Chapter 30.
In an era increasingly defined by complex, interconnected challenges—from mounting debt and the harsh realities of austerity to the imperative of sustainable growth and environmental stewardship—a desperate need arises to transcend the Right-Left polarised politics that these topics often engender. The task at hand is too urgent for confrontational attitudes. The first, and perhaps most crucial, step is to accept the reality of our current position, without judgment or recrimination. I find no value in trying to lay blame for problems that need to be solved. The image of Nero fiddling while Rome burned is not improved by two, or three, or more competitor ‘Nero’s’ arguing over who is playing the correct tune. Fruitful dialogue begins when all are respectfully acknowledged as members of the same human community, each with their own perspectives and contributions.
The same principle applies to Nations, States, International and Intergovernmental Institutions. The starting position is where we are now. There are valid arguments about trade agreements and protecting vital interests, but these are aspects to be navigated within the larger framework of a shared human purpose. There are great minds from every culture, ideology, and philosophy. The imperative is to listen deeply to one another, irrespective of preconceived notions of ‘like minds,’ until our understanding of ‘like minds’ is capable of including everybody. When we better know others, and ourselves, we can begin to find ways to meet our needs in ways that align with the needs of others and, indeed, the planet.
This requires a genuine curiosity about differing viewpoints, seeking to understand the underlying motivations and experiences that shape them, rather than simply waiting for an opportunity to counter-argue. As Jonathan Haidt explores in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, understanding the diverse moral foundations that underpin our political and religious beliefs is crucial for bridging these divides and fostering genuine understanding between seemingly opposing viewpoints. Haidt’s work identifies several universal moral foundations, such as Care/Harm (protecting others from suffering), Fairness/Cheating (justice and proportionality), Loyalty/Betrayal (group cohesion), Authority/Subversion (respect for hierarchy and tradition), Sanctity/Degradation (purity and sacredness), and Liberty/Oppression (resistance to domination). Recognising that different political ideologies prioritise these foundations differently can illuminate the root causes of disagreement and pave the way for more empathetic and productive conversations.
It is precisely this focus on ‘needs’ that will liberate us from the limitations of ‘agenda.’ Agendas, by their nature, are often about winning a particular argument or achieving a pre-defined outcome, which can inadvertently deepen divisions. Needs, however, are universal and shared. As Tim Minchin says, “Most of society’s argument is kept alive by a failure to acknowledge nuance. We tend to generate false dichotomies and then try to argue one point using two entirely different sets of assumptions. Like two tennis players trying to win a match by hitting beautifully executed shots from either end of separate tennis courts.” When we shift from defending our “tennis court” (our agenda) to understanding the shared “game” (universal needs), solutions become far more accessible and collaborative. This highlights a flaw in much of our collective problem-solving: the tendency to adopt an “either/or” mindset when a “both/and” approach is often far more effective. As behavioural scientist Rory Sutherland illustrates with the famous Decca Records decision to sign Brian Poole and the Tremeloes over The Beatles, insisting on a single ‘right’ choice can lead to missing out on vastly greater opportunities. Complex societal challenges are rarely solved by choosing one extreme over another; rather, they demand the integration of diverse perspectives and solutions, embracing the power of ‘both/and’ thinking.
Our tendency towards such simplistic binaries is not merely a political failing but rooted in human cognition. Daniel Kahneman, in his work Thinking, Fast and Slow, illuminates how our minds operate through two systems: System 1, which is fast, intuitive, and emotional, and System 2, which is slower, more deliberate, and logical. In the face of complexity and uncertainty, System 1 often defaults to easily digestible narratives and “either/or” choices, reinforced by biases like confirmation bias, where we selectively seek information that affirms our existing beliefs. This cognitive shortcut, while efficient for quick decisions, actively hinders our ability to engage with nuance and embrace the “both/and” solutions that complex challenges demand. Breaking free from the echo-chamber, therefore, requires not just intellectual effort but a conscious override of these ingrained mental habits, pushing us to engage System 2 and truly grapple with multifaceted realities.
If we focus on needs, we can find solutions where the means reflects the culture, ideology, and philosophy as and where they are. This is a referral of needs and not of ‘rights’. The emphasis on needs allows for a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to problem-solving, acknowledging that while the fundamental needs are universal, the best ways to meet them can vary greatly across different societies and circumstances. We do well to be wary of cultural arrogance. Equally, respect for culture, ideology, and philosophy is not an acceptance of cultural relativism. Neither an assumption of ‘Western Ideals’ as morally inevitable nor ‘Cultural Purity’ as justification of any status quo allow for the dialogue needed. Having food and drink, shelter, security, family, creativity, dignity, and being heard; these are universal needs. Universal need is the defining focus from where we can start our conversation, providing a common ground that transcends ideological boundaries and allows for truly collaborative problem-solving. It is on this shared foundation of fundamental human requirements that we can build bridges, rather than walls, in the pursuit of solutions for our complex world.
Solving complex issues requires us to move beyond a narrow “scarcity mindset” and the “efficiency bias” that often dominates modern institutions. Many challenges, from economic austerity to environmental stewardship, are approached with a focus on short-term cost minimisation and predictable, quantifiable outcomes. As Rory Sutherland argues, real-world problems are often “fat-tailed,” meaning that unpredictable, highly impactful events or solutions are far more common and potent than a linear, “thin-tailed” view would suggest. Over-optimising for the past, or for easily measurable metrics, risks trapping us in a “local maximum” and missing transformative opportunities. This is analogous to the “explore/exploit” dynamic observed in nature: while efficient “exploitation” of known solutions is necessary, a willingness to “explore” new, seemingly random, or less predictable paths is vital for long-term survival and breakthrough innovation.
This pursuit of predictable outcomes, often driven by a “scarcity mindset,” can lead societies to become trapped in what systems theorist Donella H. Meadows termed a “local maximum.” Her work, Thinking in Systems, reveals that complex systems are rarely linear; they are characterised by intricate feedback loops, delays, and non-obvious leverage points. Focusing solely on “twiddling nerdy numbers”—adjusting parameters or optimising small parts—while ignoring the deeper structure or the overarching “paradigm” from which the system emerges, is a recipe for stagnation. True systemic change, Meadows argues, comes from identifying and influencing these high-leverage points, particularly the mindsets and fundamental goals that drive the system. This means challenging the very assumptions that lead to our “either/or” political impasses and seeking new ways of understanding the problem space itself.
The perils of this over-optimisation are vividly illustrated in the business world through Clayton M. Christensen’s concept of “the innovator’s dilemma.” In The Innovator’s Dilemma, Christensen demonstrates how even highly successful companies, by diligently focusing on improving existing products for their most profitable customers (an “exploit” strategy), inadvertently become blind to “disruptive innovations”—often simpler, cheaper alternatives that initially appeal to niche markets but eventually redefine the entire industry. This relentless pursuit of efficiency and predictable returns, while rational in the short term, prevents them from “exploring” new paths. Overcoming the echo-chamber, therefore, is not merely about dialogue, but about fostering an institutional and societal willingness to embrace disruptive solutions and invest in uncertain, “fat-tailed” opportunities alongside the work of optimising existing systems.
Moving from acknowledging shared needs to forging collaborative solutions demands a willingness to engage with those whose perspectives may seem fundamentally opposed. Adam Kahane, in Collaborating with the Enemy, offers insights into how diverse and even adversarial groups can move forward together on “tough challenges.” Kahane advocates for “stretch collaboration,” a methodology that encourages participants to embrace uncertainty, experiment with new approaches, and listen to understand, rather than to persuade. This involves moving beyond fixed agendas and comfortable echo chambers to collectively sense the current reality, envision a desired future, and then co-create pathways to get there. Such a process requires humility, a commitment to learning, and a recognition that no single party holds all the answers, fostering the “both/and” approach that Tim Minchin and Rory Sutherland champion.
This provides a framework for citizen assemblies and other deliberative democratic models to truly function as spaces for genuine problem-solving. Initiatives like citizen assemblies offer a promising model, bringing together randomly selected, representative groups of ordinary citizens to learn about complex issues, deliberate, and make recommendations. By providing a structured environment for informed discussion, citizen assemblies can bypass partisan divides and focus on solutions that serve the common good, embodying the principles of needs-based, collaborative problem-solving advocated throughout this chapter. This represents a way to “transcend paradigms,” shifting the frame of reference through which people perceive the world and make decisions, leading to a more robust and adaptable approach to our shared future.
Next Chapter: Net-Zero: Transition & Green Growth
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973)
Christensen, Clayton M., The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 1997)
Galbraith, John Kenneth, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958)
Haidt, Jonathan, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon, 2012)
Kahane, Adam, Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree With or Like or Trust (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2017)
Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011)
Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (New York: Dover Publications, 2003)
Levitsky, Steven and Ziblatt, Daniel, How Democracies Die (New York: Crown, 2018)
Mazzucato, Mariana, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (London: Anthem Press, 2013)
Meadows, Donella H., Thinking in Systems: A Primer (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008)
Mounk, Yascha, The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018)
Piketty, Thomas, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014)
Rodrik, Dani, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011)
Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1942)
Sen, Amartya, Development as Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999)
Sortition Foundation, https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/