We are living through a transition that feels, at once, like collapse and awakening. The crises surrounding us—ecological breakdown, technological acceleration, geopolitical fragmentation—are often treated as separate problems. But they are not. They are symptoms of a deeper rupture: a failure in how we perceive reality itself.

This is the beginning of the “Big Shift.” Not merely a historical turning point, but a transformation in consciousness. The dominant frameworks through which humanity has understood itself—nation, progress, even “humanity” as a unified moral subject—are no longer sufficient. They fragment under pressure because they were never grounded in the deeper fabric of existence. They abstracted us from the Earth, from each other, and ultimately from being itself.

Long before modern crises, ancient traditions understood something we have forgotten: the Earth is not an object. It is a living, sacred reality. Early liturgical texts and cosmologies did not separate matter from meaning. To speak of the Earth was already to speak of order, of balance, of participation in a larger whole. This was not “ecology” in the modern scientific sense—it was a lived metaphysics.

What has been lost is not knowledge in the narrow sense, but a way of knowing. The modern world, in its pursuit of control and clarity, reduced reality to what can be measured, extracted, and optimized. Technology is not the root problem; it is an extension of this perception. We did not simply build machines—we built a worldview that sees the world as machine.

And so we arrive at a strange paradox: we speak constantly of “saving humanity,” yet we do not even know what “humanity” means. It is an abstraction, a moral placeholder, often detached from real conditions and embedded inequalities. In trying to center humanity, we displaced the Earth. And in doing so, we undermined the very conditions that make human life possible.

A different orientation is needed. Not a rejection of humanity, but a re-centering within a larger field of existence. To love the Earth is not a poetic gesture—it is an ethical necessity. It means recognizing that harm to ecosystems is not external damage but a form of self-destruction. It means reframing ethics from human-centered to Earth-centered, from domination to participation.

This is where the future becomes most uncertain—and most significant. Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies are often framed in terms of capability and risk. But the deeper question is ontological: what kind of intelligence are we creating? If intelligence is participation, then ethical design requires more than safeguards—it requires alignment with the structures of reality itself.

We stand, then, at a threshold. The path forward is not a return to the past, nor a blind leap into technological futurism. It is a synthesis—a planetary civilization that draws from ancient wisdom while engaging modern knowledge. A civilization that recognizes the plurality of perspectives without losing sight of underlying unity.

This requires new forms of leadership, new frameworks of foresight, and a redefinition of progress. Not growth for its own sake, but alignment with the conditions that sustain life and meaning.

Ultimately, the future is not something we predict. It is something we participate in. Every action, every perception, contributes to the unfolding of reality. The question is not whether change is coming—it is whether we are capable of aligning with it.

To become planetary beings is not to transcend the Earth, but to belong to it fully. To act with awareness that we are not separate observers, but active participants in a living, dynamic cosmos.

The shift has already begun. The only question is whether we recognize it—and whether we are willing to follow it to its conclusion.

The Knowledge of our Civilizations in 2040 — a foresight workshop hosted by the Foresight Team of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI — took place on 20–21 November 2025 at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, as part of the project Eye of Europe.

At the heart of the two-day workshop was the open question of how future civilizations might define, create, harness,
value, share, embed and apply knowledge. The workshop’s aim was to explore both conceivable and desirable alternative
futures for the knowledge of our civilization in Europe by the year 2040 by letting participants explore the theme of the
knowledge of our civilization through a facilitated process consisting of three main stages.

Across four working groups, participants started off by identifying different key domains of trouble in the current state of knowledge, with the notion of trouble being interpreted in a positive way as an area of investigation and exploration where things are in deep flux.

To delve into these areas of trouble, participants then applied the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) framework twice: first, to critically examine the present by unpacking common narratives, systemic structures, shared worldviews and deep cultural metaphors; and then again, in a creative turn, to imagine desirable alternative futures. This second phase involved reconstructing alternative metaphors, beliefs, and systemic designs, eventually boiling down to a transformed litany.

The workshop set out to explore how future civilizations might define, create, value, and apply knowledge in 2040. Across four “troubles of knowledge,” participants showed that debates about knowledge are never purely technical but deeply political, ethical and cultural. The discussions revealed that today’s knowledge regimes are under pressure, making transformation both necessary and imaginable.

A first major theme concerned power and hierarchy. Many groups described current knowledge systems as exclusionary, dominated by majority viewpoints, elite institutions, economic logics and narrow validation mechanisms. Knowledge was seen as concentrated in authorities, shaped by growth paradigms and entangled with private or geopolitical interests. Declining trust and ideological polarization further destabilize what counts as shared truth. The central question recurring across groups was: Who defines knowledge, and for whom?

A second controversy focused on the purpose of knowledge. Is it primarily a tool for efficiency and competition, or a foundation for collective well‑being and long‑term responsibility? Several groups criticized current reward systems, the reduction of humans to “resources” and the dominance of problem‑solving logic over ethical and relational dimensions. The tension lies between knowledge as power and knowledge as care.

In the reconstruction phase, however, a shared horizon of hope emerged. Knowledge in 2040 was reimagined as relational, processual and co-created. Groups used metaphors such as mycelium networks, symphonies, assemblies, rivers and verbs to describe knowledge as something circulating, regenerative and sustained through relationships. Uncertainty, discomfort and failure were reframed as essential to meaningful knowledge creation.

Participants also envisioned new valuation systems: rewarding intrinsic motivation, collective achievement and planetary well‑being rather than market success. Ideas ranged from re‑commoning knowledge and revising metrics of excellence to fostering transdisciplinarity, citizen participation and relational education.

While the groups differed in where they anchored transformation - epistemic critique, moral renewal, valuation systems or institutional reform - they converged on a broader reorientation: from knowledge as possession to knowledge as relationship; from authority to dialogue; from scarcity to regenerative abundance.

Ultimately, the knowledge of our civilization in 2040 is imagined as being less about mastering complexity than about inhabiting it responsibly. It emphasizes shared meaning over information production and stewardship over competition. Whether such a transformation unfolds will depend not only on institutional reforms, but on the metaphors that guide our imagination. As the workshop demonstrated, changing how we speak about knowledge may be one of the most powerful steps toward changing how we imagine and eventually live it.