What it Means to Live in Complex Systems

Hello and welcome to rewilding philosophy, your newsletter about ^ekophilosophical health for our times or in other words: life advice, but with values.

---

A friend of mine recently wondered if it was okay to peroxide her hair, considering the harmful chemicals she’d be exposing herself to, and their impact on the environment. Eventually, she decided to go for it, and it looks great on her, by the way. She explained that she felt it was okay because it’s a matter of scale. She already lives in a small apartment, flies little, and eats a mostly vegetarian diet. It’s different if she colors her hair versus a CEO who constantly flies around in a private jet and owns a yacht.

I agree and I disagree with her reasoning.

I agree because obviously, when you look at the numbers, peroxiding your hair is marginal compared to the chemicals used in agriculture, the garment industry, or other big industries. As I mentioned before, there is no way of escaping the system. We are entangled, co-constituted, already polluted, and polluting. This is not an article for blame.

Arguing based on numbers is a valid and rational approach. It makes sense to compare impacts by numbers.

But this is not where our reasoning needs to stop. There is another valid argument that goes beyond the numbers.

Most of you are familiar with systems thinking. Systems thinking involves perceiving the world in terms of interconnected and intra-acting relations that form a whole. Unlike traditional linear, analytic thinking, which breaks down the whole into simpler parts and analyzes them in isolation, systems thinking emphasizes relationships, feedback loops, and dynamic interactions within systems. Wholes nested within wholes nested within wholes.

Within the traditional, linear view we often think in terms of hierarchical scales—structures or phenomena are analyzed at various discrete levels, such as micro, meso, and macro. For instance, in ecology, we might look at individual organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems as separate scales.

In systems thinking, however, patterns and interactions at different levels are seen as interconnected and often self-similar, much like fractals in mathematics. A fractal is a complex structure where similar patterns recur at progressively smaller scales. In fractal geometry, a part of the fractal replicates the structure of the whole. Similarly, in systems thinking, processes and structures at smaller scales often reflect those at larger scales. For instance, the branching patterns of trees are similar to the branching of roots, blood vessels, and river systems, regardless of the scale.

The patterns are repetitive on different scales. The patterns we show in everyday life are likely patterns that repeat on larger scales and in different places.

The parapsychology researcher Rupert Sheldrake suggests that patterns in biological and physical systems are guided by fields of information, which he terms "morphic fields." According to this theory, patterns in nature are not just the result of genetic information or environmental factors but are influenced by morphic fields. These fields serve as blueprints that shape the form and behavior of living organisms across space and time. When a particular pattern or structure has been expressed before, it makes the re-expression of the same pattern more likely. For example, the formation of specific crystal structures or animal behaviors is influenced by past, similar structures and behaviors.

According to Sheldrake, natural systems exhibit habitual patterns that are maintained through morphic fields. Once a particular pattern of form or behavior is established, it becomes a habitual pattern, easier to replicate in the future.

The patterns we practice, such as living with little concern for our environmental impact because it is relatively low, repeat on all scales. The CEO of a major oil company might reason, “… we are already investing in renewables, others do it too, it’s what the people want,” but the behavioral pattern is similar.

That’s why this is not about blame - it’s rather about developing empathy. Many would argue that there is no need for empathy for the CEO of an oil company and the super-rich. Yet, their reasoning and behavior are patterns we already practice in our own lives.

While Sheldrake’s ideas are widely critiqued, I find his arguments compelling and believe that even if morphic fields don’t exist, the idea of patterns repeating on different scales still holds true.

Transformation researcher

Karen O'Brien

explains how actions and changes in one part of the system can have far-reaching impacts elsewhere. Through her theory of quantum social change, she applies ideas from quantum physics to social science. In quantum physics, entanglement refers to particles becoming interconnected, such that the state of one particle instantly influences another, regardless of distance. Applying this to social change, quantum social change emphasizes the deep entanglement of individuals, societies, and ecological systems.

In her book “You Matter More than You Think” (highly recommend - her book and newsletter) she writes:

“You matter. When it comes to climate change, we all matter. In fact, we matter much more than we think. We matter because we are each a [whole/part] of an entangled quantum system, embedded in a reality that is full of potential. Whether we interpret quantum social change as an actual process or as a metaphor, it invites us to consider how each of us can and does influence both our individual and shared reality. This is because in a quantum universe, the [I/ we] space is shared by all living and non-living beings. If we relate to ourselves, each other, the environment, and the future as entangled and full of potential, we will influence the social reality we experience. Radical change involves getting to the root of the matter and recognizing that [I/you/we/it] matters.”

What does it mean for how we can live our lives? We can strive to create patterns we want to see repeated on all scales. We can take each action seriously—because they matter. At the same time, we can acknowledge that we are co-constituted with our environment in such a way that we won’t always make the “right” choice. But by practicing the pattern of reflecting on our actions, trying to find alternatives, and striving to make the best choice, we are already practicing a pattern of regenerative living.

What also matters is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater: while the argument of numbers is insufficient, it’s still valid. I don’t advocate for disregarding numbers—they matter. But so do patterns. Integrating systems thinking doesn’t mean disintegrating analytics. Instead, we get the best picture of reality when we integrate both.