Причины мультикризиса и отсутствия консенсуса по сохранению жизни
Bulat Yessekin
От: Nate Hagens from The Great Simplification <nateh...@substack.com>
Date: пт, 14 авг. 2026 г. в 18:16
Subject: Who Broke the World? The Villains We Choose and the Work They Give Us
To: <bulat.y...@gmail.com>
How can humans – at least those with access to the internet – ingest the same facts and data, yet arrive at radically different worldviews? That’s the question I explore in this week’s Frankly, which unpacks eight different lenses through which people understand the current more-than-human predicament. Each of these perspectives identifies a different source of the problem and offers a different path toward action, but what looks like an obvious solution from one perspective can look irrelevant, or even dangerous, from another. These perspectives often have such a grip on us and on the narrative of our lives. To give up one of these lenses is not just to revise an opinion, but to loosen your grip on the story that made the world somewhat coherent in the first place. That kind of loss is disorienting, even when you can see the limits of the story that you’re holding. The task at hand is not to discard any of these views in favor of one single “correct” view, but to hold them in relation to one another and recognize their truths while also acknowledging the deeper constraints of ecological overshoot and thermodynamics that sit beneath it all. What judgments could be avoided when you recognize that the person you disagree with is looking at the same reality through a fundamentally different lens? Why exactly is it so hard to lose the narrative we hold as central to our worldview? And can we find solutions that remain useful, even when people disagree about the diagnosis?  Listen on your favorite podcast platform
To receive new posts and support our work, become a free or paid subscriber. We will always keep all of our content free for everyone – however, our paid subscribers help this remain possible. Thank you. In case you missed it…In this week’s episode, I was joined by Dr. Richard C. Schwartz, the therapist who developed Internal Family Systems (IFS), and Steffi Bednarek, a climate psychologist applying that same model to organizations, governments, and culture at large. Dick walked through the origins of IFS, which describes the mind as naturally made up of “parts” – protectors and exiles – with their own histories, fears, and roles, which are all held by an underlying “Self.” Steffi extended the model outward to show how institutions and even entire countries can be read as systems of exiles and protectors, and shared how she uses IFS with governments, financial institutions, and wealth holders to defuse shame and effectively guide toward pro-social behavioral change. Together, we explored why healing our relationship to our own most despised parts may be inseparable from healing our relationship to the rest of the living world.  Listen on your favorite podcast platform Want to support The Great Simplification podcast?The Great Simplification podcast is produced by The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future (ISEOF), a 501(c)(3) organization. We want to keep all content completely free to view globally and without ads. If you’d like to support ISEOF and its content via a tax-deductible donation, please use the link below. Support The Great Simplification Want to connect with The Great Simplification audience?
© 2026 Nate Hagens
|
