpin the systems we havebuilt and all of our thinking.
So let's move on.
I want to get straight to tennew ways of thinking that have
(03:11):
been presented to us by StevenHeinz in his document, A Logic
for the Future, and you can seeand judge for yourselves what
you think.
Okay.
The first old assumption thatneeds to be replaced is that of
great power dominance.
He says, we need to replace itwith an idea of collaborative or
(03:35):
pooled or shared globalleadership.
Wow.
This is an amazing statement.
Straight off the bat.
So essentially what he isproposing is that we shift our
mindsets and assumptions fromthe idea of great power
dominance, which he points outhas been rejected by the global
(03:55):
majority, to the idea of amulti-nodal power.
So the shift from what we knewas unipolar power at the end of
the Cold War, to what is thereality of today, which is
multi-nodal power.
He says that the age ofturbulence and the challenges of
the 21st century essentiallydemand a new, more equitable
(04:19):
distribution of power.
He says, we therefore need newinternational, planetary bodies
responsible for managingplanetary challenges.
In other words, we need to crafta new collective system of
governance.
Now note how this tracks withseveral conversations we've had
(04:41):
over several episodes,particularly episodes 9, 10, 11,
and 15, for those of you whowant to go back and take a
listen, in which we proposed anentire framework to accomplish
this, including the creation ofa World Parliament, a collective
decision making legislativebody.
In other words, a worldexecutive and a massively
reformed international court ofjustice.
(05:04):
So the time has essentially cometo move to a system, a model of
collective governance,collaboration, and collective
decision making.
At the same time as he proposesbasically the supernational
approach to governance, he alsoproposes devolving sovereignty
(05:28):
to smaller units within nations,a concept known as subsidiarity.
In other words, he says thatwithin nations we should think
about moving decision makingfrom centralized sovereignty,
the central government tosubnational levels of governance
to the extent possible, in otherwords, to cities, to states and
(05:48):
provinces.
And the reason he gives is thatby 2030, according to the UN
estimates, one third of theworld's people will live in
cities with populations of500,000 or more.
And then he also suggestsformalizing the connections
between these subnationalgovernments and the
(06:10):
international system, socreating a balance.
In order for this to be donewell.
He says that leaders have todevelop the capacity for honest
and courageous reflection, whichis something that we really
don't see very often.
And once they do that, they canthen also harness their
(06:33):
imagination and free will inorder to come up with these new
systems.
And in fact, he says that thecreation of the United Nations
itself was an act ofimagination.
And that since then, leadersseem to be suffering from a
failure of creativity andimagination to keep up with the
needs of the time and createinstitutions and processes and
(06:59):
ways of thinking that are fitfor purpose for the challenges
of our times.
The second assumption we need todispose of is that of
nationalism and adhering tonationalistic interests and
making them the primaryinterests in any decision
(07:20):
making.
And he says, we need to replacethat with an assumption that
what is good for the world isgood for our nation.
Now, he's writing in the UnitedStates, and he's definitely
talking to America and theAmerican nation, but it applies
equally to all nations.
He says that if we in Americaand other nations pursue
(07:44):
national interests with anunderstanding that in an
interdependent world ourwell-being is directly tied to
peaceful and prosperousconditions elsewhere and to the
fate of the planet, then we'llbe better off.
And he also says that ournational goals can only be
(08:05):
achieved in concert with othersand by forging common ground to
generate collective benefits.
And he ends this segment of thisdocument with the statement,
which I found very interestingthat we need to get to the point
where we understand thatAmerica's role in the world is
(08:29):
based on the premise that whatis good for the world is good
for us.
We've talked about this, again,a lot in these episodes: the
idea that in an interconnectedworld, the good of the part,
i.e., any one nation can only beinsured by guaranteeing the good
of the whole.
And we gave many analogies,including the analogy of the
(08:51):
human body, where any singleorgan cannot ensure its own
health unless the entire bodysystem is healthy.
Or that of cabins on a shipwhere each cabin may be very run
very well internally, but ifthere's no captain or crew
minding the helm of the ship,then in times of turbulence and
(09:14):
storm the ship is in danger ofsinking.
Right on to the thirdassumption.
He says, we have to identify andagree upon a set of shared
values and principles.
Now, this is something that wehave spoken about at length.
And he proposes that we startwith the principles enshrined in
the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.
(09:37):
We've talked a lot in ourepisodes, again, for those of
you who want to look, episode 35lays this out very well with the
idea that we first need toidentify a set of shared global
ethics, then achieve consensusaround them, and then apply them
methodically to solving anygiven challenge.
The fourth concept and newassumption that he introduces is
(10:02):
this idea of replacing what hecalls strategic narcissism with
strategic empathy.
I love both these terms.
So strategic narcissism was aphrase that apparently arose in
1978 with a particularinternational relations
theorist, and it's basically theinability to see beyond the
(10:26):
narrow viewpoint of one's ownnational experience, perceptions
and self-interest.
And he suggests that we replacethis notion with the idea of
strategic empathy, whichencourages deep listening in
relation with others and seekinga greater understanding of their
(10:46):
views and needs, and investing,therefore less effort in
persuasion.
So remember we had a wholeepisode on consultation as a
practical expression of justice.
This is essentially what he'stalking about.
The idea, not of going into aconversation, trying to persuade
the other person, but going intoit in a spirit of openly
(11:09):
offering one's views andopinions, and then detaching
one's ego from them, and thenthrough the clash of the
opinions, rather than the egos,that the spark of truth is able
to come forth.
And so we then we don't findourselves in a position of
trying to persuade each otherand talk over each other and
dominate each other.
(11:30):
The next idea he proposes isthat we replace this notion we
have that peace is merely an endto war, with the idea of a
positive peace which is groundedin justice, and which he
describes as the elimination ofviolence that stems from social
(11:53):
injustice and systemicconditions like hunger, poverty,
inequality, racism, patriarchy,and so on.
And that we need to focus onconflict prevention, not just
how to win a conflict, which iswhere we are right now, and
we're seeing a plethora ofconflicts.
(12:14):
The system of our body, thehuman body is flaring up.
Think of it as suffering from anautoimmune disease.
We're flaring up in Ukraine, andwe're flaring up in Gaza, and
we're flaring up in Myanmar andthe DRC and Yemen, and so on and
so forth.
The entire body is on fireessentially, and flaring up and
(12:36):
it needs something to calm itdown and to restore it to
healing.
So this, again, is in completealignment with the views we
articulated about justice beingthe driving force and the
indispensable foundation forcreating a peaceful world.
Without justice, there can be nopeace.
(12:58):
And again, you can go back andfind the episode that talks
about that.
Okay.
The next idea that he posits isthat we need to shift from the
idea of a mutually assureddestruction.
Remember, this is what we weredoing, especially during the
Cold War, and we seem to bereverting to it.
Like"if both sides have nuclearweapons, then neither side will
(13:21):
use them, because if they do,then they know that both sides
will destroy themselves and eachother." So this idea of mad, and
it really is mad, M-A-D,mutually assured destruction.
So he suggests replacing it withan assumption of mutually
assured survival.
I would go a step further andsuggest that we think in terms
(13:43):
of mutually assured thriving.
It's not enough anymore for usto just look to survive in this
world, whether as individuals ornations.
We can and must find ways ofcreating systems that ensure
that we thrive.
The next idea that he proposesis that we link national
(14:07):
militaries.
We replace national militarieswith a global system of
collective security.
Now, you've heard me hold forthon this topic a lot.
It's a topic very dear to myheart, and there are two
episodes in particular that Iwould recommend and commend to
you episodes 23 of thisReimagining our World Series and
(14:31):
episode 30, which takes Ukraineas a case study and it
demonstrates what a globalsystem of collective security
ought to or could look like, howwe can attain it and what the
benefits would be of it.
What would be the benefits ofconstraining the number of arms
that each nation can have to acertain amount to maintain order
(14:54):
within their borders.
And what would it look like todestroy the excess and then to
set up a global system based ona global agreement of collective
security that if one nationbreaches this collective
agreement, all the nationscollectively would arise against
it, having at their disposal aninternational standing police
(15:15):
force.
So all of these details and thesteps we can take to get from
here to there are laid out inthose episodes that I referred
you to.
The next idea he talks about isshifting from the idea that our
democracies have becomefraudulent to the idea that our
(15:35):
democracies are merely flawed.
He says this is important,because democracy facilitates
the identification of commonground and requires compromise.
But it requires a lot ofrehauling to be made more
inclusive, more fullyrepresentative, more
participatory, and moreeffective, so that it can assist
(15:58):
us in creating a more peaceful,equitable, and sustainable world
in this century.
And he points to the danger thatif we think that our democracies
have become fraudulent, that wewill then chuck them out.
And he argues that an imperfectdemocracy is better than having
no democracy at all, which iswhy he says a better premise, a
(16:21):
better new assumption to buildour thinking and actions off of
is to say that yes, ourdemocracy's flawed, acknowledge
it, identify the weaknesses, andthen seek to fix those.
The next really big idea, whichis very important, is his very
(16:41):
candid assessment that the worldneeds a new global economic
model, a change in our globaleconomic model.
Given who he is, the presidentand CEO of the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund, he's somebody whoknows a lot about this topic and
somebody who it might be worthlistening to.
(17:04):
He argues that in pursuit ofneoliberal economic policies,
greed has been rewarded, andthat this is dangerous and that
the accumulation of materialpossessions is celebrated and he
categorically denouncesmaterialism as the answer.
(17:25):
He says, materialism cannot bethe answer, the solution to
providing us with happiness orsystems that work, a political
economy that works.
He says we need to move awayfrom materialism and rewarding
greed towards human and economicglobal well-being, so we need to
create a new model.
(17:47):
He also says, and I found thisreally interesting and wanted to
share it with you, that we needto stop conflating materialism
with democracy.
And he offers an example of thekind of damage done to the idea
of democracy in Russia in theaftermath of the Cold War when
the West came in and offeredcapitalistic economy in the name
(18:12):
of democracy.
So Russians came to associatedemocracy with massive economic
benefit.
Except it turned out that wasonly true for a handful of
people.
The rest were not so well off,and so they concluded why would
one want a democracy if we'renot all going to be better off
(18:34):
economically?
So this conflation of the ideasof materialism and democracy
really did us in.
So he proposes that it's time toput our thinking caps on.
And again, exercise creativityand an active imagination and in
consultation with each other,come up with a new political
(18:55):
economy.
At least our leaders need to bedoing this.
The next big idea is that weneed to have institutions,
especially global ones, toensure accountability and
sustainability in the use ofresources.
Ensure their equitabledistribution.
(19:16):
So there's a clear need for theequitable management and
distribution of criticalresources like rare earth
minerals, which we've beenhearing about a lot, and the
sharing of the global commons.
And how is this done, again, onthe basis of justice and
fairness.
We have talked again in theseepisodes a lot about a vision of
(19:39):
a future in which a world globallegislature, like a World
Parliament, would act as thetrustee of the world's resources
and would ensure that they wereexploited in a sustainable
fashion and were properlydistributed for the benefit of
all.
And there's a whole episode onan of the idea of the global
(20:00):
commons and of how we can set upa supranational system for
pooling the management of theseresources.
That's episode 34 for those ofyou who are interested.
The last idea that I want toshare with you is he says that
ignoring the need for reformconstitutes a greater failure
(20:22):
than striving for reform andfalling short.
And he reminds us that historyis replete with examples of
hinge moments when change wasthought improbable or even
impossible, and then ithappened.
The fall of the Berlin Wall,many of us my generation
remember that collapse of Sovietcommunism, Nelson Mandela's Long
(20:47):
Walk to Freedom.
Another example of a visionaryact was the Atlantic Charter
that was conceived by WinstonChurchill and Franklin Delano
Roosevelt in a ship off thecoast of Newfoundland in 1941,
boldly articulating a vision fora post-war world in which all
(21:09):
people would live in freedomfrom fear and want, and in which
all nations would eschew the useof force and work collectively
to advance peace.
And it was on the basis of theprinciples that they adumbrated
that the United Nations cameinto being.
I want to end with another quotefrom Steven Heinz, from this
(21:29):
amazing document.
He says, we need to act, now,exercise free will choice Again,
one cannot emphasize thisenough.
We have free will choice.
We need to exercise and harnessimagination, creativity in order
to do what?
In order to ensure this isquoting Steve Heinz,"that the
(21:54):
age of turbulence does notbecome the age of catastrophe."
In other words that this shipthat at the moment appears to be
rudderless and lacking a captainand crew, to use the metaphor
that we've used in a number ofepisodes, does not sink when it
(22:15):
hits the iceberg in turbulentseas, or when those storms come
and it gets tossed around andbattered and buffeted around.
So we need to act swiftly inorder to bring the ship of
humanity into safe port and safeharbor.
(22:36):
All right, I hope that you allhave enjoyed today's episode.
Please feel free to give yourcomments on the YouTube channel,
and I'd like to end by remindingyou all that all of these
episodes are now available onyour favorite podcast platform.
(22:57):
So if you prefer to listen whiletaking a walk or doing housework
or driving, or doing somethingelse, running errands, you can
listen to these episodes onSpotify, on Apple Podcasts, on
Podbean, whatever your platformof choice is, and you can still
also watch and listen to them onthe CPGG Center for Peace and
(23:18):
Global Governance YouTubechannel.
Please share it with yourfriends, and I look forward to
seeing you back here again forthe next episode.
Thank you so much.
Have a wonderful month.
That's all for this episode ofReimagining Our World.
I'll see you back here nextmonth.
If you liked this episode,please help us to get the word
(23:40):
out by rating us and subscribingto the program on your favorite
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!