Changing Paradigm: A Question of Survival in a World in Crisis
Isabel Marcos ???? ???? ???? ????
Senior Research Fellow | Professor | Artist | Consultant | Ph.D. Doctor specialized in Semiotics applied to Regenerative Design, Architecture, and Sustainable Urbanism
Watch the video here: https://www.ted.com/talks/johan_rockstrom_the_tipping_points_of_climate_change_and_where_we_stand?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Our collective future is not just threatened—it is systematically compromised by short-term economic interests, often at the expense of the planet's long-term sustainability. The facts are alarming: of the 16 tipping points identified by the scientific community as critical to maintaining Earth's climate stability, nine already show signs of destabilization. We face a crisis that transcends politics to become an existential emergency.
A Physical Limit, Not a Political One As Per Aage Brandt explains in his text on ecology and semiotics, “The space of our material life is subject to the constraints of its finitude: what we call nature cannot accommodate our infinite aspirations.” The 1.5°C threshold, often presented as a political goal, is actually a vital physical boundary. Exceeding it risks catastrophic chain reactions, including:
?? The melting of Greenland, disrupting vital ocean currents. ?? The collapse of the Amazon, transforming this unique ecosystem into a savanna. ?? Rapid sea level rise, endangering millions of lives.
These phenomena are not hypothetical; they are already underway. As Brandt emphasizes, the contradiction between “the infinite semiotics of growth” and “the finitude of planetary conditions” exacerbates this crisis. Every day of inaction increases entropy and reduces our chances of restoring balance.
The Responsibility of Policymakers Political inaction amounts to active complicity. In a world where “the economy of signs” (Brandt) seems to outweigh the ecology of things, policymakers often prioritize the interests of fossil fuel industries over planetary viability. This dynamic is not just ideological; it directly conditions our survival. As Brandt states, contemporary society relies on a complex social and semiotic stratification, but this architecture collapses when its ecological foundations are compromised.
Failure to act today is a choice for self-destruction. By ignoring scientific warnings, political leaders become architects of our potential extinction.
A Necessary Transition: Ethics and Action Brandt calls for a “lesson in finitude” in art and semiotics, which could guide a new ecological ethic. But this ethic must translate into concrete actions:
领英推荐
These changes require global cooperation, transcending traditional economic and political interests. As Brandt highlights, “The economy of the work does not contradict the ecology of its context”: regenerative economies and ethical visions are possible.
An Ethical and Existential Emergency The climate crisis can no longer be treated as a peripheral or optional issue. It calls for a fundamental paradigm shift, where survival takes precedence over infinite growth and consumerist aspirations. If we continue on this path, the end of our civilization will be the result of our own negligence. Brandt reminds us that “ecology is a problematic, not a static discipline.” It is an invitation to reinvent our relationship with the material world and rethink our values.
The time to act is now—not to save the planet, but to save ourselves. Earth will continue, with or without us. It is up to us to decide whether we want to be actors in a renaissance or spectators of our own disappearance. The clock is ticking.
?? Join our network here: Sign Up?? Make a donation in your name or that of your institution: Donate?? Submit an article for publication here: Write to Us
We are the intelligence of our planet: let’s think and build a sustainable future together.
#ParadigmShift #ClimateEmergency #EcologicalTransition #EngagedSemiotics #PoliticalResponsibility #EthicsAndSurvival #ClimateAction #PlanetaryFinitude
Essayiste, anthropologue, philosophe, pluridisciplinarité
2 个月C'est effectivement de notre survie qu'il s'agit et pas seulement de celle de l'actuelle biodiversité. La question à se poser est la suivante: pourquoi une espèce intelligente se comporte-t-elle de fa?on aussi insensée face à des menaces majeures clairement identifiées? Notre intellect serait-il sous dépendance biologique?