The stuff we are made of

The stuff we are made of

Analyzing history with the eye of one who does not set himself up as a judge, we can confidently affirm that, despite its dark moments (like the current one) and its paths of light, it seems possible to glimpse the path of every human being.
He is born, grows, experiences, falls, knows, matures… grows old.
History, the sum of all human experiences, is nothing more than the complex algorithm of this whole, but with a similar process.
At the dawn of the third millennium, humanity finds itself managing perhaps the most complex part of its progression: the beginning of the era of awareness; despite contradictions, uncertainties, regrets (attempts to restore ancient defects), etc.
But history cannot stop because (like it or not) it responds to the principles of thermodynamics, that branch of physics that encompasses every moment and every action of the past, like a complex, multidimensional equation, where the present is nothing more than the sum of even the most insignificant (apparently) gestures that have occurred.
We can therefore compare history to a complex four-dimensional organism that lives and develops in the four dimensions of space-time.
The very concept of organism is the starting point of the question.
Human beings, along with every other organism and planetary system, should no longer be seen as separate individuals but as cells of a single system. This is what scientist James Lovelock defined in 1979 with the Gaia hypothesis, published in the book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth and co-developed by microbiologist Lynn Margulis.
According to this hypothesis, living organisms on Earth interact with the surrounding inorganic components to form a complex, synergistic, self-regulating system that helps maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
Obviously, the field of development of this fascinating theory found fertile ground in other scientists and philosophers; among these, we especially remember Ilya Prigogine (1917–2003, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry in 1977), who, with an in-depth exploration of the concept of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics), explained how every natural process is irreversible and tends to increase its entropy (and that of its environment). Time, too, as a succession of ever-changing states, must be conceived of as irreversible and is itself subject to entropy.
Y. Prigogine therefore represents one of the pioneers of the so-called science of complexity and the forefather of modern ecology, thanks to his insights into dissipative systems. That is, those complex systems (such as ecosystems) capable of self-organization by decreasing their entropy at the expense of the environment, bound to greater or lesser entropic disorder. Starting from these considerations, Y. Prigogine and other scholars (including Francisco Varela, Harold Morowitz, and Enzo Tiezzi) have begun to build a bridge between physics, chemistry, ecology, and the social sciences, to study these fields not separately, but as interacting systems.
Well, what does all this have to do with history and then with ecology?
It is so relevant that the two systems represent, one in the physical realm (ecology) and the other in the metaphysical realm (history), the two correlated components of human actions and interactions in time and space.
One acts on the other, and in their continuous interaction, three forms of the same substance are generated: energy, information, and matter. Their interaction, in the summation of past events, generates the present. A present where we ourselves are the result of hundreds of generations, thousands of ancestors, and billions of actions and interactions.
In this increasingly complex and connected interaction (see also globalization), Gaia has evolved (in thermodynamics, involution does not exist, as the result of every process is entropy, which represents the evolutionary discriminant of history).
Thus, we too, both in our singularities and in our wholes (families, communities, etc.), follow this inexorable law.
We are “forced” to become an image of that metaphysical imprint that resides in every particle of our Reality.
A reality that, with its complexity and precision, is a hidden order, a delicate balance between chaos and structure, between emptiness and information, between perception and that which exists independently of us. It is made of energy that behaves like matter, of time that flows in a single direction, and of consciousness that attempts to comprehend it.
Given such complexity, it is anachronistic and irresponsible to think that ideological, economic, and even social systems still exist today that abstract from it.
Even the concept of left and right is dying, now mere dead branches of a past that no longer exists.
Ever since, despite the rubble of a past that is thermodynamically past, a future is increasingly taking shape. Among the attempts to revitalize ecological, political, and economic models, we are beginning to glimpse a perfect order to pursue.
The same order we are made of.
For this reason, economics, ecology, and sociology can no longer follow the ideologies of the past.
These moved linearly and in an anentropic system (physically impossible).
They viewed the economy, and therefore politics and society, in an open, infinite, and limitless manner (thermodynamically unfeasible).
Therefore, the current debate and dialectical opposition between the two visions (left and right) can no longer produce anything. This is what thermodynamics calls thermal death (in which the system is almost entirely made up of entropy and no longer contains potential energy).
This is why the conceptual criteria that underpin the sustainability of many current policies can no longer produce anything. Algorithms and paradigms must be changed.
This is why even the current wars (56 at the time of writing) cannot be effectively resolved unless we change the algorithms of the two contenders.
For example, it’s not enough to say “no war”; we must implement no war models, from the individual to the collective. We are all more or less complicit, and no one can point the finger at others, feeling absolved or excluded.
To conceptualize sustainability in politics and economics, in light of the order and laws of physics, it could be expressed as a closed dynamic system that respects the limits imposed by thermodynamics, entropy, and the principles of conservation of energy and matter.
For this reason, while we preach sustainability, we often come across as living oxymorons in our choices and actions (we advocate for no war, but in fact we apply models that foster wars and conflicts, even in the smallest dialectical disagreements).
Our wholes (sociopolitical and therefore economic) are still unable to synchronize with Nature’s “sociopolitical” and “technological” models.
To create a new Culture and a new Politics—in short, to transform our societies—we cannot go against Nature’s pre-established order, against preordained laws, and against every assumption of balance between the parties.
Thus, the exploitation of resources must take into account the law of Conservation (Mass-Energy), which today is practically ignored, creating unsustainable speculative and mass/energy bubbles.
In this sense, economic wealth cannot grow infinitely unless it is accompanied by the intelligent use and transformation of resources.
Furthermore, at a time when tariffs are being discussed, every isolated system tends to increase entropy, so any political-economic system that ignores the disorder it generates (pollution, inequality, conflict) risks collapse.
This requires organizational energy and intelligent governance to maintain social and ecological order.
The best path in this direction is represented by the logic of ecosystems.
In nature, nothing is wasted: every scrap becomes a resource in a closed cycle.
This is why we need fiscal and industrial policies that should imitate ecosystems: those who pollute pay, those who regenerate are incentivized; furthermore, those who isolate themselves or accumulate great wealth no longer exchange energy, information, and matter, generating growing injustices and inequalities, which, like true feedback loops, tend to progressively demolish the drivers of inequality (for example, immigrants fleeing exploited countries for more affluent ones).
Finally, we must put an end to this lie (without logic or economic foundation) in which much of the political class still professes development or growth (of what?).
The Earth is, in fact, a closed system with limited resources. An infinitely growing GDP is physically impossible on a finite planet.
For this reason, politics and economics must shift from a growth paradigm to one of prosperity within planetary limits (e.g., “Donut Economics” by Kate Raworth).
In agriculture, for example, the concept of agroecology has already been outlined, that is, a model of connection between ecological systems (even those dedicated to agricultural production), their services, and human systems in perfect harmony with the principles of thermodynamics.
To clarify for those who lack a sufficient understanding of thermodynamics (like myself, musical theory and solfeggio), agroecological systems, by respecting the laws of dissipative systems and thermodynamics, ensure, among other things, a quality and quantity of food superior to any form of agriculture ever provided.
The challenge now is knowledge and awareness of these new frontiers (in all areas), and this is where the sociology and politics of the future come into play through a new reexamination of basic ideologies.
To bring about this transformation, the only weapon is knowledge and in-depth study of these issues, which, unfortunately, require the commitment of a small number of people trained in the field; They must not be technocrats but people with a holistic vision: people with broad and integrated knowledge, capable of grasping the connections between different spheres (mind, body, spirit, society, environment) so as to approach situations by considering the whole and not just the individual parts.
The society of the future will emerge from these fathers, but what is needed are not great revolutions, but small, constructive signals; veritable butterfly effects, that principle made famous by chaos theory, which is often exemplified by the idea that the flap of a butterfly’s wings can, in theory, cause a hurricane on the other side of the world.
G. Galileo said, “You cannot pick a flower without disturbing a star.” In short, everything is connected, and small actions (not perceptible at the moment) are already transforming the world.

Guido Bissanti