I bet the readers of this Substack would be invested to know of Joanna Macy’s short and brilliant book, Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory
Highly recommended! Probably the single best overview summary of systems thinking I ever heard was from Joanna...sandwiched between a teaching about the Green Tara and a wild dance session!
I’ve been looking at the same thing you’re describing, but from a slightly different angle—the literal physics of how systems (and people) stay together over time.
What you’re calling out as a "facile mythology" is actually a very dangerous map error. When people tell someone in the middle of a tragedy that "everything happens for a reason," they aren't just being annoying; they are lying about the actual damage being done. They are trying to draw a smiley face over a cliff on a map, which is the most dangerous thing you can do to someone who is already falling.
My work looks at Harm and Healing as a balance. Every person has a "budget" for how much they can endure. The first time life knocks you down, you have a full battery. You get back up, and you might even learn how to brace yourself better for the next hit. That’s the "resistance" we all like to talk about.
But here is the honest truth that most people want to ignore: Persistence is not a superpower; it’s a resource.
Every time someone hits the ground, they leak energy. If the world keeps knocking them down faster than they can recharge, they aren't "failing" to be strong—they are simply out of power. If you hit a structure—whether it’s a bridge, a business, or a human soul—repeatedly without giving it time to heal, it eventually hits a breaking point. It’s not about "willpower." It’s about the fact that the damage has reached a level where the person can no longer pull themselves back together.
At that point, staying down isn't a choice; it's a physical reality. When we use that "everything for a reason" language, we are making the victim's pain invisible so we can feel more comfortable. We are judging the person on the ground for not getting up, instead of looking at the person doing the kicking, or the system that won't give them a ceasefire so they can actually repair.
If we want someone to get back up, the "reason" doesn't matter. What matters is stopping the hits. You can't learn to resist if you're constantly being flattened. Healing requires a p eriod where the world stays still. We need to stop romanticizing "getting up" and start being honest about the fact that sometimes, the world just breaks people.
The goal shouldn't be to tell a story that makes the break look "meaningful." The goal should be to protect the space and provide the resources so the person can actually rebuild their own foundation on the truth of what happened, not on a convenient lie.
I don't think I used the term 'facile mythology' but I can certainly see how offering a totalizing explanatory narrative to people who are experiencing painful loss and tragedy could encourage spiritual bypassing and end up deepening the suffering. If you haven't come across it, you might enjoy Christopher Wallis's book 'Near Enemies of the Truth'...here's an early draft of his chapter that speaks to exactly what you're referencing.....https://medium.com/@hareesh_59037/near-enemy-1-everything-happens-for-a-reason-e79c699448fa
Hi Julian, thank you for this post and your substack. I find Systems thinking intuitively in line with how I have always believed the world works but despite reading Meadows and others I struggle with how to implement strategies based on this model. As an example; I have focused my energies on organizing locally (at the watershed level) around improving ecological health or, to be more bold, I wish to spend my time as a weaver of a flourishing web of life. As such, I’m working with folks to get more peoples’ hands in the soil, shift stories to include more of our earthly kin in humans circles of care, increase the % of locally produced food including more food native to here, and organize folks of all ages around projects that have the above as goals. While we are having some success, I would like to be more intentional in how to do this using a systems lens. Any thoughts, resources or posts you would suggest?
Hey Josh – great question! There’s so much here. But let’s just go with one of your stated objectives as a starting point. Increasing the % of locally-grown food.
The systems question isn't "how do we grow more food locally" but maybe "what feedback loops and incentives currently make it easier to buy industrial food than local food, and which of those can we actually influence?" Map the actual system: Why does your neighbour buy grocery store produce when there's a farmstand down the road? I don’t know anything about your particular situation but my hunch would be that it isn’t primarily because of ideology or stories. It's probably because the industrial food system has convenient defaults….it's on the way home, it's open after work, it takes credit cards, it doesn't require talking to anyone, you can get other useful stuff at the same time etc. Local food on the other hand probably requires intentional deviation…a special trip, cash only, seasonal uncertainty, forced social interaction with hippies, have to commit to a special weekly box and end up with stuff you don’t want or use. Plus you probably still have to make another trip to get all your other groceries.
You might even find that not only is the industrial food system perfectly configured to keep people buying non-local commodities, but that your local food system is actually perfectly configured to create in-group exclusivity and drive away most people!
So from Meadow’s perspective, the leverage point isn't producing more local food - that's a parameter. (We tend to over-index on parameters.) It's shifting the rules & incentives in order to make local food the path of least resistance. So instead of yet another farmers market (more supply), a tactical approach might include: (and caveat: I’m making things up here because I don’t know your actual system reality!)
- Eliminate the friction. Partner with local shops, gas stations etc - places people already go - to have a "local food shelf" with grab-and-go items (eggs, greens, bread, preserves). Make local food appear where people already are rather than requiring a special destination. Leverage the existing path dependency and turn as many existing businesses as possible into nodes in a local food distribution system – rather than trying to develop that infrastructure from scratch. Can people order the locally-sourced pieces to build a regenerative pizza and have it delivered by Door Dash in your area? Why not?
- Piggy back on existing supply chains that people already trust in creative ways. What about ‘Farm to Food Truck!’ Persuade some popular food trucks to use some locally-sourced ingredients (tomatoes/eggs/salsa/teas/honey etc etc) and advertise/publicize the heck out of it! (stories) Now people don’t have to change any behaviour – they’re already buying from these guys but your local food starts flowing more abundantly through local loops….and it’s entering the system through trusted brands rather than asking people to become a different kind of consumer. The system shift here is the commercial operators become aggregation nodes in the food network instead of individual households each managing their own procurement
- Create processing hubs that turn seasonal abundance into products people actually want. Not everyone wants to can/process whole chickens/deal with 50lbs of zucchini. So add transformative capacity (raw ingredient to valued product) at the watershed level. Batch-process your excess into shelf-stable, accessible products that people want. Five jars of delicious marinara sauce rather than a giant basket of tomatoes. Now local food starts to compete on convenience not just ethics. From Meadows perspective this is also about buffering – you’re managing volatility…e.g. abundance in June and then nothing in November. Industrial grocery stores have become very good at buffering seasonal volatility (albeit with all kinds of invisible downstream social and ecological costs). Plus you can still use all the weird shaped tomatoes and put them in the pot. Heirloom Marinara sauce on spaghetti squash? Delicious local dinner in 20 mins.
- If you decide your focus is really on having people become a different kind of consumer, then you have to build a different attractor - one where the "cost" of the special trip actually becomes the "benefit"…e.g. deepened community connection. Food collectives, seasonal potlucks etc. The system reorganizes around a new rule where food is about social belonging and connection, not just fuel. Can that build coherence at scale? Given the number of people who are absolutely passionate about this – and the continued dominance of the current system – my guess is there’s probably some kind of scaling restraint that makes it very hard to go beyond a sub-cultural level in the current attractor landscape.
Let me think about useful resources....others may have all kinds of suggestions as well.
Thank you! There is a lot to think about here!! As an aside, I am in Kingston Ontario and you understand my context well enough 😊 I would welcome other resources but, in the meantime will explore the wolf willow website and your other substack posts.
I bet the readers of this Substack would be invested to know of Joanna Macy’s short and brilliant book, Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory
Highly recommended! Probably the single best overview summary of systems thinking I ever heard was from Joanna...sandwiched between a teaching about the Green Tara and a wild dance session!
You may enjoy this attempt to add a new set of principles for non-market economics to mainstream economics, which involves a lot of systems thinking: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT-vY3f9uw3Dkgnj72Ydks7ExEiUrPcMD
Thanks for this,
I’ve been looking at the same thing you’re describing, but from a slightly different angle—the literal physics of how systems (and people) stay together over time.
What you’re calling out as a "facile mythology" is actually a very dangerous map error. When people tell someone in the middle of a tragedy that "everything happens for a reason," they aren't just being annoying; they are lying about the actual damage being done. They are trying to draw a smiley face over a cliff on a map, which is the most dangerous thing you can do to someone who is already falling.
My work looks at Harm and Healing as a balance. Every person has a "budget" for how much they can endure. The first time life knocks you down, you have a full battery. You get back up, and you might even learn how to brace yourself better for the next hit. That’s the "resistance" we all like to talk about.
But here is the honest truth that most people want to ignore: Persistence is not a superpower; it’s a resource.
Every time someone hits the ground, they leak energy. If the world keeps knocking them down faster than they can recharge, they aren't "failing" to be strong—they are simply out of power. If you hit a structure—whether it’s a bridge, a business, or a human soul—repeatedly without giving it time to heal, it eventually hits a breaking point. It’s not about "willpower." It’s about the fact that the damage has reached a level where the person can no longer pull themselves back together.
At that point, staying down isn't a choice; it's a physical reality. When we use that "everything for a reason" language, we are making the victim's pain invisible so we can feel more comfortable. We are judging the person on the ground for not getting up, instead of looking at the person doing the kicking, or the system that won't give them a ceasefire so they can actually repair.
If we want someone to get back up, the "reason" doesn't matter. What matters is stopping the hits. You can't learn to resist if you're constantly being flattened. Healing requires a p eriod where the world stays still. We need to stop romanticizing "getting up" and start being honest about the fact that sometimes, the world just breaks people.
The goal shouldn't be to tell a story that makes the break look "meaningful." The goal should be to protect the space and provide the resources so the person can actually rebuild their own foundation on the truth of what happened, not on a convenient lie.
I don't think I used the term 'facile mythology' but I can certainly see how offering a totalizing explanatory narrative to people who are experiencing painful loss and tragedy could encourage spiritual bypassing and end up deepening the suffering. If you haven't come across it, you might enjoy Christopher Wallis's book 'Near Enemies of the Truth'...here's an early draft of his chapter that speaks to exactly what you're referencing.....https://medium.com/@hareesh_59037/near-enemy-1-everything-happens-for-a-reason-e79c699448fa
Hi Julian, thank you for this post and your substack. I find Systems thinking intuitively in line with how I have always believed the world works but despite reading Meadows and others I struggle with how to implement strategies based on this model. As an example; I have focused my energies on organizing locally (at the watershed level) around improving ecological health or, to be more bold, I wish to spend my time as a weaver of a flourishing web of life. As such, I’m working with folks to get more peoples’ hands in the soil, shift stories to include more of our earthly kin in humans circles of care, increase the % of locally produced food including more food native to here, and organize folks of all ages around projects that have the above as goals. While we are having some success, I would like to be more intentional in how to do this using a systems lens. Any thoughts, resources or posts you would suggest?
Hey Josh – great question! There’s so much here. But let’s just go with one of your stated objectives as a starting point. Increasing the % of locally-grown food.
The systems question isn't "how do we grow more food locally" but maybe "what feedback loops and incentives currently make it easier to buy industrial food than local food, and which of those can we actually influence?" Map the actual system: Why does your neighbour buy grocery store produce when there's a farmstand down the road? I don’t know anything about your particular situation but my hunch would be that it isn’t primarily because of ideology or stories. It's probably because the industrial food system has convenient defaults….it's on the way home, it's open after work, it takes credit cards, it doesn't require talking to anyone, you can get other useful stuff at the same time etc. Local food on the other hand probably requires intentional deviation…a special trip, cash only, seasonal uncertainty, forced social interaction with hippies, have to commit to a special weekly box and end up with stuff you don’t want or use. Plus you probably still have to make another trip to get all your other groceries.
You might even find that not only is the industrial food system perfectly configured to keep people buying non-local commodities, but that your local food system is actually perfectly configured to create in-group exclusivity and drive away most people!
So from Meadow’s perspective, the leverage point isn't producing more local food - that's a parameter. (We tend to over-index on parameters.) It's shifting the rules & incentives in order to make local food the path of least resistance. So instead of yet another farmers market (more supply), a tactical approach might include: (and caveat: I’m making things up here because I don’t know your actual system reality!)
- Eliminate the friction. Partner with local shops, gas stations etc - places people already go - to have a "local food shelf" with grab-and-go items (eggs, greens, bread, preserves). Make local food appear where people already are rather than requiring a special destination. Leverage the existing path dependency and turn as many existing businesses as possible into nodes in a local food distribution system – rather than trying to develop that infrastructure from scratch. Can people order the locally-sourced pieces to build a regenerative pizza and have it delivered by Door Dash in your area? Why not?
- Piggy back on existing supply chains that people already trust in creative ways. What about ‘Farm to Food Truck!’ Persuade some popular food trucks to use some locally-sourced ingredients (tomatoes/eggs/salsa/teas/honey etc etc) and advertise/publicize the heck out of it! (stories) Now people don’t have to change any behaviour – they’re already buying from these guys but your local food starts flowing more abundantly through local loops….and it’s entering the system through trusted brands rather than asking people to become a different kind of consumer. The system shift here is the commercial operators become aggregation nodes in the food network instead of individual households each managing their own procurement
- Create processing hubs that turn seasonal abundance into products people actually want. Not everyone wants to can/process whole chickens/deal with 50lbs of zucchini. So add transformative capacity (raw ingredient to valued product) at the watershed level. Batch-process your excess into shelf-stable, accessible products that people want. Five jars of delicious marinara sauce rather than a giant basket of tomatoes. Now local food starts to compete on convenience not just ethics. From Meadows perspective this is also about buffering – you’re managing volatility…e.g. abundance in June and then nothing in November. Industrial grocery stores have become very good at buffering seasonal volatility (albeit with all kinds of invisible downstream social and ecological costs). Plus you can still use all the weird shaped tomatoes and put them in the pot. Heirloom Marinara sauce on spaghetti squash? Delicious local dinner in 20 mins.
- If you decide your focus is really on having people become a different kind of consumer, then you have to build a different attractor - one where the "cost" of the special trip actually becomes the "benefit"…e.g. deepened community connection. Food collectives, seasonal potlucks etc. The system reorganizes around a new rule where food is about social belonging and connection, not just fuel. Can that build coherence at scale? Given the number of people who are absolutely passionate about this – and the continued dominance of the current system – my guess is there’s probably some kind of scaling restraint that makes it very hard to go beyond a sub-cultural level in the current attractor landscape.
Let me think about useful resources....others may have all kinds of suggestions as well.
Good luck!
A class in design thinking right there!
Thank you! There is a lot to think about here!! As an aside, I am in Kingston Ontario and you understand my context well enough 😊 I would welcome other resources but, in the meantime will explore the wolf willow website and your other substack posts.