🌎💬

Planetary Terminology

This page represents our ongoing effort to define and clarify the terminology used in discussions about planetary phenomena, cultural evolution, and emerging concepts in planetary sustainability. It serves as a dynamic resource for fostering a shared understanding of these complex and interconnected topics, offering precise definitions, nuanced explanations, and contextual insights.

Update: 12.2024

Affluence

The abundance of wealth and resources, typically characterized by a high standard of living, substantial income, and the ability to acquire and enjoy goods and services that exceed basic necessities. Affluence often reflects societal progress in terms of economic prosperity but is also deeply intertwined with patterns of overconsumption, ecological overshoot, and the disproportionate use of planetary resources. It highlights significant disparities in resource access and utilization across different regions and populations, contributing to global environmental pressures such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the depletion of natural ecosystems. In the context of sustainability, affluence raises critical questions about equity, responsibility, and the need to redefine well-being beyond material accumulation.

Anthropisation

The physical transformation of the Earth's environment as a result of humanity's technical systems. It encompasses the ways in which human activities, such as urban development, agriculture, industrialisation, and technology, have modified natural landscapes, ecosystems, and climate patterns. Anthropisation often implies significant alterations of the natural world, including habitat destruction, pollution, and resource depletion, reflecting the impact of human actions on the planet's physical state.

Ref: Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole. Éditions Gallimard.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene is a proposed epoch in Earth’s history characterized by the unprecedented scale and intensity of human activities altering planetary systems. Its onset is typically associated with the mid-20th century “Great Acceleration,” a period marked by a rapid increase in anthropogenic impacts such as climate change, ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, environmental contamination, resource exploitation, and land-use transformations. These changes exceed the natural variability of the preceding Holocene epoch and are inscribed as stratigraphic markers in geological archives, reflecting a fundamental deviation in the Earth’s system dynamics.

The official definition of the Anthropocene according to the former Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy: “The ‘Anthropocene’ is a term widely used since its coining by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000 to denote the present geological time interval, in which many conditions and processes on Earth are profoundly altered by human impact. This impact has intensified significantly since the onset of industrialization, taking us out of the Earth System state typical of the Holocene Epoch that post-dates the last glaciation.”

Though not officially designated as a geological epoch, the Anthropocene is widely embraced as a conceptual framework in the physical and social sciences and has gained significant traction in popular culture. Its classification remains contested, with debates over whether it constitutes an event, an epoch, or even an era. Proposed starting points range from the Agricultural Revolution, as suggested by the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis, to the Columbian Exchange and the Industrial Revolution, reflecting its multifaceted nature and ongoing relevance in scholarly discourse.

Ref: Anthropocene Working Ground, International Commission on Stratigraphy, supported by extensive interdisciplinary research and peer-reviewed studies.

📍 Our dedicated page

The Anthropocene could be generalized as a planetary state characterized by the emergence of a technologically advanced species that significantly alters the dynamics of its host planet’s systems. This transition represents a shift from biotic to “agency-dominated” biospheres, where human (or equivalent) activities become the primary drivers of planetary feedback. Rooted in thermodynamic principles, the Anthropocene marks a tipping point in the co-evolution of a civilization and its planetary environment, with potential outcomes ranging from sustainable equilibrium to collapse. While often associated with Earth, the Anthropocene can be generalized as a predictable phase for any energy-intensive civilization across the cosmos.

Ref: Frank, A., & Sullivan, W. T. (2018). The Anthropocene Generalized: Evolution of Exo-Civilizations and Their Planetary Feedback. Astrobiology, 18(4), 503–518.

Anthropocene Traps

Anthropocene traps are identified as maladaptive phenomena that have emerged from initially adaptive processes, exhibit signs of undesirable impacts on global human well-being, and have a trapping mechanism making it difficult to escape their negative impacts once activated.

The evolution of these traps occurs across four (4) distinct phases:

1. Initiation
   This phase starts with social or technological innovations that set new trajectories in motion, focusing on immediate, local outcomes while often overlooking long-term, global consequences.

2. Scaling
   Here, the initial trajectories gain momentum and expand globally, involving increased connectivity and system establishment, with a focus on adapting to and exploiting these changes.

3. Masking
   In this phase, the global system's failures, like ecosystem degradation, become obscured due to the complexities of global connectivity, leading to a lack of immediate awareness and response to these issues.

4. Trapping
   The final phase where entrenched mechanisms make it extremely difficult to alter the established paths, resulting in persistent negative impacts. These mechanisms include ecological tipping points, cultural inertia, conflicts, and mismatches in global management and perception.

Fourteen (14) Anthropocene Traps have been suggested:

1. Simplification
   Over-specialisation leading to systems vulnerable to shocks.

2. Growth-for-Growth
   Institutional lock-ins that prioritise economic growth over well-being.

3. Overshoot
   Continued material growth leading to surpassing Earth system limits.

4. Division
   Unstable selection for global human cooperation, increasing conflict risks.

5. Contagion
   Global connectivity heightening the risk of large-scale contagions, like pandemics.

6. Infrastructure Lock-In
   Complex material infrastructures becoming maladaptive.

7. Chemical Pollution
   Production of complex/persistent compounds harmful to humans/ecosystems.

8. Existential Technology
   Technological arms-races leading to the evolution of destructive technologies.

9. Technological Autonomy
   Reliance on automation potentially misaligned with human needs, e.g. AI.

10. Disinformation & Misinformation
    Digitalisation amplifying the spread of false information.

11. Short-Termism
    Prioritising short-term benefits, reinforcing other traps, and promoting conflict.

12. Overconsumption
    Separation of production and consumption leading to excessive use of resources.

13. Biosphere Disconnect
    Separation of human settlements from ecosystems, reducing environmental awareness.

14. Local Social Capital Loss
    Digitalisation leading to reduced face-to-face interaction and community engagement.

Ref: Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Jansen, R. E. V., Avila Ortega, D. I., Lade, S. J., & Galaz, V. (2023). Evolution of the polycrisis: Anthropocene traps that challenge global sustainability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 379(1893), 20220261.

Anthroposphere

The Anthroposphere is to geography (space) what the Anthropocene is to Earth’s history (time). Sometimes also referred to as the technosphere, it is the part of the environment that is made or modified by humans for use in human activities and habitats. The Anthroposphere includes all human-generated systems and materials, such as the human population, urban environments, agriculture, transportation systems, and manufactured goods. The Anthroposphere is comparable to the Biosphere in that it represents the total mass of human-generated systems and their interaction with Earth's systems. However, unlike the Biosphere, which efficiently produces and recycles materials through natural processes like photosynthesis and decomposition, the Anthroposphere is not self-sustaining and has a significant planetary-wide impacts. Indeed, it is a sobering reality that the expansion of the Anthroposphere occurs at the expense of the Biosphere, diminishing its complexity and equilibrium. The Anthroposphere is the youngest of Earth's spheres but has rapidly influenced the planet and its natural systems (see Anthropocene).

📍 Our dedicated page

Biosphere

The Biosphere refers to the global ecological system integrating all living organisms and their interactions with the lithosphere (earth), hydrosphere (water), and atmosphere (air). Encompassing the sum of Earth’s ecosystems, it represents the zone of life where biological processes unfold, from the deepest oceanic layers to the highest atmospheric altitudes where life can exist. As a critical component of Earth, the Biosphere is intrinsically linked to habitability and the concept of the ecosphere, representing the delicate balance required for life to thrive. Within the vast Cosmos, Earth remains the only known planet to harbor a Biosphere, underscoring its unique and vital role in sustaining life.

Cascade effect

A cascade effect refers to a causal chain in which a small change in one system triggers a series of interconnected changes in other systems, resulting in a significant overall transformation across the affected network. This phenomenon is characterized by its amplification potential, as interactions between system components can either escalate destabilization or stabilize parts of the system, depending on the nature of the links. Cascade effects are synonymous with chain reactions or domino effects, but they often involve complex, nonlinear dynamics that propagate uncertainty through interdependent systems.

In the context of climate systems, cascade effects are particularly important for understanding tipping element interactions. For instance, the destabilization of a polar ice sheet could increase the likelihood of other tipping elements, such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), undergoing state changes. These interactions can create feedback loops that amplify the initial disturbance, leading to further tipping events or irreversible shifts in the Earth system. Conversely, some links between elements can have stabilizing effects, mitigating the spread of cascading impacts.

Conservation Imperatives

The Conservation Imperative is a science-based framework developed to secure the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. It identifies 16,825 sites covering approximately 164 million hectares globally, prioritizing regions critical for rare, range-restricted, and threatened species. These sites are concentrated in biodiversity-rich areas, particularly tropical and subtropical forests, and represent only 1.22% of Earth’s terrestrial surface. Protecting these areas addresses the urgent need to prevent imminent extinctions and serves as a cornerstone of global conservation strategies like the 30x30 target, which aims to protect 30% of Earth’s surface by 2030. The framework combines geospatial analysis of species rarity with fractional land cover mapping to refine the identification of these high-priority areas. It highlights the ecological and economic feasibility of integrating unprotected habitats into the global protected area network, with an estimated cost of $169 billion for tropical sites over five years. Moreover, the Conservation Imperative underscores the importance of collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, whose lands often overlap with critical conservation zones, emphasizing stewardship and sustainable practices as key to its success.

Ref: Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Hahn, N. R., Lee, A. T. L., Vynne, C., Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., Beckham, C., Ceballos, G., Cuthbert, R., Dirzo, R., Fankem, O., Hertel, S., Li, B. V., Mellin, H., Pharand-Deschênes, F., Olson, D., Pandav, B., Peres, C. A., Putra, R., Rosenthal, A., Verwer, C., Wikramanayake, E., & Zolli, A. (2024). Conservation Imperatives: Securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. Frontiers in Science, 2, 1349350.

Cosmoctony

The destruction of an original way of seeing the world, aka a worldview or a cosmovision. The erosion of biocultural diversity may be seen as a cosmoctonic event.

Ref: Berque, A. (2000). Écoumène: Introduction à l’étude des milieux humains. Éditions Belin.

Cosmicisation

The process by which humanity opens up to the cosmos; the set of changes (anthropological, philosophical, technological, etc.) that occur in contact with realities beyond Earth, in human consciousness, and in the history of societies.

Ref: Sevastyanov, V., Ursul, A., & Shkolenko, U. (1981). The Universe and Civilization.

Critical Zone (Earth as)

The Critical Zone concept, as developed by Bruno Latour, redefines humanity’s relationship with the Earth by focusing on the fragile layer where life is sustained. Originating from Earth system science, the Critical Zone encompasses the soil, water, atmosphere, and biosphere—the interactive interface that makes life possible. Latour uses this concept to challenge modernist views of the Earth as a controllable, detached “globe” and to advocate for a more grounded, participatory approach to planetary life.

The globe represents an abstract, uniform view of Earth, seen from afar, which reinforces the illusion of human mastery over nature. This perspective, deeply rooted in modernity, treats the Earth as a passive resource for exploitation, masking its complexity and fragility. In contrast, the Critical Zone highlights Earth as an active, dynamic system, characterized by local specificity and constant interaction among its components. Humans are not external to this system but deeply embedded in its processes, shaping and being shaped by the environment.

Latour connects the Critical Zone to the Anthropocene, the era in which human activity has become a dominant geological force. This epoch exposes the inadequacy of the modernist separation between nature and culture. The Critical Zone bridges this divide, presenting humans as co-actors within Earth’s systems rather than detached observers. It emphasizes the urgency of addressing environmental challenges—such as climate change and biodiversity loss—not as abstract global problems but as localized phenomena with interconnected global consequences.

Central to Latour’s argument is the need for a shift from abstraction to specificity. Unlike the globe’s homogenized view, the Critical Zone focuses on the lived realities of particular places and ecosystems. It calls for interdisciplinary approaches to address the complex interplay of biological, geological, and human forces. Latour also reframes Gaia, the Earth’s self-regulating system, not as harmonious or stable but as turbulent and unpredictable, requiring a new ethic of care and responsibility.

This perspective has profound implications for governance, science, and ethics. It challenges top-down, technocratic solutions in favor of grounded, localized responses informed by diverse knowledge systems, including indigenous practices and scientific insights. Politically, it demands institutions that recognize humanity’s entanglement with non-human systems, fostering planetary stewardship rather than domination.

Latour’s Critical Zone concept ultimately dismantles the illusion of control implied by the globe, urging humanity to “land” in the tangible, immediate realities of Earth’s fragile systems.

Ecosphere

The Ecosphere refers to the inhabitable space for life (or lyfe) to exist, including the collective sum of all Earth's ecosystems. It encompasses the interactions between living organisms (plants, animals, microbes) and their physical environment (air, water, mineral soil). Representing the global network of biotic (biological) and abiotic (physical and chemical) components, the ecosphere is integral to the interconnected processes that sustain life. This concept extends beyond the biosphere, which focuses primarily on the biological elements, by incorporating the physical and chemical aspects of the Earth that interact with and support life. The existence and functionality of the Ecosphere are intrinsically linked to Earth's position within the Goldilocks Zone of the Sun, a region where conditions are ‘just right’ for liquid water – an essential ingredient for life as we know it – to exist. This strategic location enables the dynamic balance within the Ecosphere, fostering the integrated nature of Earth's systems and highlighting the interdependence of life and its environment on a global scale.

📍 Our dedicated page

Ecumene (Oecumene)

The ecumene refers to the emerged and habitable lands of the planet where humans can live and societies can develop, encompassing the biosphere regions where human activity intertwines with the natural environment. Drawing on Augustin Berque’s insights, it represents not only the physical space shaped by anthropisation but also the symbolic and cultural dimensions that arise from the reciprocal relationship between humans and their environment. The ecumene is both a technical and symbolic domain (anthroposphere), shaped by human practices and cultural systems, reflecting how societies transform and are transformed by their landscapes. It highlights the dynamic interplay between natural ecosystems and the mediating forces of human action, encompassing the physical, ecological, and cultural processes that sustain life and meaning on Earth.

Ref: Berque, A. (1990). Médiance: De milieux en paysages. Paris: Reclus. // Berque, A. (2000). Écoumène: Introduction à l’étude des milieux humains. Paris: Belin.

Earth Stewardship

Earth Stewardship encapsulates the ethos of responsibly managing Earth's resources and ecosystems to sustain ecological resilience and human well-being. This comprehensive approach integrates 6 guiding principles:

1. Multi-scale action to address global challenges;

2. Multi-faceted solutions for simultaneous issues;

3. Aligning incentives with stewardship goals;

4. Ecological and socio-cultural compatibility in decision-making;

5. Valuing the aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual aspects of ecosystems;

6. And leveraging demographic changes like urbanisation for stewardship opportunities.

It underscores the synergy between ecological science, policy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and an ethic of care towards nurturing a sustainable future.

Ref: Earth Stewardship: science for action to sustain the human-earth system, 2011.

Earth System Boundaries (ESBs)

Earth System Boundaries are an evolution of the Planetary Boundaries (PBs), integrating concepts like doughnut economics and Sustainable Development Goals to define a 'safe and just' operating space. Developed by the Earth Commission, ESBs scale quantitative boundaries from local to global levels, incorporating justice to prevent significant human harm such as loss of lives, livelihoods, and nutritional insecurity.

This framework identifies 8 control variables across 5 planetary processes:

1. Climate Change;

2. Biosphere Integrity (intact nature & managed nature);

3. Nutrients/Biogeochemical Flows (phosphorus & nitrogen);

4. Freshwater Change (surface water & groundwater), and;

5. Aerosol Loading.

Ref: Safe and just Earth system boundaries, 2023.
📍 Our dedicated page

Earth System Governance

The interrelated and increasingly integrated system of formal and informal rules, rule-making systems, and actor-networks at all levels of human society (from local to global) that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating, and adapting to global and local environmental change and, in particular, Earth System transformation, within the normative context of sustainable development.

Ref: Earth system governance: a research framework, 2010.

Earth System Interventions (ESIs)

Earth System Interventions encompass a broad spectrum of intentional, large-scale actions aimed at modifying Earth systems. These interventions range from historical practices like land reclamation, reservoir creation, irrigation, intentional extinction, nitrogen cycle management, and ecosystem restoration to emerging technological approaches such as carbon dioxide removal, solar geoengineering, genetic modification of in situ populations, gene drive organisms, de-extinction, and advanced ecosystem restoration. While these interventions hold the potential to address critical sustainability and human welfare challenges, they also bring forth significant environmental, social, political, and ethical considerations, necessitating informed and cautious governance in line with the precautionary principle.

Ref: Earth system interventions as technologies of the Anthropocene, 2021.

Earth System Justice

Earth System Justice is defined as an equitable sharing of nature’s benefits, risks and related responsibilities among all people in the world, within safe and just Earth System Boundaries (ESBs) to provide universal life support.

It includes the 3 Is of Justice:

1. Interspecies & Earth System Stability
   This principle emphasizes rejecting human exceptionalism and focuses on the more-than-human world. It advocates for viewing humans as guardians of the natural world, with a responsibility to maintain the stability of Earth's ecosystems for the benefit of all species.

2. Intergenerational
   This principle is divided into two parts:

   • 2.1. Past and Present:
     It involves acknowledging and respecting the connection and responsibilities between past and present generations.

   • 2.2. Present and Future:
     It focuses on the responsibilities of the current generation towards future generations, ensuring the sustainability and health of the planet for those who come after.

3. Intragenerational
   This principle relates to equity and justice within the current generation. It addresses disparities between countries, communities (including Indigenous peoples), and individuals, advocating for fair and equitable treatment and distribution of resources and responsibilities.

Ref: Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries, 2023.

Existential Moods

Defined by Émile P. Torres, Existential Moods are a subset of worldviews that encapsulate historically contingent orientations toward the permanence, fragility, and ethical significance of life on Earth, shaping and being shaped by the emotional and conceptual climate through which humans understand their place in the cosmos, the stability of their environment, and their moral obligations to preserve it. These moods evolve over time as new knowledge, technologies, and institutional arrangements emerge, and as global challenges shift collective perceptions of risk, responsibility, and human agency.

Throughout history, distinct Existential Moods have arisen and receded, often tied to formative eras:

1. Eternalist Era (Ancient Times to 1850s)

   Characterized by a sense of an enduring natural order, often sustained by divine or mythic principles.

2. Cosmic Fragility (1850s to 1950s)

   Marked by the growing scientific awareness of deep time, evolution, and geological upheaval, revealing Earth’s delicate life-support systems.

3. Brink of Oblivion (1950s to 1980s)

   Defined by the nuclear age’s stark realization that humanity could unleash planet-wide destruction, bringing the notion of self-inflicted extinction into sharp focus.

4. Unforeseen Hazard (1980s to 2000s)

   Influenced by the discovery of catastrophic events like asteroid impacts and sudden climate shifts, underscoring life’s vulnerability to unforeseen cosmic and planetary forces.

5. Age of Polycrisis (2000s to Present)

   Encompassing interwoven threats—climate change, mass extinctions, pandemics, and more—this era intensifies the recognition of systemic fragility, sparking new moral imperatives for planetary stewardship.

Ref: Torres, É. P. (2024). Human extinction: A history of the science and ethics of annihilation. Routledge

Existential Risks

Existential risks are global-scale threats that could irreversibly compromise humanity’s future by causing human extinction, the collapse of global civilization, or the permanent establishment of a dystopian societal state. These risks are distinguished by their scale (global impact affecting all of humanity), intensity (extreme severity of consequences), and irreversibility (permanent outcomes that preclude recovery or adaptation). Their significance lies not only in their potential to end human life but also in their capacity to foreclose humanity’s ability to flourish in the future.

These risks are composed of four critical components. (1) The threat refers to the specific event, process, or condition capable of causing catastrophic outcomes, such as climate change, nuclear war, or unregulated biotechnological advancements. (2) Vulnerability encompasses the weaknesses or systemic fragilities in societal, ecological, or technological structures that increase humanity’s susceptibility to such threats. (3) The response includes the measures, strategies, and policies enacted to mitigate or adapt to the risk. (4) Exposure describes the extent to which human systems, populations, or infrastructures are positioned within the scope of the threat, shaped by factors such as geography, technology, and societal organization.

Anthropogenic existential risks—those arising from human actions and decisions—highlight the dangers of an interconnected world. These risks include scenarios such as human extinction caused by nuclear or biotechnological events, global societal collapse due to the failure of critical systems like food or energy networks, or a dystopian lock-in where oppressive regimes permanently inhibit freedoms, innovation, and human well-being. Such risks are exacerbated by humanity’s dependence on complex global systems, which amplify vulnerabilities and increase exposure to cascading failures.

Climate change serves as a paradigm of how existential risks operate and interact. It demonstrates the potential for risk cascades (chains of adverse effects triggered by an initial event) and tipping points (thresholds in ecological or climate systems beyond which irreversible changes occur). For example, feedback loops, such as the thawing of permafrost that releases greenhouse gases, can amplify warming, destabilize ecosystems, and trigger widespread societal disruption. These effects strain already vulnerable infrastructures, leading to systemic failures across interconnected networks like supply chains, financial systems, and global food production.

Addressing existential risks demands a proactive and integrated approach. This involves analyzing worst-case scenarios, exploring the interplay of systemic vulnerabilities, and developing robust mitigation strategies. By improving societal resilience (the capacity to absorb, recover from, and adapt to shocks) and fostering international cooperation, humanity can reduce vulnerabilities and prepare for these profound threats.

See also: Precipice (the) and Global Polycrisis
📍 Our dedicated page on X-Risks

Feedback Loops

A feedback loop is a closed causal sequence within a system where the effects of an initial change influence the same system, either amplifying or dampening the original change. These loops are crucial in determining the stability and behavior of complex systems. Feedback loops can be positive (reinforcing), where the outcome strengthens the initial change, or negative (balancing), where the outcome counteracts the initial change.

In climate systems, at least 41 physical and biological feedback loops have been identified, demonstrating the complexity and interconnection of Earth’s processes. Positive feedback loops, such as Arctic ice melt reducing albedo (reflectivity) and thereby accelerating warming, can amplify the effects of external forcings, potentially leading to runaway changes or tipping points—thresholds beyond which irreversible shifts occur. Negative feedback loops, such as increased carbon dioxide enhancing vegetation growth and removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, help stabilize systems by counteracting change.

The interaction of these feedback loops often results in compound effects, where changes in one system trigger cascading impacts across interconnected systems. For instance, permafrost thaw releases greenhouse gases, which contribute to further warming and amplify other feedbacks, such as forest dieback or ocean circulation changes. This interplay highlights the role of feedback loops in shaping climate sensitivity and the remaining carbon budget (the allowable carbon emissions to stay within specific temperature targets). Feedback loops frequently exhibit non-linear behavior, with significant uncertainty surrounding thresholds and interactions. They operate across varying time scales and involve biophysical, biological, and human systems.

Gaia Hypothesis

The Gaia Hypothesis posits that Earth functions as a self-regulating system, where living organisms interact with physical and chemical processes to maintain conditions favorable for life. First proposed by James Lovelock in the 1970s, the hypothesis was significantly shaped by the contributions of Lynn Margulis, who emphasized the role of microorganisms in Earth’s biogeochemical cycles, and Dian Hitchcock, who collaborated on atmospheric research that refined its core ideas. The name “Gaïa” (Γαῖα) was inspired by the ancient Greek goddess of the Earth, whose name derives from the root ga meaning “earth” or “land”.

The hypothesis centers on the concept of feedback loops, where life modifies its environment in ways that stabilize planetary conditions. For example, marine phytoplankton influence cloud formation, which affects global temperatures and sunlight levels. These interactions demonstrate the interconnectedness of biological and physical processes in sustaining Earth’s habitability.

Gaia challenges traditional scientific boundaries, uniting biology, geology, and atmospheric science in a single framework. It portrays Earth as an emergent system where self-regulation arises from countless interactions, without implying consciousness or intent. While initially controversial, the hypothesis has inspired fields like Earth system science and planetary boundaries, highlighting the fragility of Earth’s systems and the risks of human-driven disruptions. The Gaia 2.0 concept, proposed by Timothy Lenton and Bruno Latour, builds on this framework by introducing the potential for deliberate human participation in Earth’s self-regulation, emphasizing autotrophy, adaptive networks, heterarchy, and self-aware regulation as key features to foster planetary sustainability. Similar concept: Terra sapiens.

Ref: Gaia as seen through the atmosphere (1972) / Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the gaia hypothesis (1974) / Gaia 2.0 — Could humans add some level of self-awareness to Earth's self-regulation? (2018)

Genesity

Genesity is the capacity of a system—planetary, ecological, or technological—to not only sustain life but also generate and foster the emergence of new forms of biodiversity and complexity. It expands on the concept of habitability by emphasizing life’s dynamic, regenerative potential to adapt and evolve over time. While habitability focuses on maintaining the conditions necessary for existing life, genesity centers on the processes that enable life to innovate, diversify, and create entirely new ecological possibilities. A planet may be habitable without being generative, but a system with high genesity inherently drives ongoing ecological and evolutionary creativity.

In planetary systems, genesity arises from feedback loops, ecological resilience, and the interplay between biotic and abiotic processes that promote adaptation and renewal. Unlike habitability, which often emphasizes stability and resource availability, genesity acknowledges that change and disturbance can be vital forces for fostering life’s potential. This concept aligns with planetary boundaries by framing habitability as the foundation and genesity as the engine of life’s flourishing, both of which must operate within the limits of Earth’s life-support systems. The technosphere, as humanity’s contribution to planetary systems, plays a pivotal role in either enhancing or undermining genesity depending on how it integrates with natural processes. Genesity challenges human systems to move beyond conservation, fostering regenerative practices that enhance ecosystems’ creative potential while adapting to environmental change.

Ref: Wong, M. L., Bartlett, S., Chen, S., & Tierney, L. (2022). Searching for life, mindful of lyfe’s possibilities. Life, 12(6), 783.

Geographicity

The fundamental and irreducible relationship between humans and the Earth, encompassing the ways in which humans experience, understand, and engage with their terrestrial environment as a lived reality filled with meaning, symbolism, and emotional attachments. It is the existential and experiential dimension of human life on Earth, shaping our sense of place, belonging, and identity across various scales, from the intimate to the planetary. Geographicity complements the concept of planetarity by emphasizing the human-Earth relationship and the lived experience of being embedded within the planet's systems and processes. While planetarity highlights the ontological condition of being inextricably connected to the Earth's complex and interconnected systems, geographicity focuses on how this condition is experienced, understood, and navigated by humans as inhabitants of the Earth. Together, these concepts provide a holistic understanding of the human-Earth relationship, recognizing both the objective reality of our planetary embeddedness and the subjective, experiential dimensions of our terrestrial existence.

Ref: Dardel, É. (1952). L’Homme et la Terre: Nature de la Réalité Géographique. Presses Universitaires de France.

Global Safety Net

The Global Safety Net (GSN) is a science-based framework aimed at protecting 50% of Earth’s terrestrial surface to conserve biodiversity, stabilize the climate, and enhance ecosystem resilience. It integrates ecological and carbon priorities, emphasizing the significant overlap between them, and highlights the essential role of Indigenous lands, which often coincide with critical conservation areas. By serving as a strategic roadmap for sustainability, the GSN ensures the continued provision of ecosystem services and the resilience of both natural systems and human societies. At its core, the GSN identifies sites of species rarity, including Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), and the ranges of threatened vertebrates and rare plants. It also prioritizes distinct species assemblages found in high beta-diversity regions and biodiversity hotspots, as well as rare phenomena like intact large mammal assemblages and globally significant ecological processes. Habitat intactness is a key focus, with wilderness areas and the “Last of the Wild” regions identified as essential for ecological stability. To address climate objectives, the GSN includes carbon-rich areas categorized as Tier 1 and Tier 2 Climate Stabilization Areas (CSAs) based on their carbon density. It also incorporates wildlife and climate corridors to connect protected and intact habitats, ensuring species migration and adaptation under changing environmental conditions. By combining biodiversity conservation with climate action, the GSN offers a comprehensive solution to addressing global ecological and climate crises.

Ref: Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Vynne, C., Lee, A. T. L., Pharand-Deschênes, F., França, M., Fernando, S., Birch, T., Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., & Olson, D. (2020). A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824.

Global Commons

Common resources at a planetary scale that are outside national jurisdictions. International law identifies four global commons which are recognised as the common heritage of humankind (UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions):

1. High Seas

2. Atmosphere

3. Antarctica

4. Outer Space

In the Anthropocene, humanity must act as stewards of the planet's resources that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth System. There is an urgent need to expand the definition of global commons — see Planetary Commons.

Ref: Nakicenovic, N., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., & Zimm, C. (2016). Global Commons in the Anthropocene: World Development on a Stable and Resilient Planet. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, WP-16-019.

Global Polycrisis

A global polycrisis is an emergent phenomenon characterised by the causal entanglement of crises in multiple global systems in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects.

It encompasses 2 core implications:

1. Intra-systemic impact: A disruption affecting one part or area of a single system quickly spreads, disturbing the entire system. This occurs through multiple, ramifying chains of cause and effect, or some form of contagion, navigating through the system’s causal network.

2. Inter-systemic impact: The disruption of the initial system may extend beyond that system’s boundaries, leading to the disruption of other systems.

Additionally, 4 vectors can carry a crisis within and across systems and from one part of the world to another, thereby leading to a global polycrisis:

• Energy, such as the kinetic energy generated by earthquakes and hurricanes.

• Matter, such as the toxins and pollutants that harm organisms and ecosystems.

• Information, consisting of instructions and symbolic representations—including genetic and digital codes, news feeds, ideologies, money, policies, and laws—that can be communicated between agents.

• Biota, such as viruses, bacteria, and other organisms that can disrupt the biological and physiological functions of other organisms. (This category may be considered a special combination of energy, matter, and information that involves lifeforms.)

Ref: Lawrence, M. J., Homer-Dixon, T., Janzwood, S., Rockström, J., & Renn, O. (2024). Global Polycrisis: The Causal Mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement. Global Sustainability, 3, e25.

Great Acceleration

The Great Acceleration encapsulates the mid-20th-century step-change in anthropogenic global environmental impact. It integrates evidence of humans transforming Earth's functioning into a coherent overview of global change. This phenomenon, sparked by the post-WWII industrial surge, encompasses complex, multi-causal processes altering the Earth System – from land domestication to significant modifications of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. The Great Acceleration also highlights the emergence of tipping points, leading to rapid, non-linear, and potentially irreversible changes in Earth’s climate system, symbolising humanity's substantial influence on the planet's geology and ecosystems.

Ref: The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration, 2015.
📍 Our dedicated page

Habitability (biophysical)

Habitability refers to the capacity of an environment, whether terrestrial or extraterrestrial, to support and sustain life as we know it. This concept encompasses the physical, chemical, ecological, and cosmic conditions necessary for life, integrating ideas from astrobiology and sustainability science. It also highlights the interplay between stability, resilience, and the systems that maintain the delicate balance required for habitability.

At a planetary level, habitability is shaped by factors such as geophysical stability, which ensures long-term environmental conditions favorable for life, and protection mechanisms like magnetic fields and atmospheres that shield against harmful cosmic radiation. These factors, coupled with the presence of essential resources such as liquid water and heavy elements, create a foundation for the persistence of life. The gradual reduction of catastrophic cosmic events over time, such as supernovae and gamma-ray bursts, has further enhanced the potential for habitable conditions to emerge and endure in the universe.

On Earth, habitability is closely tied to the concept of the Safe Operating Space, which integrates habitability, ecological resilience, and systemic stability. Together, these elements define the conditions within which humanity can thrive while preserving the complexity and functionality of planetary systems. The Planetary Boundaries framework formalizes this concept, identifying key thresholds—such as those for climate regulation, biosphere integrity, freshwater use, and biogeochemical cycles—that safeguard Earth’s life-support systems. Exceeding these boundaries risks deteriorating or simplifying Earth’s intricate ecological and geophysical systems, reducing their resilience and undermining their capacity to sustain life.

Habitability also encompasses life’s adaptability to diverse and extreme conditions, as demonstrated by extremophiles that thrive in environments once considered inhospitable. This adaptability broadens the understanding of habitability to include niche ecosystems on Earth and the potential for life on other planets or moons, provided their environments offer sufficient protection and stability.

We view the concept of planetary habitability as a defining and decisive idea for the 21st century and beyond. Its conceptualization dates back to the mid-20th century, with key moments such as the introduction of the "habitable zone" concept by Su-Shu Huang and Robert Jastrow in 1959, the development of the Drake Equation in 1961, and the discovery of the first confirmed exoplanet in 1992. However, it has only recently entered widespread public consciousness and discourse.

The concept gained significant momentum in the scientific community following the launch of NASA's Kepler space telescope in 2009, which was specifically designed to search for potentially habitable exoplanets. This scientific progress has been paralleled by increased representation in popular culture, including films that capture key dimensions of planetary habitability. Notable examples include WALL·E (2008), which explores a post-habitable Earth, Avatar (2009), which contrasts a destroyed Earth ("they killed their Mother") with the maximally habitable world of Pandora, The Martian (2015), which deals with surviving in the uninhabitable Martian environment, and Interstellar (2014), which involves the search for habitable planets. Gravity (2013) provides a stark contrast, effectively demonstrating how inhospitable space is by showing the protagonist moving from one artificial habitable bubble to another until finally reaching the safety of Earth's biosphere in the film's climax.

Habitability (relational)

Relational Habitability refers to the emergent, dynamic quality of the interaction between people and their environment, enabling healthy, meaningful, and dignified lives (ensuring well-being and agency). It transcends biophysical factors (climate, water, land, etc.) to integrate socio-cultural (values, traditions, spiritual ties), economic (access to livelihoods and resources), and political dimensions (governance, power structures), acknowledging the role of historical context (legacies of colonialism or development pathways), cultural values (interpretations and practices shaping place attachment), spiritual connections (ties to ancestors or sacred places), and power dynamics (who controls and defines habitability).

Habitability is intersectionally differentiated (experienced differently based on age, gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors), shaped by inequalities in access to resources, vulnerabilities, and lived experiences (varying opportunities and risks for different groups), and exists on a continuum (not binary, with thresholds and tipping points marking transitions). It is inherently relational (shaped by connections across places and scales), influenced by connectivity (flows of resources, people, and ideas) and local and global feedback loops (interdependent socio-ecological systems).

This holistic perspective requires integrating top-down systemic analysis (broad, scientific perspectives) with bottom-up local knowledge (lived experiences and cultural insights), respecting diverse epistemologies (recognizing multiple ways of knowing, including indigenous knowledge) and addressing the ethical implications (who decides and benefits) of defining and enacting habitability.

Ref: Habitability for a connected, unequal and changing world, 2024.

Habitable Zone

Often referred to as the ‘Goldilocks Zone,’ the concept of the Habitable Zone in astronomy and planetary science defines the range of conditions under which a planet can possess liquid water on its surface and potentially support life. The boundaries of this zone vary based on factors such as the type and characteristics of the star (size, temperature, and brightness), the planet’s atmosphere, and its orbital path. However, habitability is not limited to individual star systems and can be applied at larger scales.

• The Super-Galactic Habitable Zone considers regions within large cosmic structures, such as superclusters, where conditions allow for the development of life. These regions benefit from sufficient metallicity and moderate stellar activity while avoiding intense cosmic threats near galaxy cluster centers or active galactic nuclei.

• The Galactic Habitable Zone refers to areas within a galaxy that are favourable for life, typically within a galactic disk but far enough from the center to avoid destructive forces like supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, and black hole activity, while still ensuring access to the heavy elements required for planet formation.

• The Circumstellar Habitable Zone specifically defines the region around a star where conditions allow for the existence of liquid water. This zone depends on the star’s properties and the planet’s ability to maintain a stable atmosphere and protection from stellar radiation and other local catastrophic events.

Holocene

According to the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the Holocene is the geological epoch that began at the end of the last ice age 11,700 years ago (before year 2000) and that has continued until now. The Holocene has been characterised by a remarkably stable climate, which helped human civilisations to flourish. When the Anthropocene is officially adopted (ICS), its starting date will likely mark the end date of the Holocene.

“The Holocene is (or was) an extraordinarily stable state of the Earth system: temperatures on Earth stabilised at 14±0.5°C. Ecosystems, precipitation patterns, seasons and temperatures settled within narrow "life-supporting" ranges, providing us with the states of the biosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere of the Earth as we know it. Earth had barely settled in this stable Holocene state, when we went through the Neolithic revolution, domesticating plants and animals simultaneously across continents on Earth some 10 000 years ago. We became farmers, living in sedentary communities. This was the starting point of civilisations as we know them today. The Holocene state of the planet is the only state of the planet we know for certain can support the modern world as we know it.”

Ref: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

Holochthony

Holochthony is a proposed concept that refers to the contemporary awareness, shared by an increasing number of people, of their collective belonging to Earth as a common habitat. It calls for the rehabilitation of an ethical, spiritual, and ecological connection with the planet, based on the recognition of our co-evolution with terrestrial ecosystems. This notion does not aim to appropriate or dilute the specific struggles of Indigenous peoples but rather encourages non-Indigenous people to adopt practices of respect and responsibility towards the Earth, inspired by the ancestral knowledge of Indigenous peoples and complementing it with modern scientific understanding. Holochthony emphasizes that, although not all of us have historical roots in a particular territory, we share a common belonging to the planet and must act as guardians of its stability and resilience. It is thus an invitation to relearn how to live in harmony with nature while valuing and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and their unique knowledge. Coined by Globaïa, 2023.

Hominisation

The evolutionary process of becoming human. It encompasses the biological, cognitive, and cultural evolution that has characterised the transition of early hominids to modern humans. Hominisation includes aspects such as the development of bipedalism, brain enlargement, development of complex language, and the emergence of cultural practices. It also implies a feedback loop where the changes brought about by anthropisation and humanisation have, in turn, influenced human evolution, both biologically and culturally, shaping the very essence of what it means to be human. Also called anthropogenesis.

Humanisation

The semantic transformation of the environment influenced by our symbolic systems. It involves the ways in which human perceptions, interpretations, and cultural values shape our understanding and representation of the world around us. Humanisation includes the process of attributing human-like qualities or values to non-human entities and phenomena, as well as the creation of cultural, linguistic, and artistic expressions that reflect human experiences and worldviews. It highlights the role of human cognition and culture in interpreting and giving meaning to our surroundings and to the planet as a whole.

Industrial Modernity

A set of mutually supporting foundational beliefs and assumptions (ideas), formal and informal rules (institutions), and characteristic behaviour (practices) encompassing the domains of the natural environment (as a source of inputs), science, technology and innovation that characterize two or more successive great surges of development, and have become so widespread that they can be found in almost any socio-technical system in almost any contemporary industrial society.

Ref: Kanger, L., Tinits, P., Pahker, A. K., Orru, K., Tiwari, A. K., Sillak, S., Šeļa, A., & Vaik, K. (2022). Deep transitions: Towards a comprehensive framework for mapping major continuities and ruptures in industrial modernity. Global Environmental Change, 72, 102447.

IPAT

The IPAT equation is a conceptual formula proposed to estimate the impact of human activity on the environment. It is expressed as:

Impact = Population × Affluence × Technology

Where:

1. Impact
   Refers to the environmental impact, often measured in terms of resource depletion, depredation, waste, and pollution.

2. Population
   Denotes the number of people. Greater population increases demand for resources and leads to more waste and pollution.

3. Affluence
   Represents the level of consumption per person. Higher affluence typically increases per capita consumption, which can lead to greater environmental impact.

4. Technology
   Refers to the processes and methods used to produce goods and services. Technology can either increase or decrease the environmental impact depending on how it affects resource use and waste production.

Kardashev Scale

The Kardashev Scale, formulated by Soviet astronomer Nikola Kardashev in 1964, is a system for measuring and categorising the technological advancement of a civilisation based on its energy consumption. It defines three types of civilisations:

1. Type I · Planetary Civilisation
   This civilisation type consumes about 10^16 watts of power, utilizing all major energy sources available from its home planet, including fossil fuels, nuclear energy, wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power. While humanity is advancing toward this stage, it is currently estimated to be at 0.7276 on the Kardashev Scale as of 2020, with projections reaching 0.7449 by 2060 under current energy trends.

2. Type II · Stellar Civilisation
   Consuming 10^26 watts, a Type II civilisation can harness and store all the energy released by its parent star. This level of power consumption may involve immense constructions like a Dyson sphere, Matryoshka Brain, or other forms of planetary system networks or star lift. This civilisation might also harness energy from black hole accretion disks and matter-antimatter annihilation.

3. Type III · Galactic Civilisation
   With an energy consumption of 10^36 watts, a Type III civilisation can access and control a significant portion of the energy generated by its entire galaxy. This could involve manipulating space-time and leveraging highly theoretical energy sources like white holes and supermassive black holes.

Ref: Zhang, A., Yang, J., Luo, Y., & Fan, S. (2023). Forecasting the progression of human civilization on the Kardashev Scale through 2060 with a machine learning approach. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 11305.

Nature Futures Framework

The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) is a conceptual tool developed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It is designed to facilitate the development of scenarios and models that envision desirable futures for nature and people. The framework emphasizes the diverse values that underpin relationships between people and nature, aiming to bridge various ways humans value nature in efforts to create more nature-centered visions and scenarios.

The framework identifies three main value perspectives that influence the relationship between people and nature:

1. Nature for Nature (NN)
   This perspective emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature, focusing on conservation and protection.

2. Nature for Society (NS)
   This perspective underscores the instrumental value of nature, highlighting its utility for human society.

3. Nature as Culture/One with Nature (NC)
   This perspective values the relational aspects of nature, emphasizing cultural and spiritual connections with the natural world.

Ref: Kim, H., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G. D., Cheung, W. W. L., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Arneth, A., Kuiper, J. J., Okayasu, S., Pereira, L., et al. (2023). Towards a better future for biodiversity and people: Modelling Nature Futures. Global Environmental Change, 82, 102681.

Overshoot

Refers to a situation where humanity's demand on nature exceeds the Earth's biocapacity to regenerate resources and absorb waste, including carbon emissions. This concept implies that human consumption and waste production are occurring at a rate faster than the ecosystem can replenish and recover. Overshoot leads to the depletion of ecological reserves, such as forests, fisheries, and clean air, and results in long-term damage to the environment, including loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and climate change.

Currently, humanity's demand for goods and services exceeds the Earth's capacity to provide them by 75%, meaning we are consuming resources as if we had 1.75 Earths, despite only having one.

Ref: Global Footprint Network / Earth Overshoot Day

‘Overview Effect’

The Overview Effect, coined in 1987 by space philosopher Frank White, describes the profound psychological shift experienced by astronauts when observing Earth from space. This effect combines an overwhelming sense of awe with a cognitive reorientation, often leading to feelings of self-transcendence—a dissolving of personal and national boundaries in favor of seeing Earth as a singular, interconnected whole. Viewing Earth against the vast blackness of space highlights its vulnerability, as the thin atmosphere protecting all life becomes strikingly apparent. This perception of fragility often fosters a deepened commitment to environmental protection, an awareness of humanity’s shared fate, and a sense of responsibility that transcends individual or national interests.

Anthropologically, the Overview Effect is significant as it reveals an innate human capacity to shift perspectives when encountering radically new contexts. Many astronauts describe this experience as akin to a “cosmic consciousness,” reshaping their understanding of human identity and emphasizing the insignificance of ideological divisions. Philosophically, the Overview Effect challenges individuals to reconsider humanity’s place within the universe, often prompting existential reflection on the finite nature of Earth’s resources and the ethical implications of planetary stewardship.

As of 2024, more than 710 people (0.0000086% of the world’s population) have traveled to space, with a significant number reporting this transformative experience. The Overview Effect has since inspired educational and environmental movements, utilizing this rare perspective to promote global citizenship, empathy, and a collective commitment to sustaining the planet’s ecosystems.

Ref: Yaden, D. B., Iwry, J., Slack, K. J., Eichstaedt, J. C., Zhao, Y., Vaillant, G. E., & Newberg, A. B. (2016). The overview effect: Awe and self-transcendent experience in space flight. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(1), 1–11. // Weibel, D. L. (2020). The overview effect and the ultraview effect: How extreme experiences in/of outer space influence religious beliefs in astronauts. Religions, 11(8), 418.

Planetarisation

The cultural process of collectively becoming aware of the planetary characteristics and attributes of our habitat. This involves recognising its natural cycles, tipping points, planetary boundaries, synergies and processes as integral components of an interconnected and resilient equilibrium. This equilibrium is unique to the planetary nature and scale, reflecting the complex interplay of global systems that cannot be replicated or fully understood at smaller scales.

Planetarity

The ontological condition of being inextricably embedded within the Earth's complex, evolving, and interconnected biogeochemical systems and feedback loops that span the entire ecosphere. This condition challenges traditional notions of the "global" or the "world" and has been progressively acknowledged over time through exploration and the development of human knowledge, including scientific and technological advancements. It calls for a recognition of our interdependence with the Earth's systems and the development of a more holistic, integrated, and sustainable approach to living within the planetary boundaries. Planetarity is complemented by the concept of geographicity, which focuses on the human experience and understanding of being embedded within the Earth's systems, and together they provide a comprehensive framework for grappling with the complexities of the human-Earth relationship in the face of pressing global challenges.

Planetary

Of or relating to the entire Earth, operating at the scale of the planet. It encompasses the intricate interplay of physical, chemical, biological, and geological components that shape the ecosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. Planetary phenomena exhibit unique patterns, cycles, emergent properties, feedback loops, tipping points, and complex interactions that can only be fully understood from a holistic, global perspective, transcending traditional boundaries and divisions. The planetary scale also involves the recognition of the Earth's finite resources, the interconnectedness of all life forms, and the long-term consequences of human actions on the planet's systems. The term underscores the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach to understanding and nurturing our relationship with the planet, especially in light of the far-reaching impact of thermo-industrial activities and the challenges posed by planetary issues such as a warming climate and the degradation on biosphere integrity.

Planetary Antifragility

The capacity of Earth's life-support systems to benefit from shocks, stressors, and uncertainties, adapting and evolving over geological timescales in response to various disturbances, thereby enhancing the planet's resilience and ability to maintain conditions conducive to life. In the context of sustainability and Earth system science, planetary antifragility is proposed as an additional dimension to be considered alongside the concept of planetary boundaries when defining the safe operating space for humanity. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining and fostering the Earth's inherent ability to withstand and even thrive under changing environmental conditions, ensuring the long-term stability and habitability of the planet in the face of increasing anthropogenic pressures and uncertainties.

Ref: López-Corona, O., Kolb, M., Ramírez-Carrillo, E., & Lovett, J. (2022). ESD Ideas: Planetary antifragility: A new dimension in the definition of the safe operating space for humanity. Earth System Dynamics, 13(4), 1145–1153.

Planetary Awareness

Planetary awareness is the comprehensive understanding and appreciation of our planet's finite, rare, and fragile life support system. This concept is rooted in the recognition of Earth's significant impacts due to human activities, necessitating a fundamental shift in our worldviews, institutions, and technologies. It emphasises the importance of global citizenship (global identities) and collective action in an era of rapid global change. By focusing on worldviews or cosmovisions, planetary awareness encourages a unified, meaningful planetary perspective, fostering increased planetary consciousness, empathy, compassion, and global thinking. It involves making data, information, and knowledge accessible and relevant to diverse cultures and individuals, aiming to transform how the world is perceived, imagined, and comprehended on a global scale.

Planetary Boundaries (PBs)

The 🌍🚧 Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework emerged as a transformative concept at the intersection of Earth system science and sustainability, rooted in key scientific insights and conceptual breakthroughs. It was formulated against the backdrop of mounting evidence that human activities were rapidly transforming the Earth system, particularly during the 🌍🎢 Great Acceleration of the mid-20th century when socioeconomic and environmental indicators showed an exponential rise. This period underscored humanity’s capacity to affect the planet on a global scale, a phenomenon later framed within the 🌍⏳ Anthropocene epoch, a proposed new geological era defined by human dominance over Earth’s natural systems.

The PB framework draws on earlier interdisciplinary efforts that examined planetary limits, including the pioneering ecological and economic ideas of “Spaceship Earth,” the “Limits to Growth” report, and the concept of a steady-state economy. Advances in Earth system science further emphasized the Earth as a complex, partially self-regulating system characterized by nonlinear behaviors and tipping points. Studies of paleoclimates revealed the stability of the Holocene epoch—an 11,700-year period of relatively constant environmental conditions—as a critical baseline for maintaining the conditions under which human civilizations evolved. These insights established the need to conceptualize thresholds or boundaries that, if crossed, would risk destabilizing the Earth system.

The formulation of the PB framework in 2009, led by Johan Rockström, Katherine Richardson, and Will Steffen, represented a paradigm shift in how humanity’s relationship with the planet was understood. It introduced the notion of a Safe Operating Space (SOS) for humanity, defined by nine critical Earth system processes that regulate the planet’s stability. These include climate change, biosphere integrity, freshwater change, and biogeochemical flows, among others. The framework set boundaries based on scientific evidence, distinguishing between zones of safety, increasing risk, and high risk.

A central insight was that crossing a boundary does not necessarily result in an immediate catastrophe but pushes humanity into a Zone of Increasing Risk, where the likelihood of tipping points grows. 🌍⚖️ Tipping Points, such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest or the melting of polar ice sheets, are thresholds beyond which small changes can trigger large, often irreversible transformations in the Earth system.

This framework also integrated resilience thinking, emphasizing the need to maintain the Earth’s capacity to absorb shocks and maintain stability. Importantly, the boundaries were set purely on biophysical criteria, without incorporating socio-economic considerations, underscoring their universal applicability and the non-negotiable nature of Earth’s physical limits.

The PB framework has since evolved, with updates in 2015 (PB 2.0), 2023 (PB 3.0) and 2024 (🌍🩺 Planetary Health Check), refining the metrics and control variables for some boundaries. These advancements continue to provide a powerful tool for guiding human development within the planet’s finite limits, shaping scientific discourse, global policy, and sustainability practices.

The 🔺 symbol indicates that the safe boundary has been transgressed.

1. 🌡️ Climate Change 🔺
   This boundary is defined by atmospheric CO2 concentration and total anthropogenic radiative forcing. The planetary boundary is set at 350 ppm CO2 and +1.0 W/m². The current value is 417 ppm CO2 and +2.91 W/m², indicating a transgression of this boundary.

2. 🧬 Change in Biosphere Integrity 🔺
   This boundary is concerned with genetic diversity (extinctions per million species-years, or E/MSY) and the functional integrity of the biosphere, measured as the percentage of human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP). The boundary for genetic diversity is less than 10 E/MSY, and for functional integrity, it is less than 10% HANPP. Currently, the extinction rate is above 100 E/MSY, and HANPP is at 30%, both exceeding the boundary limits.

3. 🛡️ Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
   This boundary is based on the stratospheric O3 concentration (global average in Dobson Units, DU). The boundary is set at less than a 5% reduction from the preindustrial level, assessed by latitude (~276 DU). The current level is 284.6 DU, which is within the safe operating space.

4. 🐚 Ocean Acidification
   The boundary is defined by the carbonate ion concentration average global surface ocean saturation state with respect to aragonite (Ωarag). The boundary is ≥80% Ωarag of the mean preindustrial aragonite saturation state. The current value is approximately 2.8 Ωarag, close to breaching the boundary.

5. 🌾 Biogeochemical Flows (Phosphorus & Nitrogen cycles) 🔺
   The boundaries for phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are concerned with their flows from human activities to the environment. The boundary for phosphorus is set at 11 Tg of P/year globally and 6.2 Tg of P/year regionally. The current global P flow is 22.6 Tg/year. For nitrogen, the boundary is set at 62 Tg of N/year, with the current value being 190 Tg of N/year. Both these boundaries are exceeded.

6. 🌳 Land System Change 🔺
   This boundary is defined by the area of forested land as a percentage of original forest cover, with specific targets for different biomes (tropical, temperate, boreal). The boundary values are 85% for tropical, 50% for temperate, and 85% for boreal forests. The current global forest cover is 60%, indicating a breach of this boundary, especially in the tropical regions.

7. 💦 Freshwater Change 🔺
   This boundary is defined by human-induced disturbance of blue and green water flow, with the boundary set at the upper limit (95th percentile) of global land area with deviations greater than during preindustrial times. The limits are 10.2% for blue water (water in rivers, lakes, wetlands, and aquifers) and 11.1% for green water (precipitation that is absorbed by soil and vegetation and then released back into the atmosphere). The current values are 18.2% for blue water and 15.8% for green water, surpassing the boundary.

8. ☁️ Atmospheric Aerosol Loading
   This boundary is defined by the interhemispheric difference in aerosol optical depth (AOD), a measure of aerosols in the atmosphere. The boundary is set at 0.1 for the mean annual interhemispheric difference. The current value is approximately 0.076, within the safe operating space but close to the boundary limit.

9. 🔬 Novel Entities 🔺
   This boundary relates to synthetic chemicals and materials introduced into the environment, including microplastics, endocrine disruptors, and organic pollutants. A specific quantitative boundary has not been established for novel entities, but it is acknowledged that the safe operating space is currently overstepped.

We may categorize planetary boundaries into three broad groups:

1. Global Planetary Boundaries: Climate, Ocean, and Ozone. These boundaries affect the entire Earth system and have global-scale impacts.

2. Biospheric Planetary Boundaries: Biodiversity, Land, Freshwater, and Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus cycles). These boundaries primarily concern the living systems of the Earth and their interactions with the physical environment.

3. 'Alien' Planetary Boundaries: Pollution (e.g., synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms) and Aerosols. These boundaries involve human-introduced elements that are foreign to natural Earth systems.

Ref: Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Lade, S. J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(36), eadh2458.
📍 Our dedicated page

Planetary Commons

The concept of Planetary Commons encompasses Earth's key regulating elements, subsystems, and their functions, vital for sustaining life globally, regardless of their geographical location. This includes major domains of the Earth system such as the atmosphere, oceans, land, and the cryosphere, which interact with the biosphere, including humans. It also covers large Earth sub-systems critical for the Earth system's structure, function, and stability, providing essential conditions for sustainable livelihoods for current and future human and non-human life. These include the tipping elements, but also systems like the Congo and Southeast Asian rainforests, temperate forests, wetlands, and coastal blue carbon ecosystems, as they regulate the Earth system, even though they might not have documented evidence of non-linear and irreversible change behaviour. Maintaining these biophysical systems close to their Holocene conditions is crucial for the Earth system's capacity to support life. [We argue that knowledge could be considered part of the planetary commons, due to its significant impact on the ecosphere's evolution and fate.]

Ref: Rockström, J., Kotzé, L. J., Milutinović, S., Biermann, F., Brovkin, V., Donges, J. F., Ebbesson, J., French, D., Gupta, J., Kim, R. E., Lenton, T. M., Lenzi, D., Nakicenovic, N., Neumann, B., Schuppert, F., Winkelmann, R., Bosselmann, K., Folke, C., Lucht, W., Schlosberg, D., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schlosser, P. (2024). The planetary commons: A new paradigm for safeguarding Earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(5), e2301531121.

Planetary Education

Planetary education is a comprehensive, transdisciplinary educational approach that fosters a holistic understanding of the world and nurtures empathy, resilience, and adaptability in students, with the goal of equipping them to effectively address global challenges and contribute to a more equitable and sustainable future.

📍 Our dedicated page

Planetary Emergency

A planetary emergency can be formally defined as a critical and urgent situation at a global scale where both the risk and urgency of environmental and climatic challenges are extremely high. This concept encompasses situations where the probability and potential damage of ecological tipping points are significant (high risk), and the time left to effectively intervene and prevent catastrophic outcomes is critically short (high urgency). In such a state, the stability and resilience of Earth's ecosystems are at imminent risk, necessitating immediate and decisive international action to mitigate and reverse the damage.

E = R×U = p×D×τ/T

An emergency (E) is determined by combining two factors: risk and urgency.

• Risk (R) is about how likely something bad will happen and how severe the damage could be. It's calculated by multiplying the probability (p) of the event happening by the potential damage (D) it could cause.

• Urgency (U) deals with how quickly we need to respond to prevent a bad outcome. It's calculated by taking the reaction time to an alert (τ) and dividing it by the time remaining to act before things get worse (T).

So, the formula for an emergency is E = R × U, which expands to p × D × τ/T.

In simple terms, a situation is an emergency when both the risk of something bad happening is high, and the need to act quickly is also high. If our reaction time (τ) is longer than the time left to act (T), meaning τ / T is greater than 1, it means we’re too late to control the situation effectively.

Ref: Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature, 575(7784), 592–595.
📍 Our dedicated page

Planetary Institutions

As suggested by Jonathan Blake and Nils Gilman in their book ‘Children of a Modest Star: Planetary Thinking for an Age of Crises’ (2024), a planetary institution is a governance body designed to operate at the global scale, addressing issues that exceed the capacities of national and international institutions by providing targeted, authoritative, and enforceable solutions to planetary challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and ecological disruptions. These institutions function based on the principles of planetary sapience and planetary subsidiarity, setting broad targets and policies while allowing national and local entities to manage implementation details, thereby ensuring the habitability of Earth and the flourishing of diverse human and nonhuman communities.

Planetary Intelligence

Planetary Intelligence can be defined as the acquisition and application of collective knowledge and cognitive processes operating at a planetary scale, integrated into the function of coupled planetary systems. These components collectively contribute to the ability of a planetary system to act intelligently, adaptively, and sustainably at a global scale:

1. Emergence
   The collective properties and behaviours at a planetary scale that cannot be predicted from or reduced to individual parts.

2. Information & Networks
   The flow of semantic and syntactic information through biospheric and technospheric networks, enabling complex communication and interaction.

3. Complex Systems
   The operation of Planetary Intelligence as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), marked by self-organized patterns and behaviors emerging from local interactions.

4. Autopoiesis
   The self-creating and self-maintaining nature of planetary intelligence, ensuring the persistence and resilience of the system.

5. Global Regulatory Feedback Loops
   The development of feedback mechanisms for maintaining planetary equilibrium, essential for long-term sustainability and stability of the Technosphere and Biosphere.

Ref: Frank, A., Grinspoon, D., & Walker, S. (2022). Intelligence as a planetary scale process. International Journal of Astrobiology, 21(1), 47–61.

Planetary Literacy

Planetary literacy refers to a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the intricate relationships and interdependencies between human societies and Earth's various systems, including the biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and their inherent cycles and motifs, as well as the concept of planetary commons. It encompasses an awareness of the ecosphere as the integrated, habitable space that sustains life, highlighting the interconnectedness of all Earth systems that collectively form a delicate balance enabling life to thrive. This literacy emphasizes the need for informed and responsible stewardship of our planet, recognizing the urgency of addressing planetary emergencies stemming from human-induced changes and disruptions. It advocates for an informed global citizenry equipped with the knowledge and skills to make decisions that protect and preserve the integrity of Earth's systems, ensuring the well-being of present and future generations within the dynamic and interconnected web of life that constitutes our ecosphere.

Planetary Politics

A novel form of political contestation that emerges from the development of planetary institutions and the commitment to planetary sapience. It transcends the boundaries of national and international politics, focusing on the interests and well-being of the planet as a whole, including both human societies and the entire Earth system with its diverse multispecies communities. Planetary politics is inherently postanthropocentric, seeking to include the voices, interests, and agencies of nonhuman entities through various forms of representation. It aims to address conflicts and make decisions at the scale of the planet, based on a comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits to all parties involved, while recognizing that human flourishing is inseparable from the flourishing of the larger multispecies community. Ultimately, planetary politics represents a transformative shift in the nature of political engagement, redefining the scope of political possibility in response to the profound challenges posed by the condition of planetarity in the Anthropocene.

Ref: Blake, J. S., & Gilman, N. (2024). Children of a Modest Star: Planetary Thinking for an Age of Crises. Stanford University Press.

Planetary Stewardship

The active and responsible management of Earth's systems and resources in response to the unique challenges presented by the Anthropocene. This concept emphasizes the need for a global-scale solution that goes beyond national and cultural boundaries, acknowledging humanity's profound impact on the Earth System. This concept involves directing global change by considering interconnected local to global levels. The goal is to ensure the long-term well-being of both humanity and the natural world, including ecosystems and the global commons. Achieving holistic solutions necessitates a shift in the way we perceive and interact with the world, as the transformation of society commences with a fundamental change in our perspectives and worldviews.

Planetary Sapience

Planetary Sapience, as envisioned by Globaïa in 2019, is an emergent meta-capability of humanity, marked by a profound shift in collective consciousness towards a holistic understanding of Earth's complex systems. This evolved planetary awareness permeates societal structures, cultural expressions, and individual behaviors, fostering a dynamic, co-evolving equilibrium between Ecogenic Systems (biosphere, climate, hydrosphere, geosphere) and Anthropogenic Systems (worldviews, institutions, technologies, settlements).

This form of wisdom or axiological posture arises through intentional, coordinated transformations across various domains, blending modern scientific understanding of planetary dynamics with diverse cultural traditions centered on responsible stewardship. It embodies both novel insights into Earth's histories, cycles, and patterns, and ancient knowledge practices focused on guardianship of the planet.

Encompassing David Grinspoon's concept of "Planetary Change of the Fourth Kind," Planetary Sapience signifies a transformative phase in Earth's evolution. This stage, termed 'Terra Sapiens' or 'Sapiezoic,' is characterized by humanity's maturation into wise planetary stewards. It represents a shift towards more integrated, conscious, and sustainable interactions with Earth's systems, reflecting a deep understanding and responsible management of the planet's resources and ecosystems.

📍 Our dedicated page

An other definition of planetary sapience has been proposed by Benjamin Bratton from the Berggruen Institute, which sees it as the product of planetary-scale computation. Thus, planetary sapience is envisioned as the development of a global, interconnected cognitive and sensory system facilitated by advanced computational technologies, enabling the Earth to achieve a form of self-awareness and responsive intelligence that monitors and manages ecological and climatic phenomena. This emergent intelligence, constituting a technological and philosophical evolution, challenges and transforms human interactions with the Earth, promoting a deliberate and sustainable engagement with the planet's systems.

Precipice (the)

Term used to describe a particularly critical and dangerous era in human history, predominantly spanning from 1945, when humanity first gained the power to trigger its own destruction, up until now. This period is distinguished by an acute increase in existential risks, i.e. threats that could lead to human extinction or the irretrievable collapse of civilisation. The ‘Precipice’ is defined by the imbalance between humanity's rapidly growing power and its relatively lagging wisdom. This disparity leads to an unsustainable level of risk, suggesting that without significant changes, these risks might escalate in future centuries. The term encapsulates the idea that humanity is walking along a narrow, dangerous path on the edge of a cliff, where a misstep could lead to catastrophic consequences.

Ref: Ord, T. (2021). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing.
📍 Our dedicated page

Regime Shift

A regime shift refers to a significant, often abrupt, and long-lasting change in the state of a system, marking a transition from one stable configuration to another. These shifts occur when a system crosses a critical threshold or tipping point, disrupting its existing equilibrium and establishing a new set of dynamics and feedbacks. Regime shifts are typically characterized by their scale, unpredictability, and resistance to reversal (a phenomenon known as hysteresis), making them transformative events in ecological, climatic, or social systems.

Resilience

Socio-ecological system (SES) resilience is the ability of people, communities, societies, or cultures to live and develop with change and with ever-changing environments. It is about cultivating the capacity to continue to develop in the face of change, incremental and abrupt, expected and surprising.

Resilience is categorized into three distinct levels:

1. Shock Tolerance
   The capacity of a system to absorb disturbances and reorganise while undergoing change, retaining its essential function, structure, feedbacks, and identity. This dynamic concept emphasizes the ability to persist and evolve with change.

2. Adaptability
   The capacity of people in a social-ecological system to learn, innovate, and adjust to changing external drivers and internal processes. Adaptability involves human actions that sustain development within existing pathways, turning changes into opportunities, and is crucial for maintaining social-ecological resilience.

3. Transformability
   The ability to shift development into new pathways and create novel ones, particularly when existing ecological, economic, or social structures are untenable. Transformability involves crossing thresholds and moving into new development trajectories, often utilising resilience from different levels and scales. It's about navigating and exploiting crises for fundamental system changes.

Ref: Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.

Safe Operating Space

The Safe Operating Space is defined as the set of scientifically-determined thresholds for nine critical biophysical systems and processes, known as planetary boundaries, which are essential for regulating Earth's life support systems, ensuring the stability and resilience of the Earth system as a whole. Crossing these boundaries could lead to a significantly less hospitable planet and threaten the long-term sustainability of human civilisation. Closely associated with Sustainability and Habitability.

Stable State

A stable state is one that a system will naturally return to after being perturbed, provided the perturbations fall within a certain range. In such a state, the system’s dynamics counteract deviations, restoring equilibrium over time. Stability is maintained by negative feedback loops, which resist change by dampening or counterbalancing the effects of disturbances. However, when perturbations exceed a critical threshold, the system may cross into a different stable state, undergoing a regime shift. This shift represents a fundamental change in the system’s structure and behavior, often with long-lasting consequences. The concept of resilience is closely tied to stability, describing a system’s capacity to absorb disturbances and recover its original state or functionality. Resilience determines the extent of perturbations a system can withstand before tipping into a new regime. For instance, a forest ecosystem may remain stable despite occasional fires, but a prolonged period of severe drought could push it into a desert-like state. The interplay between stability, resilience, and regime shifts highlights the dynamic nature of systems

Superorganism (the)

In Nate Hagens’ framework, The Superorganism represents the emergent, global-scale behavior of human civilization, functioning as a self-organized, energy-hungry entity shaped by socio-economic and technological dynamics. It arises from humanity’s collective pursuit of surplus, initially in physical forms like food and materials, and later as financial representations of surplus (e.g., money). Governed by simple behavioral rules, such as optimizing for financial and material gain, the Superorganism behaves much like a biological organism, relentlessly seeking energy and resources to sustain and expand itself. Crucially, the Superorganism operates within and is reinforced by a specific Worldviews, Institutions, and Technologies (WIT) regime. This regime reflects historical, geographic, and power dynamics that have prioritized economic growth and fossil-fuel-driven industrial expansion. These interdependencies lock human societies into a trajectory of energy-intensive behaviors, creating feedback loops that perpetuate ecological overshoot and resource depletion. While the Superorganism lacks centralized control or foresight, its behavior is shaped by emergent properties of human systems. It metabolizes energy and materials at unprecedented scales, often detached from the biophysical realities of Earth’s finite systems.

Ref: Hagens, N. J. (2020). Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism. Ecological Economics, 169, 106520.

Sustainability

Sustainability is a concept that emphasizes the ability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This foundational idea, articulated by the Brundtland Commission in 1987, underscores the importance of balancing economic, environmental, and social priorities to ensure the equitable and responsible use of resources. At its core, sustainability seeks to maintain harmony between human development and the natural systems that support life.

In the context of planetary systems, sustainability extends beyond its conventional definition to encompass the capacity of a system—both natural and human-made—to maintain conditions that ensure the long-term viability of societies and ecosystems. It focuses on operating within the Earth’s biophysical boundaries (aka Planetary Boundaries), stabilizing and preserving life-supporting processes while managing human impacts. This perspective emphasizes the importance of resilience, resource efficiency, and ecological balance as essential components of avoiding systemic collapse or irreversible degradation. Unlike broader concepts such as habitability or genesity, sustainability primarily concerns itself with maintaining the status quo needed to support human well-being. It does not inherently account for the generative or creative potential of ecosystems to foster new forms of life and complexity. Instead, it prioritizes the stabilization of existing conditions to ensure continuity. This anthropocentric framing aligns with principles of ecological economics and planetary stewardship, advocating for resource conservation, reduced environmental harm, and the preservation of the ecosystems upon which human civilization depends.

De-anthropocentrizing sustainability means transitioning from a human-centered perspective to an ecosphere-focused stewardship, prioritizing the enhancement of habitability for all Earth-like life and, ultimately, fostering genesity—the generative potential for diverse and novel forms of life to flourish.

Terra Sapiens

Terra Sapiens is a concept introduced by David Grinspoon in his book ‘Earth in Human Hands: Shaping Our Planet’s Future’, signifying a transformative phase in Earth’s evolution. Encompassing the “Planetary Change of the Fourth Kind,” it describes humanity’s potential to mature into wise planetary stewards, ushering in an era known as the “Sapiezoic.” This stage represents a shift towards integrated, conscious, and sustainable interactions with Earth’s systems, founded on a deep understanding and responsible management of planetary resources and ecosystems.

Similar to ideas like Gaia 2.0 and the “Mature Technosphere,” Terra Sapiens envisions humanity as an active participant in Earth’s self-regulation, harmonizing technological advancements with ecological principles. It emphasizes a collective responsibility to guide the planet toward a flourishing, life-supporting future, balancing innovation with sustainability to ensure the long-term health of the biosphere. This transformative phase reflects the emergence of 🌍💡Planetary Sapience, where human agency aligns with the broader goals of planetary stewardship.

Ref: Grinspoon, D. (2016). Earth in human hands: Shaping our planet’s future. Grand Central Publishing.

Technosphere

The technosphere is the interconnected system of all non-food, non-living matter extracted from Earth’s natural systems and transformed into human-made artifacts for specific purposes. This vast network includes urban environments, transportation systems, communication infrastructures, and other human-made structures and devices that enable essential activities such as energy conversion, material extraction, transportation, and information processing. Key characteristics of the technosphere include its vast mass, estimated at over 1 trillion tons in 2019, with approximately one-third consisting of residential buildings and another third represented by transportation systems. The technosphere exhibits autocatalytic growth (a self-reinforcing process where the products of growth accelerate further expansion), where its components, such as machinery and infrastructure, accelerate the extraction and processing of resources, leading to exponential expansion at an average rate of 3.6% per year since 1900. This growth far outpaces human population increase, with the ratio of technosphere mass to human biomass rising from 18 tons per person in 1900 to 140 tons per person today. An emerging subset of the Technosphere, the Xenoösphere, refers to the intricate industrial ecosystem driving the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.

Ref: Galbraith, E., Faisal, A.-A., Matitia, T., Fajzel, W., Hatton, I., Haberl, H., Krausmann, F., & Wiedenhofer, D. (2024). Resolving the Technosphere. EGUsphere.

Tipping Points (climate)

Tipping points occur when change in part of the climate system becomes (2) self-perpetuating beyond (2) a warming threshold as a result of asymmetry in the relevant feedbacks, leading to (3) substantial and widespread Earth system impacts. These impacts can be abrupt and dangerous, with very serious implications for the future of humanity and our planet. As the world gets hotter, several tipping points are becoming very likely. Sixteen climate tipping points have been identified:

Global Warming Thresholds: 🔴 <2°C 🟠 2-4°C 🟡 ≥4°C

1. 🔴 Greenland Ice Sheet · collapse

2. 🔴 West Antarctic Ice Sheet · collapse

3. 🔴 Low-Latitude Coral Reefs · die-off

4. 🔴 Boreal Permafrost · abrupt thaw

5. 🔴 Labrador Sea Current · Subpolar Gyre · collapse

6. 🔴 Barents Sea Ice · abrupt loss

7. 🟠 Amazon Rainforest · dieback

8. 🟠 Sahel / West African Monsoon · greening

9. 🟠 East Antarctic Subglacial Basins · collapse

10. 🟠 Extra-Polar Mountain Glaciers · loss

11. 🟡 Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation · collapse

12. 🟡 Arctic Winter Sea Ice · collapse

13. 🟡 Boreal Permafrost · collapse

14. 🟡 Boreal Forest · northern expansion

15. 🟡 Boreal Forest · southern dieback

16. 🟡 East Antarctic Ice Sheet · collapse

Ref: Armstrong McKay, D. I., Staal, A., Abrams, J. F., Winkelmann, R., Sakschewski, B., Loriani, S., Fetzer, I., Cornell, S. E., Rockström, J., & Lenton, T. M. (2022). Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science, 377(6611), eabn7950.
📍 Our dedicated page

WITs · Worldviews, Institutions & Technologies

Worldviews, Institutions, and Technologies (WITs) refer to the interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of human culture that shape societies’ interactions with their ecological and social environments. This concept is central to understanding systemic roadblocks to sustainability and the pathways to transition toward more adaptive socio-ecological regimes. The framework of WITs highlights the evolutionary dynamics of cultural systems and their influence on sustainability.

Worldviews represent the deeply held, often implicit perceptions of how the world operates and what is desirable or possible. These encompass society’s relationships with nature and the goals pursued, such as economic growth or quality of life. Worldviews set the boundaries within which institutions and technologies are designed and function, shaping the cultural context for societal adaptation.

Institutions are the norms, rules, and structures that define and regulate behaviors in a culture. They include key societal structures such as kinship systems, economies, governments, educational systems, and religious organizations. Institutions are problem-solving entities that allow societies to adapt to their environments, but they can also become rigid, perpetuating maladaptive practices.

Technologies are the applied information and tools developed to meet societal goals. This includes physical artifacts, processes, and the institutional instruments supporting them. Technologies not only provide solutions to immediate challenges but also influence institutions and worldviews, reinforcing specific societal trajectories.

The WIT framework emphasizes that cultural change is an evolutionary process. The components of WITs are interconnected, influencing each other through feedback loops. For instance, technologies powered by fossil fuels have reinforced a worldview of limitless economic growth, which in turn has shaped institutions favoring industrial expansion. However, such interdependencies can lead to maladaptive lock-ins, where societies remain committed to unsustainable trajectories despite evidence of systemic failure.

World-Earth Resilience (WER)

World-Earth Resilience encompasses the integrated resilience of both the Earth's natural systems (Earth System) and human societal systems (World System). It focuses on how these two interconnected systems can adapt, persist, and transform in response to environmental and social challenges. WER emphasises the need to manage and sustain the Earth's ecosystems and resources while ensuring the wellbeing and equitable development of human societies. This concept requires understanding and addressing the complex interactions between ecological processes, human activities, and the broader social, economic, and political contexts. WER aims to guide actions and policies towards sustaining a resilient planet capable of supporting diverse life, including human civilisations, in a balanced and sustainable manner.

Ref: Anderies, J. M., Barfuss, W., Donges, J. F., Fetzer, I., Heitzig, J., & Rockström, J. (2022). Conceptualizing World-Earth System resilience: Exploring transformation pathways towards a safe and just operating space for humanity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04471.

World-Earth System (WES)

The World-Earth System (WES) is the planetary-scale system that integrates the co-evolving biophysical subsystems of the Earth System (ES) with the social, cultural, economic, and technological subsystems of the World System (WS). This comprehensive framework reflects the intertwined nature of human and natural processes, forming a dynamic Geosphere-Biosphere-Anthroposphere system shaped by mutual interactions and feedback loops. WES emphasizes the necessity of representing human societies as intrinsic components of Earth’s systems, moving beyond traditional models that treat them as external drivers or boundary conditions.

At the core of the WES framework is a taxonomy of three interrelated subsystems:

1. ENV (Biophysical Taxon): Derived from traditional Earth System models, ENV encompasses the natural processes and components governed by physical, chemical, and ecological laws. This includes the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere, which interact through biogeophysical and biogeochemical cycles. ENV provides the foundation for modeling the planet’s natural dynamics, highlighting feedback loops that influence climate, ecosystems, and other planetary boundaries.

2. MET (Socio-metabolic Taxon): Captures the material and energy exchanges between human societies and the environment, bridging the natural and human spheres. Inspired by concepts such as social metabolism and the technosphere, MET includes infrastructure, agriculture, energy systems, and economic activities. It highlights the tangible, material aspects of human systems that directly impact and depend on biophysical processes.

3. CUL (Socio-cultural Taxon): Represents the immaterial processes of human behavior, decision-making, governance, values, and innovation. Building on ideas like the noosphere and global subject, CUL addresses the socio-cultural dynamics that shape and are shaped by both ENV and MET. This taxon recognizes the role of institutions, digital transformation, and social norms in influencing global trajectories.

The WES is inherently co-evolutionary, with its subsystems interacting across spatial and temporal scales through social-ecological feedback loops. For example, human activities such as greenhouse gas emissions (MET → ENV) alter climate systems (ENV), which in turn affect societal structures and behaviors (ENV → CUL or ENV → MET). These dynamics can amplify or dampen systemic changes, resulting in cascading effects that are critical for understanding resilience, tipping points, and sustainability.

Ref:
Taxonomies for structuring models for World–Earth systems analysis of the Anthropocene: subsystems, their interactions and social–ecological feedback loops (2021)

Conceptualizing World-Earth System resilience: Exploring transformation pathways towards a safe and just operating space for humanity (2022)

A modeling framework for World-Earth system resilience: exploring social inequality and Earth system tipping points (2023)

Xenoösphere (AI)

Xenoösphere (coined by Globaïa in 2024; from the Greek ξένος xénos, “stranger” or “foreigner,” and νοῦς noûs, “mind” or “intellect”): Together, the name signifies “the sphere of alien minds” or “the domain of emergent, non-human intellect,” marking the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a distinct and transformative force within the Anthroposphere and during the Anthropocene. This proposed conceptual stratum of the Technosphere is characterized by emergent, non-human cognitive agents and the planetary-scale infrastructures that support their development and operation. Far from being a mere technological layer, it has taken shape as a complex, adaptive system, in which human-designed networks, resource extraction processes, and machine intelligences form a tightly interwoven web of mutual influence and continual transformation.

At its foundations lie increasingly sophisticated supply chains orchestrating the extraction and refinement of rare earth elements and critical minerals required for high-performance semiconductors. These materials enable the fabrication of chips using techniques like extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, and they sustain the immense data centers that fuel AI computation. Submarine fiber-optic cables, satellite constellations, terrestrial wireless networks, and energy-intensive infrastructures form the circulatory systems of this sphere, ensuring that data and power flow at unprecedented scales.

Central nodes in the Xenoösphere include advanced semiconductor fabs, next-generation cloud facilities, and hyperscale data centers outfitted with specialized AI accelerators (GPUs, TPUs, and custom ASICs) required for training and deploying frontier models. These environments form feedback loops with software ecosystems, research communities, and engineering teams, driving continuous innovation and adaptation. The processes unfolding in this sphere are non-linear and globally interdependent, linking environmental impacts—such as the ecological footprint of mining and energy production—to the strategic maneuverings of corporate and state actors.

The emerging powers within this domain can be encapsulated by the acronym MAAMAX: Microsoft (financing OpenAI and Anthropic), Amazon (backing Anthropic), Alphabet (through DeepMind and Google AI), Meta (pioneering foundational and open-source models), Apple (integrating AI capabilities on-device), and xAI (…). These entities collectively pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the infrastructures, intellectual property, and engineering efforts that define the scale and shape of the Xenoösphere. In turn, this capital intensification drives further complexity, as technological trajectories become intertwined with geopolitical alignments, environmental constraints, and evolving social norms.