global problem solving institute

• The Magazine

SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS.

Helena is a global problem solving organization. Through Helena Projects , we seek to implement solutions to critical societal problems. Our work is conducted alongside a small group of exceptional people called Helena Members .

We believe the most consequential decisions in human history will be made during the next 50 years. To meet this critical moment, the world needs new institutions designed for the radically shifting dynamics of the 21st century. We hope to be one.

Problems caused by humans can be solved by humans.

WHAT'S NEW

The Global Solutions Institute is the first institute in the world focused specifically on the deployment of problem-solving technologies with the potential to alleviate many of the world’s most pressing problems.

Our mission is to accelerate the distribution of proven, problem-solving technologies, especially to developing countries, to address key resource shortages in the areas of energy, water, food, environment, and health care/public safety.

GSI envisions a better world with the necessary resources to sustain a rapidly growing, more affluent global population.

OUR HISTORY

The Global Solutions Institute was conceived in December 2012 at a historic meeting in Little Rock that brought together the Club de Madrid, comprised of 106 former presidents and prime ministers from more than 70 countries, and the P80 Group Foundation, founded by HRH Prince Charles, which works with the world’s largest pension and sovereign wealth funds.

Both groups are keenly focused on the accelerated deployment of technologies that can address growing global resource shortages. At the conclusion of the meeting, these organizations signed the historic Little Rock Accord, which defined the mission of the Global Solutions Institute as the institute where these technologies will be displayed and demonstrated, and where those with problems and those with solutions will come together to address the most pressing global issues.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Solv[ED] inspires young people to become global problem-solvers

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

On May 3, during its annual flagship event Solve at MIT, MIT Solve launched a new program called Solv[ED] , geared toward young innovators to help them become problem solvers and learn about social entrepreneurship. 

Starting in June, Solv[ED] will feature a variety of workshops and learning sessions and provide resources that are designed to support young people aged 24 and under with the skills needed to make an impact on their communities and the world. Solv[ED] will host its first annual Youth Innovation Challenge this September and invite young people to submit and pitch solutions to solve problems worldwide. 

Via events throughout the year , young problem-solvers will also be able to network with one another, as well as the broader Solv[ED] community through its open innovation platform, to brainstorm ideas and advance their solutions and enterprises.

“There is no one path through Solv[ED]’s offerings. We’re creating a program for young people to design their own social impact journeys,” says Alex Amouyel, executive director of Solve. “We can’t do this alone. That is why we are inviting youth organizations, education providers, and other cross-sector leaders to join us and support young problem-solvers all over the world.”

Emma Yang, the youngest MIT Solver and founder of Timeless, a startup that empowers Alzheimer’s patients to stay engaged and connected to their loved ones, is excited about the launch of Solv[ED] and believes that it will generate a large community of youth looking to work together to make change.

“Solv[ED] will give young people the opportunity to learn about and practice skills for social entrepreneurship. I’m especially excited about the ways that it’ll do this while bringing young people from around the world together,” Yang says.

In addition to young innovators, Solv[ED]’s community gathers member organizations looking to support these youth, such as Anant National University, Antropia ESSEC, Firefly Innovations at City University of New York, Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey, Learn with Leaders, T.A. Pai Management Institute, Universidad de los Andes, and Universidad Privada Peruano Alemana. 

Solv[ED] partners include the Morgridge Family Foundation, the Rieschel Foundation, and the Pozen Social Innovation Prize. 

MIT students  can sign up for the Solv[ED] newsletter for more updates, and organizations that support youth innovation can become Solv[ED] Members .

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Video: "Announcing Solv[ED] with Gitanjali Rao and Emma Yang"
• MIT Solv[ED]

Related Topics

• Technology and society
• Collaboration
• Digital technology
• Education, teaching, academics
• K-12 education
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E)

Related Articles

MIT Solve announces 2021 global challenges

MIT Solve rises to meet health security and pandemic challenge

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

“No one can work in civil engineering alone”

Read full story →

This tiny chip can safeguard user data while enabling efficient computing on a smartphone

Researchers detect a new molecule in space

Erin Bahm, Steven Parks named 2024–25 UPS Fellows

Twenty-three MIT faculty honored as "Committed to Caring" for 2023-25

Featured video: Moooving the needle on methane

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Ralph Bunche Institute

Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. The Ralph Bunche Institute offers a wealth of research and public programming on international affairs, human rights, and conflict resolution.

The Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at The Graduate Center, City University of New York, engages in research, graduate training, and public education in the fields of international studies and contemporary global problem-solving. Originally founded in 1973 as the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations in honor of the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat and scholar, it was renamed in 2001 and given a broader interdisciplinary mandate to support and strengthen international studies at The Graduate Center. The Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies aims to provide a congenial setting for activities initiated by faculty, students, and visiting scholars with a wide variety of research interests in international topics.

Located minutes from UN headquarters in mid-town Manhattan, the institute draws not only on the distinguished faculty of The City University of New York and other universities and colleges in the metropolitan area and worldwide, but also on analysts, policymakers, and practitioners. The Institute houses a number of projects that seek to improve the scholarly and public understanding of international affairs and to contribute to solving international problems. It also hosts visiting scholars and graduate students from around the world who wish to take advantage of the institute’s unusual access to international organizations and expertise.

Contact Information

Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies and Professor, Sociology The Graduate Center, The City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5203 New York, NY 10016 tel: (212) 817-2100  e-mail: [email protected]

The Goldman Sachs Global Institute

The world is in an era of profound geopolitical, technological, and economic transformations. The accelerating rate of change requires deep and immediate understanding of what’s new and why it matters. Now more than ever, leaders need strategic insights, collaborative problem-solving, and expert analysis to successfully navigate the trends reshaping our world.

Backed by the global network and expertise of Goldman Sachs, the Global Institute is uniquely positioned to offer clients perspectives and partnerships at the intersection of geopolitics, technology, and global markets.

Our approach

Timely analysis of the most important inflection points reshaping our world

Collaborative problem-solving focused on finding solutions

Bringing people together across disciplines to solve problems at scale

"Technology, capital markets, geopolitics – few institutions understand all three. When our clients need a strategy for navigating the swift currents of world affairs, they turn to the Goldman Sachs Global Institute."

David Solomon, Chairman and CEO

Positioned to Lead

We draw on Goldman Sachs’s global network, unrivaled expertise, and best-in-class services in the critical areas facing our clients and the world.

We are grounded in more than 150 years of experience working with the world’s leading businesses, entrepreneurs, and institutions

We draw on our deep knowledge and relationships across disciplines, industries, and geographies

We engage with leaders from every sector working on today’s most pressing issues

And we provide our clients with insights to help them navigate and lead in a rapidly changing world

Related insights

Goldman Sachs CEO: Geopolitical competition is sending more shockwaves through the global economy

Geopolitical competition is sending more frequent shockwaves through the global economy, and investors are paying increased attention to great-power politics, says Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon.

The generative world order: AI, geopolitics, and power

Generative AI will transform technology, markets, and the global balance of power. A year after the release of ChatGPT, we are beginning to see how. In this swiftly evolving arena, corporate and political leaders alike are seeking to decipher the implications of an abrupt and powerful wave of innovation, exploring new opportunities and navigating new risks.

The global credibility gap: Assessing underperformance and overreach in today’s geopolitics

Today’s geopolitical shocks are connected by a great-power credibility crisis. It is increasingly apparent that neither the United States nor China is both willing and able to singlehandedly uphold the international order. This crisis of credibility is compounding geopolitical instability and uncertainty.

Resource realism: The geopolitics of critical mineral supply chains

Competition between the US and China has put the need for more resilient and diversified supply chains in focus.

The rise of geopolitical swing states

In the 2020s, everything is geopolitical. It took a global pandemic, Russia’s war on Ukraine, and heightened U.S.-China competition for the fact that the old era of globalization is over to become undeniable.

Navigating the new geopolitical and technology landscape

In an era of geopolitical instability and economic uncertainty, what are the implications for companies and investors?

Sign up for BRIEFINGS, a newsletter from Goldman Sachs about trends shaping markets, industries and the global economy.

You have successfully subscribed to BRIEFIN GS

pine crest school

Fort Lauderdale Campus

Boca Raton Campus

• Pine Crest: Future Ready
• Vision and Tradition
• Administration & Board
• Pine Crest at a Glance
• Culture of Safety and Security
• Professional Development
• Pine Crest Careers
• Professional Learning Conferences
• School Calendar
• Schoology (eLearning)
• Campus Store
• Pinecrest.edu Accessibility Statement
• The Pine Crest Difference
• Tuition and Fees
• Financial and Inclusion Aid
• New Families
• Returning Families
• Bus Transportation
• Laptop Computers
• Your Future Starts Here
• Student Media
• Rooms to Learn
• After-School Programs
• Lower School
• Middle School
• Upper School
• Academic Support
• Social Emotional Education
• Pine Crest Summer
• Summer Camp
• Registration
• Pine Crest School Alumni
• Events & Registration
• Alumni Campus Tour
• Supporting Pine Crest
• The Pine Crest Fund
• Ways to Give
• Matching Gifts
• Give Online
• Visit Pine Crest
• Give/Donate
• my pine crest

Pine Crest Upper School Students Participate in Global Problem-Solving Institute Pilot Program

Topics: Upper School , Design Thinking , Academics , Student Leadership , Entrepreneurship , Future Ready , 2023

Subscribe Here!

Recent posts, posts by tag.

• Alumni (63)
• Upper School (36)
• Faculty (31)
• Pine Crest School (28)
• Innovation (25)
• Student Life (25)
• Academics (22)
• Middle School (22)
• The Magazine (21)
• Athletics (18)
• Lower School (16)
• Admission (13)
• COVID-19 (13)
• Entrepreneurship (11)
• Fine Arts (11)
• Design Thinking (10)
• Student Leadership (10)
• Science (9)
• Pre-kindergarten (8)
• Pine Crest Fund (7)
• Innovation Institute (6)
• Social and Emotional Learning (6)
• Future Ready (5)
• Pine Crest Summer (5)
• Computer Science (4)
• Panther Pulse (4)
• Alumni Newsletter (3)
• Robotics (3)
• Fine Motor Skills (2)
• Freshmen (2)
• outdoor learning (2)
• Campus Safety (1)
• Community Service (1)
• Digital Media Production (1)
• Financial Aid (1)
• emergent leadership (1)

Introduction to Global Problems

What are global problems.

Global problems are not just important problems, or problems that affect many people. Rather they are those problems that affect the whole of the planet, and potentially all of the people who live on it. Climate change is one clear example that springs to mind quickly. This is because the consequences of humanly-generated changes in the atmosphere will, albeit in different ways according to region, affect everyone on the planet. In other words, the consequences are universal. Moreover, unless we profoundly change our collective behaviour, climate change may well result in irreversible changes in the climatic conditions of life – a measure of the deep vulnerability of human society in the face of this issue. And it is easy to see that there will be no easy solution to the problem: the causes of the present situation are clearly related to our economic system, our attitudes to nature, our political organisation, our technological capacities and preferences, and our uses of resources. Solutions will involve not just all communities and every country, but solutions will necessarily involve cooperation between all, rather than individual approaches. In other words, the example of climate change suggests that global problems are complex, intractable, and make human society as a whole very vulnerable.

Robert E. Horn, The Climate Policy Labyrinth Info-Mural [ Original image  (PDF, 1 Mb)]

Other examples of global problems of this scale and with these characteristics would include weapons of mass destruction; the violation of the human security of several billions of the world’s poor, and the consequences of the conditions of their lives for the rest of the world; failures and deficits of global governance, especially when set beside the largely unregulated pressures of economic and cultural globalisation; resource depletion, especially that of energy resources, on a scale and in a manner that both unsustainable and profoundly inequitable; the degradation of natural environments as a result of economic activities, including the oceans, forests and soils; the physical, social and psycho-cultural consequences of unprecedented and still accelerating development of megacities; and cultural collisions within and across national borders generated by globalisation and claims to the primacy or universal superiority of one version of reason and ethics.

This is a very incomplete listing, and there could be many other such lists. In  High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them , Jean-Francois Rischard identifies  twenty global problems , comparable to those just mentioned, and argues that

Roughly a third of these have to do with how we share our planet (burning environmental issues); another third of which relate to how we share our humanity (urgent economic and social issues requiring a worldwide coalition for their effective solution); with a final third having to do with how we share our rulebook (important regulatory challenges urgently requiring a minimum critical mass of global rules to prevent free-riding and other negative consequences).

One key characteristic of global problems is that they are inter-linked in complex, and often unrecognised, ways.  Jared Diamond , in the conclusion to his  Collapse , provides another list of twelve problems of “unsustainability”. Such a list, he notes, seems to imply that the problems are separate, and should be analysed separately. In fact, Diamond argues,

they are linked: one problem exacerbates another or makes its solution more difficult.  For example, population growth affects all eleven other problems; more people means more deforestation, more toxic chemicals, more demand for wild fish, etc.  The energy problem is linked to other problems because use of fossil fuels for energy contributes heavily to greenhouse gases, the combating of soil fertility losses by using synthetic fertilizers requires energy to make the fertilizers, fossil fuel scarcity increases our interest in nuclear energy which poses potentially the biggest “toxic” problem of all in case of an accident, and fossil fuel scarcity also makes it more expensive to solve our freshwater problems by using energy to desalinize ocean water.   Depletion of fisheries and other wild food sources puts more pressure on livestock, crops, and aquaculture to replace them, thereby leading to more topsoil losses and more eutrophication from agriculture and aquaculture.  Problems of deforestation, water shortage, and soil degradation in the Third World foster wars there and drive legal asylum seekers and illegal emigrants to the First World from the Third World.

This interlinking of issues, or complex interdependency of problems, has implications for both the way we think about these issues – our forms of knowledge – and the way we might go about beginning to solve them. Diamond remarks:

People often ask, “What is the single most important environmental problem facing the world today?” A flip answer would be, “The single most important problem is our misguided focus on identifying the single most important problem!”  That flip answer is essentially correct, because any of the dozen problems if unsolved would do us grave harm, and because they all interact with each other.  If we solved eleven of the problems, but not the 12th, we would still be in trouble, whichever was the problem that remained unsolved.  We have to solve them all.

Global problems are highly interdependent, often in non-linear ways. Their character and interdependence is such that they can only be solved jointly and simultaneously. These include climate change and energy insecurity, infectious diseases and the cultural dislocations of uneven, unequal and structurally contradictory processes of globalisation, apparently rapidly escalating nuclear proliferation, the destruction of habitat and biodiversity and the rapid deepening of chemical pollution, illegal drugs, increasing and deepening poverty across particular regions, and the failings of our global institutions of governance and finance, just to take a subset of the whole. Clearly they are interactive, most likely in ways we have hardly begun to think about.

The salient key characteristics are inherently transnational in both their causes and their consequences; that they are set to interact in ways we may well not anticipate – such as climate change and infectious disease; and that they are already giving rise to perceptible new forms of threat to both societies.

In our view, global problems exhibit characteristics which make them global rather than national or local in nature.  Global problems may exhibit linkage between cause and effect across societal levels from global to local. Global problems also reveal a disjuncture between cause and effect when the driving forces are highly centralized and concentrated both institutionally and spatially (and therefore are exogenous to most of humanity who nonetheless experience the effects of this change). Other global problems are the result of highly distributed and decentralized driving forces so diffuse yet cumulatively powerful that the resulting overall impact is qualitative even though it passes unnoticed except at the local level.

Often, global problems are multi-dimensional, and drive pervasive change driven by interrelationships across superficially segmented problems or disparate issues or levels of governance. Global problems may be the result of multi-directional causes that erupt suddenly from below or fall without warning from above, or both at the same time. Sometimes, events in one society arc for a moment around the planet to another, thereby dramatically changing both their trajectories.

The impacts of some global problems may not be felt for years or decades whereas decision-making time horizons are very short. Such enduring global problems may set severe limits on solving interrelated, medium-term global problems. Some solutions may turn out to generate further problems.

A regional set of examples

As an illustration, Australian concern over climate change is one justification for the establishment of components of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia – uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, high-level radioactive waste storage, and possibly nuclear power generation. Another element is Australian hopes for a privileged position in the Bush Administration’s planned Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Meanwhile, in Australia’s immediate neighbour Indonesia, with whom it has a fractious and volatile relationship, a parallel debate about concerns over the country’s power requirements, its declining position in hydrocarbon reserves and longstanding economic nationalist policy currents is promoting nuclear power generation. Irrespective of the economic and political realities in each case, security elites in both countries have registered developments in the other with degrees of alarm, especially since both countries have records of secret nuclear weapons development, which even then were in part responses to fears of each other. One country’s climate change adaptation may become the rational for security concern, and indeed nuclear proliferation.

Climate change, energy insecurity, and pandemics will certainly interact with existing conflict patterns. To take but one plausible example, again involving Australia and Indonesia, global warming will influence already massively degraded fishing stocks in the seas of eastern Indonesia which provide the basic protein requirements for most of the population of that large region. The implications for migration into Papua and further pressure on the fishing grounds off of northwest Australia are easy to imagine – as are the political consequences.

These local expressions of global problems foreshadow deep threats to the fabric of Australian and Indonesian life, and require, for their even their partial amelioration, cooperation between the two countries – and between the two societies. In fact, the shared character of these global threats, and the requirement for government and civil society in both countries to move towards cooperative solutions opens up the possibility of a shift in the often volatile security relations between the two countries, moving towards  a re-framing of Australia-Indonesia security relations  on the basis of shared solutions to shared global problems.

Knowledge and global problems

There is to date very little systematic inquiry into global problems – precisely what their characteristics are, or indeed, agreement about whether one’s person’s global problem is even a problem to another person. Indeed, the idea of what is a “problem” as such may well be an idea that sits more comfortably in some mindsets and cultural outlooks than others. The very idea of a “global problem” raises quite fundamental issues of perception and understanding within and between different cultural streams. This is by no means a trivial or purely academic matter.

The most sustained and systematic attempt to think through many such questions relating to the idea of problems on a world or global scale was carried out over several decades by the Union of International Associations in its Encyclopedia of World Problems and its associated databases and explanatory commentaries. The principal author of those commentaries, Anthony Judge, and his UIA collaborator Nadia McLaren, are providing a major contribution to this Global Problem Solving project by   abridging and re-writing those Explanatory Comments  in more accessible form.

Other aspects of the question of appropriate forms of knowledge for this new field of complex interdependencies are addressed by annotated bibliographies of authors dealing with  Knowledge formation and knowledge ecosystems  and  Complexity and risk , and Network analysis.

Global problems as social messes and wicked problems

Two key concepts for beginning to understand global problems both in general and specific cases are  wicked problems  and  social messes .

Wicked problems are ill-defined, ambiguous and associated with strong moral, political and professional issues. Since they are strongly stakeholder dependent, there is often little consensus about what the problem is, let alone how to resolve it. Furthermore, wicked problems won’t keep still: they are sets of complex, interacting issues evolving in a dynamic social context. Often, new forms of wicked problems emerge  as a result  of trying to understand and solve one of them.

Wicked problems have also been succinctly characterised as “complex problems that change when you apply a solution.”

Robert Horn has adapted earlier formulations of  criteria for wicked problems  to develop the features of a  social mess:

• No unique “correct” view of the problem
• Different views of the problem and contradictory solutions
• Most problems are connected to other problems
• Data are often uncertain or missing
• Multiple value conflicts
• Ideological and cultural constraints
• Political constraints
• Economic constraints
• Often a-logical or illogical or multi-valued thinking
• Numerous possible intervention points
• Consequences difficult to imagine
• Considerable uncertainty, ambiguity
• Great resistance to change
• Problem solver(s) out of contact with the problems and potential solutions.

These are very much the characteristics of the multiple, intersecting elements of complexes of problems such as climate change, weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, resource depletion and competition, threats to biodiversity from economic growth, and cultural clashes arising from contemporary and earlier forms of western-led globalisation. Each of these involves great resistances to change, high levels of uncertainty about causes and remedies, many different possible points of intervention but little certainty about consequences, evident interconnection with other problems coupled with lack of certainty about both the precise connections and whether all the connections are known – or even knowable, and often profoundly diverse and conflicting views of what “the problem” is and indeed whether there is in fact a problem at all.

Horn’s mess map of the  Climate Policy Labyrinth  that heads this article provides  a visual portrait for a set of experts’ perceptions of the constraints of one particular global problem cluster, and a paradigm of many others.

It metaphorically displays the constraints expressed by the interviewees as a huge labyrinth – and the uncertainties as a huge cloud — through which policies must proceed in order to result in the possible good outcomes identified (on which there was substantial agreement). It also depicts the enabling conditions interviewees identified as supportive of achieving the good outcomes. Overall it seeks to mirror the view of the policy process offered by those operating within it. The logic of this mural is metaphorical. It does not show literal paths that a specific policy or group of policies must take in order to navigate the labyrinth. Indeed, part of the power of the metaphor is to suggest that almost any policy proposal is bound to run into obstacles sooner or later – if we maintain the present level of thinking.

The beginning of understanding of the character of multiple, interdependent, causally complex social messes at the heart of what are now becoming recognised as global problems calls into question the character of the knowledge structures – and following on, institutional and policy frameworks – conventionally relied on for guidance in understanding radical threat. Not surprisingly, states are coming to realise that the knowledge frameworks they have relied upon to assess threat – the strategic intelligence cycle – are failing to provide adequate forewarning and understanding of precisely the kinds of threats to state interests contained in global problems. This has led to the beginning of a reformulation of both the characteristics and criteria of strategic intelligence and of the knowledge formation processes required to generate it. In the words of one such intelligence review, by the  Glasgow Group , writing on knowledge formation salient to global problems, there is a need to move

beyond analysis – particularly for systemic, complex strategic issues such as energy and environmental security, methodologies that span disciplinary, national, cultural, and cognitive boundaries and frameworks are essential. Unless the subject matter is appropriate to analytic techniques (which requires the ability to reduce and study a subject in discrete parts), strategic intelligence requires systems-based approaches which incorporate consideration of the impacts offeedback loops and other non-linear phenomena. The terms horizon scanning, environmental scanning, or alternative futures all represent a wide sweep of strategic intelligence efforts. Strategic intelligence is necessarily interdisciplinary, highly introspective about cognitive biases, preoccupied with unknowns, and open to multiple explanations and outcomes vs. a “bottom line” assessment or judgment. Good strategic intelligence intentionally highlights areas of uncertainty, but does so in ways that inform better decision-making, thereby avoiding false certainty and simplifications.

Richard Norgaard’s observations  of the process by which the scientists involved in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment overcame initial barriers deep in the structure of institutions of knowledge and policy tell a parallel story, worth quoting at length:

The problem is that earlier, narrow concepts about the nature of science still dominate and have structured our social organization such that our efforts to coordinate our understanding and adapt it to the problems at hand are always seriously constrained. We accepted the concept of private property and put the burden of proof on those who sought the public good. We allowed science to fragment into disciplines and gave the disciplines the primary responsibility in universities to judge the styles and quality of scientific work. We established agencies to promote particular ends using particular parts of science. In short, we built a world around the belief that complex systems could be divided into parts. These separate institutions and agencies channel the bulk of the resources not only of science and how it relates to economic development but also how it relates to biological conservation and speaking for the poor as well. Similarly, we have instituted international agreements and designed international institutions as if solutions could be global. We try to work through our imperfect organizational structures to solve the problems that result in part from fragmentation and false beliefs about the broad applicability of economic, social, and environmental mandates. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment offered an unusual opportunity for a significant number of scientists to work outside of the conventional fragmented structures of science and its implementation. The work was difficult and time consuming, but most of the participants pursued it until the end. The MA process went a long way toward developing the capability among the participants to comprehensively address the complexity of social and ecological system interactions at multiple scales. It also went a long way toward developing the trust necessary to facilitate treating apparently similar situations, such as balancing economic needs with pollution control or species conservation, differently in different situations.

The primary political and policy implication of the MA is that we need to substantial increase our understanding of how we collectively assess complex problems and then extend this understanding to all of the scientific community, policy makers and politicians, and the public at large. Then we need to reconstruct our institutions of governance to match our new richer understanding of the complexity of our interactions with our environment and the collective processes by which we can understand this complexity.

The  International Design Team Meeting  known as the Glasgow Group described what a new international strategic intelligence capability on energy and environmental issues could resemble:

The most important products of this system could be relevant working hypotheses and compelling logics (in the sense of consequences, possibly including some not yet considered) transcending the narrow advocacy of special interest groups through shared access to, and decentralized validation of, global expertise. The system itself, participants agreed, could fill a current void in communicating to both public and private sector decision-makers the security consequences of energy and environmental issues. By convening scientists and analysts alongside societal experts of various kinds, this system could carry out adaptive and collaborative foresight inquiries on energy and environmental security questions. Participants agreed that the user experience with this capability should be vivid, visual, and intuitive. They also agreed that it should harness the best available tools to encourage user-created content and should create an action-learning environment. In this context, the group hoped individuals could study the advantages and drawbacks of an interchangeability of producers and consumers of strategic intelligence at a future date. The Glasgow Group participants strongly urged that multiple stakeholders must participate globally in and share openly the strategic intelligence endeavor, rather than any government or single institution owning the capability. Vivid discussions must embody the capabilities of technologies designed to support a knowledge-creating community, to include the ability for scenario-building, visualization techniques, simulation models, on-demand “rehearsal” of the security impacts related to energy and environmental interactions. Face-to-face meetings will naturally constitute an additional community-building element of the proposed knowledge ecosystem. In addition, technologies will make the results of asynchronous interactions (both face-to-face and online) visible to others.

This study spoke in terms of a “knowledge ecosystem” rather than of institutions of research, an ecosystem relying on diversity in values, methods, and location to generate robust results:

this strategic intelligence knowledge ecosystem may offer various capabilities, including prediction markets, visualization tools, environmental scanning, and alternative scenarios construction. Its uniqueness will be in rapid aggregation and evaluation of knowledge and strategic insights, through distributed and still-evolving knowledge accreditation systems (such as those popularized on E-Bay, Amazon, or digg.com). In particular, this system will link communities of diversity and expertise at local, regional and global levels, and enable a credible and more objective intelligence source than currently available through either governmental or non-government institutions working in the area of energy and environmental security alone. Ideally, such a knowledge ecosystem will embrace group sense-making behaviors and transcend the limitations frequently observed with small units of analysts operating within one organization alone – an especially valuable property when considering the boundary-spanning nature of the energy and environmental security challenges. Project coordinator:  Richard Tanter 18 May 2008  

View this online at: https://nautilus.org/gps/intro/

Nautilus Institute 608 San Miguel Ave., Berkeley, CA 94707-1535 | Phone: (510) 423-0372 | Email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2024 Nautilus Institute. Website developed by Computer Courage .

• Our authors

Nazaretyan, Akop P.

Akop P. Nazaretyan is Director of the Eurasian Center for Big History & System Forecasting, Senior Research Professor of the Institute of Oriental Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Professor in Moscow State University and Editor of the academic journal Historical Psychology & Sociology (in Russian). He is the author of over 300 scholarly publications, including books: Intelligence in the Universe: Sources, Formation and Perspectives (1991, in Russian); Aggression, Morals and the Crises in World Cultural Development (1995, 1996, in Russian); Aggressive Crowds, Mass Panic, and Rumors: Lectures in Social and Political Psychology (2001, 2003, 2005, in Russian); Civilization Crises within the Context of Big History: Self-Organization, Psychology, and Forecasts (2001, 2004, in Russian); Anthropology of Violence and Culture of Self-Organization. Essays on Evolutionary Historical Psychology (2007, 2008, in Russian); Evolution of Non-violence: Studies in Big History, Self-Organization and Historical Psychology (2010, in English). His e-mail is: [email protected]. 

Author's Articles

• Nazaretyan, Akop P. Violence and Non-Violence at Different. Stages of World History  //  History & Mathematics: Analyzing and Modeling Global Development
• Social evolution & history
• Journal of globalization studies
• History & mathematics
• Kondratieff Waves
• Globalistics and Globalization Studies
• Journals in Russian
• Purchase & subscription
• Our Partners

Congratulations on the 65th Jubilee to Leonid Grinin

Presentations from the participants of the fifth international symposium big history and global evolution, welcoming remarks by leonid grinin at the international symposium on ‘big history and global evolution’.

© 2013 Uchitel Publishing House. All rights reserved Website development – Module Code IT

Kirova street 143, Volgograd, Russia 400079 Tel: +7 (8442)42-04-08 Fax: +7 (8442)42-17-71 [email protected] [email protected]

LATEST PUBLICATIONS AND NEWS

PUBLICATIONS

INTERSECTING Resources for the Future (Vol 11) Out Now

SUMMIT RECAP Review the Global Solutions Summit 2023

GLOBAL SOLUTIONS JOURNAL Issue 9 Now Online

We have officially moved to Alexanderstrasse 1

TO ALL NEWS ITEMS >>>

OUR PROGRAM

OUR VISION  A global economic system that benefits people and planet.

OUR MISSION Mobilize change to recouple economic progress with social and environmental prosperity.

The Global Solutions Initiative (GSI) works towards a global economic system that benefits people and planet. Rooted in research, GSI brings together policy, academia, civil society, and the private sector to generate insights for better global governance.

Founded in 2017, the Berlin-based independent, non-profit organization annually convenes the Global Solutions Summit, which serves as a steppingstone to the G20 and G7 Summits. GSI is led by Dennis J. Snower, Markus Engels, and Christian Kastrop. The Global Solutions Initiative was founded during the 2017 German G20 Presidency by the Initiative’s President Dennis J. Snower.

GLOBAL SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

The Global Solutions Summit – the World Policy Forum – is an international conference aimed at addressing key policy challenges facing the G20 and G7 and other global governance fora.

Distinguished experts from think tanks, research organizations, governance, business, and civil society come together each year in the middle of every G20 Presidency to work on concrete policy solutions.

The next Global Solutions Summit will take place on May 6-7, 2024 . Stay up to date on social media and in our newsletter .

The G20 Insights Platform offers policy proposals to the G20. It is an initiative of the Think 20 Engagement Group.

The Policy Briefs, produced by Task Forces from the Think20 (T20) Group and other sources, are clustered in Policy Areas, Presidencies and Task Forces and describe either recommendations or visions.

Register for Updates

Would you like to receive updates on the Global Solutions Initiative, upcoming events, G7 and G20-related developments and the future of multilateralism? Then subscribe here!

1 You hereby agree that the personal data provided may be used for the purpose of updates on the Global Solutions Initiative by the Global Solutions Initiative Foundation gemeinnützige GmbH. Your consent is revocable at any time (by e-mail to [email protected] or to the contact data given in the imprint ). The update is sent in accordance with the privacy policy and to advertise the Global Solutions Initiative’s own products and services.