Are We At An Ideological Breaking Point? Will We Breakthrough or Breakdown?

The world stands at a critical juncture—facing systemic challenges that threaten the very foundations of our societies, economies, and environment. The question is: will we evolve to meet these challenges, or will we continue down a path that leads to inevitable breakdown?

There are only 3 options we can collectively make in response to the challenges we face:

Option 1: For those who are pro the current system, maintain the status quo.

Option 2: For those who no longer believe in the current system, push to break it in favour of the few.

Option 3: For those who no longer believe in the current system, work to fix and evolve it in favour of the many.

We are at an ideological breaking point, with so many of the things we have taken for granted looking on the verge of breakdown. It is time to decide what we want, and more critically what we need.  It certainly seems like Option 1 is no longer viable, even though some governments and organisation try hard to project the current system is fine.

But even naïve and indifferent voters, around the world, are joining the previously disillusioned in seeing the gains of the last 40 years have concentrated power and wealth in the hands of the top 10% (and possibly even the top1%). The remaining 90% are getting increasingly angry with being left behind and being fed ‘austerity’ and ‘there is no money’.

The groups pushing to save Option 1 – maintain the status quo – seem to be blind and deaf to the fact that many people feel utterly let down by the current system. Harris (and many Democrats) spoke of needing to ‘save’ democracy, which too many feel has long capitulated to the wants of billionaires. In the same way, environmental activists believe that establishment conservation has capitulated to these same billionaires, so extraction continues with no heed to planetary boundaries.  

While we seem to have lost the collective will to push for option 3, we leave a void. The group stepping into this void has a preference for rapidly accelerating decentralised, market-oriented solutions to ‘solve’ social, environment and resource issues, regardless of the consequences. Where some see climate breakdown, ecosystem failure and societal collapse as disasters, they see opportunity for further enrichment. Basically Option 2 amounts to oligarchy and complete corporate state capture, which is the point we are at.  

Ideological Breaking Point

While there are many examples to show we are at this ideological breaking point, I will choose just 3:

1. The re-election of Donald Trump
2. The lack of progress on slowing biodiversity loss and the push to maintain unsustainable levels of extraction and exploitation
3. The transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world

The Re-Election of Donald Trump

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders issued a scathing statement on the recent US election, “While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right”. There was immediate push back from others in the democratic party; Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Jaime Harrison said, “This is straight up BS” going on to provide a few, micro examples. But this isn’t about fiddling while Rome burns, people know something is fundamentally broken, even if they don’t know quite what is broken or who actually broke it.

Just one question in a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely voters in late October highlighted how Saunders’ statement is valid. The question, “Which comes closest to your view about the political and economic system in America?”. The responses:

1. Only 3% thought the system was working fine
2. 38% thought it needed “minor changes”,
3. 51% thought the system needed “major changes”
4. 7% thought that “the system needs to be torn down entirely”

Given nearly 60% don’t believe the system is working, it is pointless to talk about the need to ‘save’ a system that only 40% deem functional. And while the Democrats ignored this, Trump and Vance continually said, “You’re hurting, we hear you”. The problem is that while they want to tear down Option 1, what they are offering is Option 2. Harris pushed for Option 1, Trump is pushing for Option 2.

Trump and Vance could be called the ultimate useful idiots, both men are needy and looking for validation from those happy to manipulate to get Option 2. Tragic for those who most need help to improve their basic lifestyles, because that isn’t what Option 2 is offering. Like magicians they have used a slight of hand to keep the angry and disillusioned from looking to Option 3. Similarly, like the salesmen they are reading what the customer ‘needs’, and then selling Option 2 as the answer to these needs, as if it is really Option 3. But Option 3, namely creating a system which could work in favour of the many and one that will undermine the power and reduce the wealth of the few, isn’t on the table.

While the most immediate example of this slight of hand is the result of the US election, it is the same reason behind BREXIT and the lurch to the right in elections worldwide.

The transition to Option 2, while it may seem rapid, has been decades in the making. There is no doubt it has accelerated in the last 20 years, given the massive structural advantages that comes with social media and its honed algorithms. To the algorithms add the influencers, with the financial backing of conservative billionaires whose objective is shaping public opinion and policy for their personal gain.

In its modern form, the return to oligarchy has been in the making since 1947 with the launch of the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS).  The MPS advocates freedom of expression, free market economic policies and seeks ways in which the private sector can replace many functions provided by governments. Only governments can easily keep the private sector in check, which is why so much effort has gone into eroding government power and even confidence.

Undoubtedly the Mont Pelerin Society was set in motion to counter the growing interest in a welfare state, with post-war governments exploring the principles of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth and human rights, such as the minimal provisions for a good life.

World War I together with the Great Depression, resulting in Roosevelt’s New Deal, were certainly important milestones in developing social democracy and the welfare state. But it was the aftermath of World War II that triggered its acceptance and rapid expansion from 1945. At the time, governments recognised that they had to create a country, and a system, people would gladly fight for. As technology has evolved, this is no longer the case.      

Nothing like the Mont Pelerin Society has been set up by the left to champion social democracy in the same way that MPS champions (neo)liberal ‘democracy’. This imbalance is no accident when you consider a left leaning society would support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want.

The success of what has evolved since 1947, and became widely accepted from 1980, was confirmed in 2014, when American political scientists published a ground-breaking peer-reviewed paper, analysing 30 years’ worth of US policy-making that compared policy outcomes to public polling results. They found that general public sentiment had almost no impact on US policy making – but the political preferences of wealthy people and large corporations were hugely predictive of what laws and regulations were implemented by the government. This was the case during both Republican and Democratic governments. Their conclusion being “Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence”.

A perfect example of why nearly 60% of US citizens don’t believe the system is working and why it is pointless talking about the need to ‘save’ it in its current form.

While this research was done for the USA and can’t be readily generalised to other so-called advanced western democracies, because of differences in electoral systems and campaign financing, undoubtedly intensive investor and business lobbying on policy development has favoured shareholder primacy and company interests in the last 30 years.

Biodiversity Loss, Extraction and Exploitation

Everything about the US election is mirrored in the conservation world, which is why no progress has been made to address the key drivers of biodiversity loss; namely overextraction to maintain overproduction and profits.  

In recent years it has become too hard to hide this broken system. What do billionaires, investors and companies do when the evidence of 40 years of deregulation shows wildlife populations in Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, have declined an average of 95%? They want to keep governments out and they maintain that decentralised, market-oriented interventions can ‘solve’ environment breakdown, even after 50 years of evidence proving the opposite.

Instead of real solutions we are offered market-driven, greenwashing fixes—voluntary certifications, ESG, offsets, credits; a myriad of phantom solutions all part of Option 2. The environmentalists who have allowed themselves to be co-opted by corporate interests are only serving to delay what needed, namely mandatory government regulation (Option3).

The really insidious nature of these phantom solutions is that the establishment conservation organisations are so desperate to maintain their status and validity in the face of 50 years of failure that, for a bit of sponsorship pocket change, they become the sales team for these phantom solutions. Again, the useful idiots, for those who either want to maintain the status quo or are happy to break it in favour of the few.

This is so easy for the billionaires, investors and companies to do this because many of these conservation organisations just want funds to collect more data. But data is secondary at this point – it is too late – what we need is mandatory governance to save the little that is left for the many (Option 3), including future generations.  

Conservation’s response to the failures of CBD CoP16 still firmly sits in Option 1, with their statements about “taking heart” in making “some progress”. This incrementalism fits the Option 1 mindset of maintaining the status quo. I ‘take heart’ in the fact that UN climate talks have just been called out as no longer fit for purpose. Maybe this will give establishment conservation the courage to do the same with CITES and the CBD? But I can’t say I am holding my breath.   

From A Unipolar To A Multipolar World

We are currently in a transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. This transition hasn’t come about in a vacuum. It has happened for the same reasons as the previous two examples, hubris and greed meant the Western system enabled a massive concentration of wealth in high-income countries, and with obscenely-high-wealth individuals. All this while resources creating huge profits in the West were extracted from low-income countries who have simply seen too little benefit. The wealthy-empathy gap created had led to the West losing its moral compass and any ability it had to project it was taking the moral high ground, given the complete disregard for the common good

Corporate capture of Western governments led to evermore rogue business behaviour, the anger and distrust created provided the perfect breeding ground for low- and middle-income countries to say enough, we want a different system. Because the West has been outsourcing its manufacturing to low-wage countries since the eighties, the countries that the jobs were shifted to were able to develop and close the gap.

While the term BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) was first coined in 2001 by Goldman Sachs to describe the four countries as rising economic powers, the acronym was adopted by the countries themselves at their first ever summit in 2009. With the addition of South Africa, the BRICS organisation and ‘club’ emerged in 2010. The rift in the world, that is now causing so much angst and uncertainty, was partly triggered by the laissez-faire Western regulation of the financial system that enabled the Global Financial Crisis; and the poor response by Western governments to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Undoubtedly the BRICS, and now BRICS+ wanted a greater influence on the global affairs that impact them.

Forty plus years of Western interference and the growing inequality gap led other countries and regions of the world to reject the status quo (Option 1). But the system set up by the BRICS can be described as one in favour of the few (Option 2), just maybe a ‘few more’ than the status quo option was favouring.

The BRICS+ trading block set up the New Development Bank (2014) and has invested in the growth of The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The SCO possesses extensive reach and influence, as these nations collectively contribute to 30 percent of the world’s GDP and comprise 40 percent of the world’s population.

In October 2024, the BRICS countries held their 16^th Summit with a focus on “strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI)”. Key is the development of BRICS Pay, as an alternative to (and way to bypass) SWIFT. The objective is de-dollarising trade between BRICS nations by enabling trade with each other in their own currencies.

One thing has been missing from a decade of BRICS discussions. Basically, what is needed to manage these countries ambitions through a filter of planetary boundaries (Option 3). The rise of the BRICS+ could be a moment of global transformation—but only if these nations adopt a vision that prioritizes equity and sustainability, not just power and profit.

What Does This Mean For Australia?

In 2022, Prime Minister Albanese warned democracies around the world are under threat from “corrosive, insidious forces”. Yet his response has been to maintain the status quo (Option 1), including being inert on tacking environmental problems in the country. Trump’s victory will give heart to opposition leader Peter Dutton – an Option 2 politician – that he can also consign Labor to one-term government. It is no surprise that left leaning Australian media channels are saying, “We are next, pay attention”.    

After seeing what happened to the Democrats in the US election, will Prime Minister Albanese see that his Option 1 strategy is dangerous? Even though there is ample evidence, this seems unlikely at this stage of the election cycle. After more than a decade of revolving doors on party leaders and very tight elections showing the rift in the country, all the evidence is there. A report, Inequality on Steroids, by the Australia Institute, confirmed that that 93% of the benefits of economic growth between 2009 and 2019 went to the top 10%, while the bottom 90% received just 7%. The same organisation who lifted the lid 20 years ago on how governments tamed environmental NGOs.

So maybe it should come as no surprise that Australia’s Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has backtracked on promises to fix Australia’s ‘broken’ environmental laws and reverse years of government inaction. Instead, some say what the minister offerings have lapsed into nothing more than, “a festival of corporate buzzwords”. This is particularly strange given the opportunities handed to her by a parliamentary crossbench (Greens and Independents), strongly inclined to help. Instead, Plibersek went on the defensive, tweeting, “Whether it’s extreme Greens (Option 3), or the extreme climate deniers in the Coalition (Option 2), extremism is an enemy of progress on the environment”. Well Tanya, maintaining the status quo (Option 1) is equally an enemy of progress on the environment.

But it is not strictly correct to say our political systems or environmental laws are ‘broken’, they have been designed this way. But the external context has changed. Government policies which continue to accept excessive and unchecked production and consumption need to be addressed quickly given the number of tipping points on the horizon.

Why We Need Option 3: A System That Works for the Many, Not the Few

It’s clear: Option 1—maintaining the status quo—is no longer a viable path. Option 2, pushing for a breakdown in favour of a few, will lead to an oligarchic dystopia. The only hope for a just, sustainable future is Option 3—rebuilding and evolving the system to serve the many, not the few. This means:

• Reimagining economies to prioritise sustainability and equity.
• Enacting bold climate and environmental action to protect the planet and future generations.
• Transforming political systems to give power back to the people, not corporations.

We can no longer afford to wait for incremental change. If we don’t act now, we risk allowing the forces of corporate greed and political inertia to steer us into a breakdown that we may not recover from.

The time for half-measures is over. Planetary boundaries must guide policy, and it’s up to us to demand that those who benefit from exploitation pay their fair share to heal the world. Option 3 must include a mechanism that filters all national and international decisions and agreements through the need to stay inside planetary boundaries. This will need to be done in an equitable way, taking historic differences in development and resource use into account. While some decisions will be difficult, there is also low hanging fruit that is currently being ignored.

Neither the West nor the BRICS+ has shown any inclination to go down this path. We are headed for Option 2, a breakdown, which will bring about the collapse of industrial civilisation. This is a path I would like to see the world avoid, even though I am a childless cat lady, and for some this means I shouldn’t have the same voice because I don’t have as much of an investment in the future.

In response to his assassination, Trump said “Fight, fight, fight” and he is right on this. If you don’t fight for the world you want, you deserve the world you fucking get, for you, your children and grandchildren. I’m fighting for Option 3.