Consent or Collapse: Life Won’t Wait for Consensus
In this age of climate breakdown and accelerating biodiversity loss, we remain trapped in a pattern of debate where only full agreement seems to permit decisions to move forward. This deadlock paralyzes us. Meanwhile, destruction continues its course.
But what if the question were no longer, “Do you fully agree?”, and instead became, “Do you consent for us to move forward this way, for now, to protect what is essential for all of us?” The distinction between agreement and consent is not merely semantic — it is key to unlocking the possibility of action when urgency demands movement, even in the absence of unanimity.
In sociocratic practice, decisions advance when there are no reasoned objections showing that the proposal crosses the boundaries of what is safe, ethical, or viable. This approach recognizes the power of diversity, not as an obstacle, but as a resource. Instead of seeking to convince everyone of a single truth, we choose to move together where possible to safeguard the common good.
Are Humans Part of Biodiversity? Rethinking Our Place in the Web of Life
At the Villars Institute Summit this year, Professor Michael Schaepman, President of the University of Zurich and founder of the Forum, asked a disarmingly simple question: “Do you include humans in your definition of biodiversity?” The scattered hands and the silence that followed revealed the gap in our shared understanding.
We still speak of biodiversity as something “out there,” as if humans are somehow outside the ecological fabric. But biodiversity is not only about species counts. It is about relationships, cultural lenses, economic systems, historical erasures, and defining what is worth protecting.
By recognizing that humanity is not separate from biodiversity but an integral part of it, we also recognize our place and responsibility within this living system. This recognition reshapes not only conservation efforts but also the very architecture of our governance and economy.
From Sociocracy to Micro Multinationality: A Regenerative Network for Life
The world may need new borders, parties, or ideologies today, but living networks of micro multinationals—small, distributed, interdependent organizations connected across territories, operating through consent and shared responsibility—would do just that. These networks would return decision-making power to the people who inhabit and care for each territory on behalf of the broader web of life that sustains all existence, including ourselves.
While life unfolds as a network of interdependence among humans and non-humans, human decisions shape all conditions. Rivers, soils, seeds, animals, plants, and the climate are not participants in assemblies, yet their futures are decided at our tables. That is why reorganizing our political, economic, and social systems is not just an option but a necessity.
Another Way Forward: Anarchism, Anthroposophy, and the Ethics of Consent
Echoes of this approach can be found in the original anarchist philosophy, which called for decentralization, self-management, and responsible freedom—before it was co-opted or diluted by authoritarian regimes that centralized power away from the people and into the hands of parties or bureaucracies.
The same call toward life-centered reorganization appears in anthroposophy, which proposes a balance between cultural, political, and economic life. It advocates freedom of thought, equality of rights, and solidarity in economic relations. This social threefold seeks to prevent domination by any one sphere, fostering structures that are alive, dynamic, and accountable.
Within this vision, consent and agreement are not just decision-making tools; they are the ethical ground for a different kind of politics — one capable of transcending party lines and outdated economic doctrines, allowing for what could become not only a national plan, but even a parental plan: a radical pact where life itself, in all its forms, stands at the center.
Time, Territory, and the Continuity of Life
We may not have much time left. But as long as space for action remains, the construction of such a plan demands that we recognize that we move forward not through the conquest of opinions but through mutual consent.
Every territory, biome, and community can be a nucleus of regeneration, where collective action is built through respect for diversity, care for ecological boundaries, and commitment to the continuity of life.
Because more important than winning the debate is ensuring that there will still be forests, rivers, animals, seeds, and people, with whom we can continue to debate.