# data[].attributes.headline
Social change happening anywhere in the world right now

# data[].attributes.subject
Social change happening anywhere in the world right now

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because it talks about how people are starting to realize how climate change is affecting our world in a negative way, such as the current heat waves we have been having around the world. This connects to the chapter because in the book it states, “social change, the transformation of culture and social institution overtime” (Pg 526). This shows us that overtime it took people to realize that global warming is a real thing and that it is affecting our world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How can we rebuild our institutions so that they are truly effective for addressing the multiple ... [+]
AFP via Getty Images

By Ioannis Ioannou, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, London Business School
In recent weeks, we have witnessed thousands of protesters thronging the streets of Glasgow, London and other major cities around the world, turning out to demand immediate action to tackle the climate crisis following the heatwaves that were experienced from China to North Africa to Europe and to the United States.

Whether it is the aftermath of COVID-19 or the economic and political disruption caused by the war in Ukraine, these emerging and powerful social movements such as Fridays For The Future and Extinction Rebellion recognise that the world has been severely set back in its efforts to build a more sustainable and inclusive future and that as 2030 fast approaches, we remain very far from achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Most importantly, there is a widespread recognition that institutional efforts have failed to account for the most important part of this challenge: the people for whom these goals are meant to serve.

Which begs the question, how could we meaningfully include those at the grassroots level in our decision-making processes on big issues and existential threats such as the climate crisis and the accelerating ecological collapse? Moreover, how could we establish new, fair, transparent, and inclusive global institutions that are not merely based on economic or military power dynamics and hierarchies as the current ones are?

The institutions that were established at the Bretton Woods conference and at follow up UN conferences in the mid- to late-1940s remain to this day the foundation of the global governance system. These institutions, which include the IMF, World Bank, WTO and WHO, have significantly contributed to global economic cooperation and have promoted relative stability and prosperity across the world.

However, the global challenges that we are facing today are fundamentally different from the ones we faced at the end of WWII. Admittedly, a new international charter is urgently needed to avoid further health, ecological and financial crises, and to plot a new course toward sustainable, inclusive prosperity. The Bretton Woods and UN institutions are, at their core, institutions of political compromise. Diplomacy, negotiation, and alignment of interests are, of course, essential elements of an effective global governance system, but they are no longer enough.

In fact, against today's torrid background of geopolitical, economic, and ecological catastrophes, it is no surprise that, according to the Spring 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer, people around the world believe that institutions are failing to address our existential challenges. A vicious cycle has therefore been created in which institutions are losing their legitimacy, which in turn further erodes their ability to coordinate and implement global action, which then undermines public trust in them.

We need to be more honest with ourselves. Our current challenges cannot be addressed through compromise and negotiation alone. We may negotiate as much as we like and even reach an agreement on a global path to "net zero" emissions but if that path is not fully, rather thanpartially, consistent with the science of climate change, then our potential compromise would be irrelevant. The threat will inevitably persist. Even systems-level or integrated thinking would not be enough unless the solutions we arrive at are predominantly based on science, not politics.

Today's "institutions of compromise" are therefore inadequate for the scale and scope of challenges that we face, and many have even lost the moral high ground that they once commanded. At their core, they remain political and highly polarised. They confine science to merely an "advisory" role. They are sometimes corrupt and only serve vested interests and existing power structures.

Therefore, I believe that a deeper discussion and an honest debate about the core mission and structure of our global institutions is urgently needed. It is high time that we dare ask the big questions: how can we reimagine our institutions and rebuild them so that they are truly effective for addressing the multiple existential threats we face?

To do so, it is necessary that we apply a deeper level of creative and innovative thinking and that we agree upon the principles that would govern them. By building institutions that are as independent as possible of the political cycle, operate on the axis of long-term thinking, and place the unchallengeable tenets of science at their core, we could potentially forge institutions that properly represent the world as it is today, but also, we could protect and defend the interests and well-being of future generations, as well as non-human life. For such institutions to be effective, they must be supported by the appropriate instruments for the monitoring and enforcement of decisions and agreements. Such mechanisms would also enable these new institutions to avoid being hijacked by populists and opportunists, as we have seen taking place in recent years, with our existing institutions. They should be agile and dynamic, capable of adapting to emerging issues.

Fundamentally, our reimagined institutions will need to be built on a revised social contract provided that no institution can be legitimate, let alone successful, unless it is based on popular trust and support. They will need to rebuild trust through radical transparency, accountability and above all, they should draw their power from direct, and democratic representation of nations and peoples. Glimpses of such institutions can perhaps already be seen in the multiple and diverse social movements around the world who have already adopted the science of climate change as their guiding principle and prime directive.

Our collective ambition therefore must be a new type of grassroots multilateralism, which understands that the threats and challenges we face, and the climate crisis in particular, respect no national borders nor do they adhere to power hierarchies. The Bretton Woods and UN institutions emerged from the ashes of a global catastrophe - WWII - to establish peace and promote global prosperity. The climate crisis, if left unchecked, will have catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet. We therefore face a choice: either reimagine and rebuild our global institutions now - the proverbial Bretton Woods 2.0 - or indeed, be forced to do so after experiencing the full consequences of a total climate meltdown. Nothing less than our very own survival on this planet depends on the choices that we make today.

Are we courageous enough to make the right choice?

Ioannis Ioannou is an Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School. He is a strategy scholar whose research focuses on Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). He seeks to understand whether, how, and the extent to which the modern business organization contributes towards building a sustainable future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Climate Crisis And The Need To Reimagine Global Institutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Ioannis Ioannou, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, London Business School In recent weeks, we have witnessed thousands of protesters thronging the streets of Glasgow, London and other major cities around the world, turning out to demand immediate action to tackle the climate crisis following the heatwaves that were experienced from China to North Africa to Europe and to the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Washington DC in flames as protesters start fires near White House

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this image because it shows the Black Lives Matter protest setting stuff on fire trying to make change and bring awareness. In the book Society the Basics it states, “activity involving a large number of people that is unplanned, often controversial and can bring about change” (Pg 528) this quote heavily relates to the photo because the protest was very controversial and I will be assuming that setting stuff on fire was unplanned and they were just trying to bring change.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/washington-dc-flames-protesters-start-fires-near-white-house-12785405/

# data[].attributes.headline
Structural-Functional Perspective: Modernity as a Mass Society

# data[].attributes.subject
Structural-Functional Perspective: Modernity as a Mass Society

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because it talks about how our world, we need to overcome certain challenges such as agriculture and loss of life. But also evolving and adapting as our world is changing. In the book Society the Basics it states, “A society in which prosperity and expanding bureaucracy have weekend traditional social ties” (Pg 539). This relates to the article because the article talks about changing from its traditional farming ways and that it has been
weakened.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220608-should-we-detach-ourselves-from-nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the opening few minutes of the science-fiction film Blade Runner 2049, a police car flies over a landscape that has been transformed by synthetic farming. Concentrically-arranged mirrors for capturing solar energy point and tilt towards central towers like worshippers at Mecca, circle after circle stretching into the distance. Further on, a mosaic of plastic-covered indoor farms cover every inch of land, glinting in the dull sunlight like facets of cracked glaze. Inside one of these cells, a worker in a hazmat suit dredges a handful of squirming beetle larvae from a murky green pool. We learn these farming techniques saved humanity from famine caused by ecological collapse in the mid-2020s. The entire planet is ravaged, containing nothing but highly coveted relics of "real" organisms, and a dysfunctional climate characterised by dry dust. Even then, humans survive, and even prosper - there might be nothing wild left, but they can create perfectly engineered replicant animals to replace the real things. The metaphorical "umbilical cord" connecting human survival and the biosphere has been well and truly cut.

Throughout 2020 and 2021 as the world hunkered down for the Covid-19 pandemic, I found myself reflecting on this bleak depiction, as part of my work at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) in Cambridge, UK. I puzzled over what the future might look like once humanity had overcome Covid-19, and the climate-ecological crisis shimmered once again into view. If severe environmental degradation continues, a plausible path is one where humans will, through necessity, decouple from a biosphere that ceases to function. A quote kept going around my mind, by complex systems researcher Brad Werner at a major scientific conference in 2012. In a talk entitled "Is Earth F**ked?", he said that global capitalism, aided by technology, "has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that 'Earth-human systems' are becoming dangerously unstable in response".

What if, as Werner suggested, Earth really was in trouble and the planet's natural systems are fated to collapse and die off? Will we develop artificial back-ups to take their place, like in Blade Runner, and if so, what might that world look like? These questions led me to publish a paper exploring the consequences and dangers of severing the human-biosphere umbilical cord, and how this process may already have begun. Humanity is already on the path to decoupling from natural systems - so if we want to avoid the worst scenarios of this trajectory, what might we do about it?

Faced with a looming collapse of Earth's natural systems, talk of decoupling is no longer science fiction. In some cases, it manifests as ever more profound "fixes" to preserve our pursuit of the good life. For example, scientists have begun devising ways to synthesise "ecosystem services" - such as pollination or other natural processes that benefit human society. In food production, this involves attempting to grow crops under artificial light underground, culturing microalgae, mycoprotein and mealworm in bioreactors, and introducing modified genes to increase the resilience of agricultural species to environmental change.

At other times, the proposed decoupling is framed as a form of escapism. The newly touted "metaverse", for instance, promises a form of spatial, workplace and recreational departure from the "meatspace" of the physical world: why visit a polluted forest or lake when you can access a near-perfect digital simulation of a clean one from your home? Elsewhere in Silicon Valley, technologists and billionaires talk of the need to abandon a degraded Earth altogether, and are taking the tentative first steps to develop Mars-bound spaceships.

Even if we don't physically separate from nature to this extent, a technologically adapted future where the world is engineered and modified around our actions is seen by some as acceptable, if not necessary to meet the harsh conditions of the future. Indeed, the likely truth is that technology might be the only clear way out of future disasters given the terrifyingly short timescales involved. Even widespread reduction or restraint in human activity, such the recent global lockdowns, barely dents emissions and other destructive practices.

Some may believe that decoupling needn't be a concern. The threat of an exclusively human-technological world would not be a dystopia to many. Advocates of transhumanism, for example, imagine a future where humans have transcended their current state to combine with technology - in the most extreme cases, evolving into uploaded digital beings. This is not my own perspective, but in the past I have definitely been seduced by a vision of "green" transhumanism: an idea explored by the author and feminist Donna Haraway. This proposes that, rather than seeking to preserve natural systems, we might instead genetically integrate ourselves with the biosphere, such that both human and natural are transformed. I saw it as an attempt to preserve species threatened by extinction by acting as biological arks into the future, or as a form of beautiful annihilation into a future weird ecology.

However, a Blade Runner world that contains only humans and matter technologically arranged under their control, would be a machine wilderness rather than an organic one. In that future, green transhumanism would not even be possible. Either there wouldn't be anything left to get absorbed into, or the valuable bits of the biosphere would get wholly taken into us, assimilated and changed, appropriated, and the remainder would be gone.
Offsetting complexity
So, where do we go from here? Could there be alternatives to the most extreme forms of decoupling? There are no easy answers, but I would propose one idea.

Allow me to introduce you to a conceptual tool - a metaphor to explore this space. Imagine a gradient which represents all the material complexity in the world, with the extreme complexity of "self-organised" matter at one end and consciously "engineered" matter at the other. So, at that latter far end might be - for example - the most delicate and finely engineered human structure (AI or a supercomputer perhaps), and at the other end, the wildest and most diverse ecosystem. A midpoint might represent something alive but highly modified and controlled, like a monoculture of crops, or an ornamental garden.

This gradient acts as a conceptual tool for linking different parts of the spectrum of material existence. In modern times, there has been a rapid decline on the side of self-organised natural complexity and a substantial increase on side of human-engineered complexity. A forest is turned into a mine and then electronics. Trillions of organisms are utilised as food and broken down to fuel human bodies and invention. Skyscrapers rise, economies are created, land is razed or complex ecosystems replaced by simpler ones. As a result of this activity, 68% of biodiversity has been lost since 1970, and the amount of human-made material including concrete, plastic and bricks now outweighs the total mass of biological matter on the planet.

But what if the creator of each new "manmade" thing had an obligation towards creating its opposite on this gradient? For example, a form of biodiversity investment or rewilding instigated when something is added to the engineered side. There is a profound symmetry to the idea that whatever complexity is built or created on one side, must be equally replaced or protected on the other for the system to remain stable.

Offsetting is not a new idea, and I certainly wouldn't want to take any credit for it here. We are most used to encountering it in the context of air travel: you can pay for a company to plant CO2-guzzling trees. In terms of carbon offsetting, trees are a good contender for the polar opposite of air-travel pollution on the gradient outlined above, even if the practice currently has problems in terms of a time-lag in carbon sequestration and unhealthy monocultures of trees. However, while pollution or illegal environmental damage are sometimes fined or taxed, offsetting is rarely considered for processes other than carbon production, and direct withdrawals from nature by new human creations are not "priced-in".

Another well-established category of offset is reserving land for national parks, green belts to contain cities, or nature reserves to preserve valuable ecosystems. Here, though, these schemes are often undertaken by governments, and there is often less of a direct link between the builders of engineered objects such as a new housing block or factory, and areas of regeneration or rewilding. While national efforts can have impact, it would be inspiring to see the burden of restoration fall more significantly on those who are directly unbalancing the system. For example, the UK government recently introduced legislation of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) whereby all new developments need to deliver a 10% improvement in local biodiversity.

Elsewhere, experiments with broader offsets are also beginning to happen. To take one specific example: a recent study led by Katie Devenish of Bangor University and colleagues found that a mining operation in Madagascar had successfully offset the forest loss caused by its new mine by slowing deforestation elsewhere in the country.

There are also recent projects underpinned by so-called "nature positive" principles, which aim to build ecological resilience and reverse loss. Operation Wallacea, a biodiversity and climate research organisation, has devised biodiversity credits to trace the tangible improvements to biodiversity in any given area, and to develop an international biodiversity credit standard whichcould be traded in the same way as a carbon credit.

I am aware that offsetting is no panacea, and it can create moral quandaries too. The writer and environmentalist George Monbiot, for example, has compared offsetting to the sale of indulgences by the Catholic church in the 16th Century, when sinners could, in effect, pay to cancel out their bad deeds. It's true the idea runs the risk of greenwashing or giving a green-light to damaging processes, but I would argue that any, and preferably equal, act of replacement is better than none.
A long-lived truth
As well as the practical benefits, I believe there could be deeper reasons to embrace an approach of balancing human complexity in this way, rooted in timeless human ideas. As I thought about the gradient metaphor, there was something about the two types of material complexity − extreme human engineering on one hand, and total organic wildness on the other − that reminded me of the concept of psychological wholeness; the balancing of the conscious and unconscious elements of the psyche. In stories and symbolism, the idea of balancing and combination of opposites has appeared continually over thousands of years - spanning mythologies, religions, and philosophies across the world. In the ancient principles of Daoism, out of the black and white of yin and yang the " 10,000 things" are born: every species of animal, humans, all of life, matter, and every form of technology too. The Ancient Greeks conceptualised Dionisius and Apollo: the gods of pleasurable debauchery and enlightened decorum, respectively. It was not encouraged to live a life purely of one or the other, and as Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out, the fusion of Dionysian and Apollonian modes of being are what creates the dramatic arcs or meanings in this world. The principle of opposites even underlies the philosophies and experiments of ancient alchemy, with the purification and combination of opposites seen as an ultimate goal.

In these examples, to say there are opposites does not mean one is bad and one is good. It is more that up cannot exist without down, matter without anti-matter, and life could not exist without death. If this wisdom keeps re-occurring across folklore, mythology and in a multitude of symbols because it reflects an important truth, then we might be wise to heed its message and be concerned with the continued existence of opposites and the dynamic play between them. That is to say, even if you were someone who wouldn't enjoy spending time in nature, and even if we found a way to not rely on it for survival − for example, by creating artificial systems that would sustain us in a decoupled state - the decision to foster a balance between technology and nature aligns with long-held human values across many societies.

Humans do not need to insert themselves into controlling life processes in every corner of the world, down to the very strands of DNA, to force the Earth system to absorb the shocks of our presence. Instead, a far better future might be to become something closer to "alchemists" of the Earth system, creating areas of "high-modernity" but countering their creation with their natural opposite, leaving relinquished areas to regenerate.

The sociobiologist E O Wilson suggested, or rather implored, for half the world to be rewilded. This was framed as being essential for human survival, but this 50:50 split appears to me to have a particular beauty and intuitive fairness, which is not just an aesthetic feeling, but a spiritual feeling, not just of harmony but of "justness". What would be more interesting, whole and complete, than both forms of existence in their fullest realisations?

It might still be possible to have a balance between the total material existence of humanity (AI, skyscrapers, automobiles, concrete, computing, the economy, art, intensive farming), and nature (ant hills, the Amazon, English forests, sand dunes, Tampa swamps, deserts, deep sea trenches and coral reefs), if the latter is increased in quality and quantity. Imagine walking from a technologically mature mega-city, but then out through the city boundaries to the lushest, most complex and wild biodiversity stretching into the distance: technological complexity balanced by the organic.

The truth is we may need an existence like Blade Runner 2049 in some portions of the planet, and we do need to decouple to some extent, as technology will be needed to liberate the land required for rewilding. But, watching the recent flurry of commercial space flights, I wondered about how much biodiversity had been lost to make that happen, what it cost the Earth system. If the Earth is not to be irreversibly degraded and unbalanced, we need some equal and opposite pull in the direction of replenishing natural complexity. Surely the best reward of a healthy planet is space exploration, not it being an escape from a dying planet. If the human-biosphere umbilical cord is to be cut, it should leave mother Earth in peak health, and in service to both parties.

--
Lauren Holt is a researcher at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. She is exploring the impact of humanity on biological complexity and technology's effect on ecosystems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the opening few minutes of the science-fiction film Blade Runner 2049, a police car flies over a landscape that has been transformed by synthetic farming. Concentrically-arranged mirrors for capturing solar energy point and tilt towards central towers like worshippers at Mecca, circle after circle stretching into the distance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Social-Conflict Perspective: Modernity as Class Society

# data[].attributes.subject
Social-Conflict Perspective: Modernity as Class Society

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why I chose a meme to represent Social-Conflict Perspective: Modernity as Class Society because as the meme states, “what if I told you that the rich uses their money to create laws in their favor to get even more money.” which is a perfect example of our topic. Also in the book society the basics it tells us, “because the capitalist economy pursues ever greater profits, both productions and consumptions steadily increase” (Pg 541).

https://sociologyofthefamily.wordpress.com/sociological-memes/

# data[].attributes.headline
Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Modernity and the Individual

# data[].attributes.subject
Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Modernity and the Individual

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why I chose this image is because it shows us how others may perceive one another. Like the image shows it shows that your parents may see you as an angel, but your ex-girlfriend may see you as the devil. As the book society the basic states, “rapid social change makes it difficult for many people to establish any coherent identity” (Pg542). This tells us that other people might see you differently
then another group of people.
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_%28Boundless%29/01%3A_Sociology/1.03%3A_Theoretical_Perspectives_in_Sociology/1.3D%3A_The_Symbolic_Interactionist_Perspective

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why I chose this image to represent Postmodernity Because it depicts how science can be wrong. As the book states, “science has failed to solve many old problems and has even created new problems” (Pg 546). Just like in the meme the doctor cuts off the guys leg figured out that it doesn't solve the problem and it ended up making a new problem.
https://en.dopl3r.com/memes/dank/ancient-adoctors-when-cutting-the-limbs-of-their-patients-does-not-solve-the-problem-this-is-beyond-science/1504545

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because it talks about modernizing the armys use in technology. The technology will help the army in Learning new programs that thrive on data to deliver mission-readiness in new digital and physical environments which would help production in the army. For example, in the book Society the Basics it states, “industrial revolution enhance human productivity and raise living standards in many nations” (Pg 546). This tells us that when new technology comes along it ends up benefiting others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK--()--Capgemini Government Solutions LLC, an independent Capgemini subsidiary working with U.S. Government Agencies, has announced the agreement of a three-year contract with the U.S. Army to modernize, transform, and grow cARMY, the Army's Cloud Common Shared Services environment. Capgemini will support and enable the Enterprise Cloud Management Agency (ECMA) to help make data-driven decisions and decrease time-to-field in support of the Army's mission.

This engagement will also help promote cARMY's organization-wide adoption of cloud technologies and bolster artificial intelligence and machine learning programs that thrive on data to deliver mission-readiness in new digital and physical environments.

Capgemini was chosen for its deep expertise in helping large, complex organizations adopt a digital-first strategy. It will provide advanced solutions that leverage the latest in cloud technology to establish a secure, streamlined cloud adoption initiative and help drive a culture shift for the Army in terms of how data is used and stored.

"It isn't enough to simply apply the science of delivering cloud common services and succeed at the scale of the Army. There is an art to providing enterprise IT services that people love to use in addition to meeting the mission's need," said Paul Puckett, Director at Enterprise Cloud Management Agency (ECMA), US Army. " We are excited to partner with Capgemini Government Solutions to demonstrate the positive global mission impact that cARMY brings by applying the perfect blend of art and science to cloud common services."

Capgemini will become the Army's enterprise cloud common shared services provider, and as part of this work, will expand, operate, and continuously improve upon on cARMY cloud common shared services to reduce complexity, increase security, and eliminate duplication of effort.

"Capgemini is proud to support the Army in this important modernization initiative, which will enable cloud adoption across the entire enterprise," said Doug Lane, CEO, Capgemini Government Solutions LLC. "The cARMY project allows the Army to empower teams to make better data-driven decisions. We are honored to support it in partnership with the ECMA."

About Capgemini

Capgemini is a global leader in partnering with companies to transform and manage their business by harnessing the power of technology. The Group is guided everyday by its purpose of unleashing human energy through technology for an inclusive and sustainable future. It is a responsible and diverse organization of over 340,000 team members in more than 50 countries. With its strong 55-year heritage and deep industry expertise, Capgemini is trusted by its clients to address the entire breadth of their business needs, from strategy and design to operations, fueled by the fast evolving and innovative world of cloud, data, AI, connectivity, software, digital engineering and platforms. The Group reported in 2021 global revenues of €18 billion.

Get The Future You Want | | www.capgemini.com

About Capgemini Government Solutions LLC

Launched in 2002, Capgemini Government Solutions is a U.S. company based in McLean, Virginia. Capgemini partners with U.S. federal government organizations to bring the global public and private sector insight and experience required for mission transformation. Capgemini's U.S. federal business delivers enterprise and technology modernization solutions to our vast portfolio of Civilian, Health, National Security and Defense clients. Get the future you want with Capgemini Government Solutions.

Additional information on Capgemini Government Solutions is available at www.capgemini.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capgemini selected by U.S. Army to lead modernization of global cloud environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW YORK--()--Capgemini Government Solutions LLC , an independent Capgemini subsidiary working with U.S. Government Agencies, has announced the agreement of a three-year contract with the U.S. Army to modernize, transform, and grow cARMY, the Army's Cloud Common Shared Services environment.