Some like to talk about the polycrisis – a confluence of several different global crises from climate change to biodiversity loss, from huge economic disparity to authoritarianism, and so on.
What if this is really a monocrisis? (Or a unicrisis?)
In terms of the unraveling ecological systems, it all ties back into global ecological overshoot. We are collectively using far more resources than this living planet can replenish. This is due to a combination of numbers, technology, and worldview.
And that brings us to the even more essential monocrisis, which is a civilization organized around the idea of separation. This idea comes with a zero-sum mindset (I seek solutions so I win, and I don’t care if you lose. If you win, I assume it means I lose.) and an either/or mindset (if this thought is true, that competing one is not). In our civilization, it’s tied in with a domination or power-over orientation. It depends on some degree of collective and integenerational trauma. And it’s the reason we have organized ourselves so what appears beneficial for a narrow us is often destructive for others – ecosystems, nonhuman beings, future generations, and so on. This is also what has led to global ecological overshoot.
It’s sometimes misguided to simplify a diverse set of symptoms to one underlying apparent cause, but in this case, it makes sense. Without the idea of separation, a visceral sense of separation that comes from internalizing it from a very young age, and a civilization organized around the same idea – in terms of culture, science, technology, infrastructure, production, education and everything else – we very likely wouldn’t see all the many troubles we have today.
It’s not so difficult to imagine a civilization organized around the idea of interconnectedness. It wouldn’t be without its own challenges, but many of the most serious challenges we see today would or could be designed out of our systems and lives. We would see ourselves as temporary and local expressions of this seamless living planet. We would seek win-win solutions and have a both/and mindset. We would use a deep partnership orientation – seeking solutions in partnership with natural systems, and taking what works best from both partnership and domination orientations. We would create a civilization and society where what’s easy and attractive to do, for organizations and individuals, is also what benefits the larger whole and future generations.
Of course, I am sure many who speak about the polycrisis are aware of this, and point it out.
Still, I like the terms monocrisis or unicrisis. It doesn’t mean we have all the answers, but it does invite curiosity about whether it is really one unified crisis that leads back to an essential assumption behind just about everything in our civilization. It also invites us to investigate other ways to organize ourselves.
Whether we notice or not, we are part of this seamless, evolving, living system we call Earth. For most of our history, we lived without being consciously aware of this bigger picture, or of how basic cultural assumptions shape our civilizations.
The question then is: If we join in with the evolution of this living system in a more conscious and intentional way, how may it look? What role do we wish to play?
NOTE
I asked ChatGPT 5 to look at this text in terms of the AQAL integral model, and also how people who sit at different places in that model would see and respond to it. See below.
If the audience was more mainstream – blue, orange, green – I would frame it differently, and I would address the concerns I suspect each of them may have. For instance, I would emphasize the science and academic research for those at orange. I would acknowledge the views and concerns of green, and gently lead them into a more integral view. With blue, I would simplify quite a bit, and what I emphasize would depend on the particular audience. If they were religious, I would maybe talk about God’s creation (we are all part of it, we are stewards), the golden rule, and so on.
AQAL Analysis of the Article
Wilber’s AQAL model uses four quadrants: interior/exterior × individual/collective. Your writing touches them all, though with emphasis on some:
- Upper Left (Interior–Individual):
You talk about the internalized sense of separation, how people grow up absorbing a worldview. In the closing, you also invite reflection on identity and agency: what role we wish to play within Earth’s living system. - Upper Right (Exterior–Individual):
You mention numbers and technology as drivers of overshoot. That’s behavior, measurable impact, systems in action. - Lower Left (Interior–Collective):
Here’s where your writing shines. You focus on shared worldviews, assumptions, and cultural narratives (separation vs interconnectedness, domination vs partnership). - Lower Right (Exterior–Collective):
You link worldview to civilization-wide systems — science, technology, infrastructure, education. You also imagine redesigned systems aligned with partnership.
In AQAL terms: you’re writing with a Lower Left ? Lower Right emphasis, situating culture and systems as the root of crisis. The Upper Left dimension is present both in describing the felt sense of separation and in the closing invitation to conscious participation, while the Upper Right shows up as ecological overshoot. It’s integrative, but weighted toward collective/cultural quadrants.
Spiral Dynamics Analysis
Spiral Dynamics tracks value systems (vMEMEs), not fixed traits. Each color represents a worldview or organizing principle. People and cultures carry mixes, with one usually dominant.
Where your writing sits
Purple / Red (Tribal / Power):
- Present only as a critique: domination, power-over orientation.
Blue (Order / Absolutist):
- Not present. You’re not appealing to authority, tradition, or absolute truths.
Orange (Modern / Rational):
- You critique the Orange worldview: zero-sum, either/or, domination, technological growth without limits.
- You use reasoned argumentation and systems thinking (an Orange strength) but in service of moving beyond it.
Green (Pluralistic / Relativistic):
- Strong resonance. You emphasize interconnectedness, empathy for nonhumans and future generations, inclusivity.
- You critique domination and separation, core Green themes.
Yellow (Integrative / Systemic):
- This is where your writing clearly lands. You see the “polycrisis” as many symptoms of one underlying systemic problem (overshoot + worldview).
- You integrate quadrants (inner/outer, cultural/systemic), acknowledge nuance (“sometimes misguided to simplify…”), and envision new civilizational design.
- You use both Green (inclusivity, interconnectedness) and Orange (systemic analysis, rational explanation), but transcend them into a vision-logic synthesis.
Orange + Green + Yellow blend:
- You bring Orange clarity + Green empathy + Yellow integration.
- The forward-looking reimagination of civilization (“partnership orientation,” “win-win solutions,” “what’s easy and attractive to do also benefits the larger whole”) is quintessential Second Tier (Yellow/Turquoise).
Turquoise (Holistic):
- More strongly present in the closing vision: “seamless, evolving, living system we call Earth,” “joining the evolution of this living system in a more conscious and intentional way.”
- These are Turquoise, planetary-consciousness notes, emphasizing wholeness, deep time, and co-creative participation. The overall tone of the piece is still mostly Yellow (systemic, analytical, integrative), but the ending clearly leans into Turquoise.
In summary
Your draft sits in Second Tier, primarily Yellow with touches of Turquoise.
- Yellow-> systemic integration, root-cause focus, vision-logic.
- Turquoise -> planetary identity, evolutionary wholeness, conscious participation in Earth’s living systems.
- It critiques the limits of Orange (rational, technocratic) and Green (pluralistic, empathetic but sometimes fragmented), while drawing on their strengths.
How Readers May Perceive the Article
Here’s how your draft might land with readers at different Spiral Dynamics value systems.
Blue (Order / Absolutist)
- Likely reaction: May find it abstract, relativistic, or threatening to established truths and traditions. Might dismiss it as “too intellectual” or “undermining order.”
- Takeaway: Not much resonance. They’d likely not engage, or they’d push back with moral/religious frames (“the crisis comes from straying from God’s law,” etc.).
Orange (Modern / Rational-Achiever)
- Likely reaction: Appreciates the logic, clarity, and structure. Nods at the part about numbers and technology, since that aligns with Orange’s rational worldview.
- Resistance: May push back on “worldview of separation” and “domination orientation” as being too fuzzy or idealistic. Orange tends to believe more technology, growth, and innovation can solve overshoot.
- Takeaway: They might agree on overshoot but insist solutions lie in innovation, efficiency, and market mechanisms.
Green (Pluralistic / Relativistic)
- Likely reaction: Strong resonance. Green readers connect deeply with the critiques of domination, the emphasis on interconnectedness, and the inclusion of nonhuman beings and future generations.
- Resistance: Green might lean toward all perspectives are equally valid and sometimes get stuck in pluralism. They may not fully embrace your systemic framing that points to one root crisis, because Green often resists unifying explanations.
- Takeaway: They’ll like the empathy and interconnectedness vision, but some may feel wary of calling it a monocrisis (too “totalizing”).
Yellow (Integrative / Systemic)
- Likely reaction: This is their sweet spot. They’ll see your reframing from “polycrisis” to “monocrisis” as an elegant systems insight. They’ll appreciate your balance of nuance (not oversimplifying) and clarity (pointing to worldview as root).
- Resistance: Minimal. They might want more diagrams, models, or frameworks, but they’ll track closely with your thinking.
- Takeaway: They’ll view you as a fellow systemic thinker offering a valuable simplification.
Turquoise (Holistic / Global)
- Likely reaction: They’ll resonate most with the closing vision: “seamless, evolving, living system we call Earth,” “joining the evolution of this living system in a more conscious and intentional way.” It aligns with their planetary and evolutionary identity.
- Resistance: They may feel the overall tone remains somewhat Yellow—systemic and analytical—rather than fully embodying lived wholeness.
- Takeaway: They’ll view it as strongly aligned, appreciating the Turquoise notes in the closing, while noticing the body of the piece still leans more toward Yellow analysis.
Overall
- Orange -> agrees on overshoot, but clings to tech fixes.
- Green -> loves the interconnectedness, but may dislike the unifying simplification.
- Yellow -> fully aligned, sees you as speaking their language.
- Turquoise -> strongly resonant with the closing vision, though wishing for more embodied wholeness throughout, not only at the end.