Introduction

In 1946, Albert Einstein asserted: “A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive.”¹ Decades later, Philip Garnett (2018) indicates that “[o]ur thinking is not systemic.” This is a view shared by William Rees, who says: “[W]e don’t think systemically.”² Although systemic thinking traces its roots to numerous philosophers and theologians, it was Gregory Bateson who highlighted its significance and distinctiveness. He recognized it as “something else again” (Bateson 1972), underscoring it as a paradigm. In this context, Rees (2006) is unequivocal: “In short, we need a genuine paradigm shift.”

Through the systemic paradigm, natural integration is understood to account for all of reality—that from which nothing is excluded (Fowler 2009, 2021). Systemic health is the health and wellbeing of all things—the normal existence of all things in the “global system-of-systems” (Garnett 2018). Systemic health includes the degree to which any and all things are free from the influence of pathological³ abnormality by any part (or any combination⁴ of parts) of reality. Thus, by definition, this includes the complete and infinite set of interconnected parts of reality as well as all of their relationships (Berry 2009a, 2009b; Fowler 2009, 2021; Fowler et al. 2013; Fowler et al. 2024)—nothing is excluded.

Given this holism, why is the systemic paradigm, or worldview, not the predominant belief system today? The answer is multifaceted; a constellation of factors shapes our thinking. This article explores mental health and the degree to which belief systems conform to, or are divorced from, objective reality and its inherent truth (veracity; Fowler 2021). To frame this exploration, the term “insanity” is used, borrowing from a definition found in the practice of law: “[M]ental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.”⁵ In the context of this article, the term applies broadly, encompassing a range of delusions, from simple involuntary cognitive misperceptions to willful and conscious denial of objective truth (e.g., outright intentional lying—with pathological lying as an extreme). Such delusions involve not only individuals but contemporary society as a whole.

A central element of systemic thinking is recognition that all things (all parts of reality, including reality as a whole) are interconnected (Bateston 1972; Berry 2009a; Fowler 2009, 2021; Fowler et al. 2024, Garnett 2018)—the unity of reality. This interconnectedness ensures that psychological wellbeing, cognitive functioning, and the health of the environment are, to varying degrees and in various ways, interlinked—some very profoundly. Environmental conditions influence both the mental health and thinking of today’s society. Thinking, in turn, influences behavior, which clearly impacts the natural systems in which we participate (Merz et al. 2023). These relationships have been recognized for decades and are a central focus of ecopsychology, a field formally named in 1963 (Schroll 2003). Since its inception, ecopsychology has generated a substantial body of scholarly work documenting the existence and nature of these connections. Authors Theodore Roszak, Mary E. Gomes, and Allen D. Kanner (1995), in their book Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind, highlight the reciprocity in the relationship between mental health and systemic health (particularly ecological health).

The detailed nature of the relationships between our mental health, our cognitive function, and the health of the environment is extremely complex. The mental health we attain from exposure to healthy natural environments can be viewed as a service provided by such systems (Bratman et al. 2019). This is obvious in the diversity of topics treated in books, journal articles, and other publications regarding the importance and meaning of what people experience in the context of their surroundings. The benefits of exposure to pristine natural systems are widely recognized by organizations like Outward Bound International, a global network founded in 1941. Wilderness therapy programs, forest bathing, the beneficial effects of hiking and camping, and taking vacations in national parks are all based on a broad recognition of the benefits of time spent immersed in natural environments suffering minimal human influence. The Wilderness Guides Council is an organization of individuals dedicated to facilitating such experiences, aiding people through their life’s journey and its mental, psychological, and cognitive challenges.

Such challenges are not trivial, nor are they rare in today’s world. There are patterns in the occurrence of mental illness that substantiate the conclusion that healthy wilderness has a beneficial effect on our psyches. For example, Ryan Hammoud et al. (2024) not only show a correlation between mental wellbeing and the diversity of the environment (range of natural features such as trees, plants, and birdlife) in which people find themselves but also provide numerous references to literature making the point that people living in cities experience a higher incidence of mental illness compared to people living in rural environments. A systematic review of related literature (Tran et al. 2022) shows how what is called greenspace exposure is involved in this pattern—the pattern in which the “degradation of the natural world” leads to the “degradation of the interior world of the human” (Berry 1999).

Unhealthy natural environments can harm not only psychological wellbeing but also cognitive function (e.g., Sariaslan et al. 2015; Delgado-Saborit et al. 2021; Jimenez et al. 2021; Zhao et al. 2021). While psychological distress itself can affect cognition, degraded natural systems—driven by the pathological influence of human activity on ecosystems, the biosphere, and the full Earth system—also have direct cognitive impacts. These include increased risks of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, memory loss, and attention deficits and reduced executive function—some within hours of exposure to natural systems degraded by human activity (e.g., breathing air contaminated with particulate matter; Faherty et al. 2025).

As MyriamV. Thoma et al. (2021) state, “Humankind is confronted with progressing climate change, pollution, environmental degradation, and/or destruction of the air, soil, water, and ecosystems.” They underscore the importance of recognizing and diagnosing the psychological disorders that arise in response to these anthropogenic factors—central concerns of clinical ecopsychology. From a systemic perspective, it is essential to acknowledge not only the pathological influences humans impose on natural systems (including ourselves) but also the factors that sustain and normalize patterns of pathological participation and influence (Fowler 2021; Fowler et al. 2024). Such pathological qualities are exemplified by both the density of the human population and reduced diversity caused by abnormally large population numbers. As treated in the next two sections, both have their effects on mental health and cognitive wellbeing.

A First Specific Example: Population Density

André O. Werneck and Danilo R. Silva (2020) use the title “Population Density, Depressive Symptoms, and Suicidal Thoughts” to build on previous work involving “the association between population density and mental health.” They concluded that there is “a negative effect of urbanization on [the] mental health of the population.” Published research involving the complexity of this association often contains statements such as: “People living in densely populated and socially disorganized areas have higher rates of psychiatric morbidity” (Sariaslan et al. 2015). Systemically, everything is interconnected (Fowler 2021; Fowler et al. 2024), and studies such as that of Marlyaba A. Marzukhi et al. (2023) highlight the negative effects of population density on mental health.

Given that population density, in various ways and to varying degrees, is a contributing factor to the state of our psychiatric health and thinking, it is important that we acknowledge the extremely abnormal or pathological nature of this dimension of the human species. This is shown in Figure 1, where the human species has extremely abnormal population density compared to the density of forty-seven nonhuman species (both in log scale to enable working with a normal distribution, or bell curve; see Limpert et al. 2001). In this figure, the comparison is shown for the density of humans measured in numerous groups of countries (each a group of ninety-seven countries). Such groups are known as combinations⁴ and, in this case, could have ranged in size from one to 195. The choice of a group size of ninety-seven resulted in a total of 2.86 × 10⁵⁷ distinct combinations, making it necessary to subsample them for display; a random sample of 1,000 was used.

Figure 1: The abnormality of population density for the human species in comparison to that of forty-seven species of nonhuman mammals with body sizes similar to that of humans. The density for nonhuman species is measured as global population size divided by geographic range size for each species (Fowler et al. 2024). The data for humans is density measured for a random sample of 1,000 combinations⁵ of ninety-seven countries around the world. The raw data for individual countries is based on information provided by the CIA for 2019.⁶

The data displayed in Figure 1 apply to 2019. The abnormality observed today is undoubtedly more extreme because of increases in the human population combined with decreases in the populations of many of the nonhuman species. In any case, a normal population density would not pose the threat of compromised mental health that is observed today. To be normal, the average density for humans would be similar to that of Kennedy County, Texas, with approximately 350 people currently living in an area of 3,778 square kilometers. Recent global density (8.5 billion spread over the terrestrial surface of the Earth, excluding Antarctica) is well over 500-fold larger (about sixty-three per km² or 1.8 in log scale). The pathological density of the human species has multiple consequences, including compromised mental health.

Given information indicating that living in urban areas can be detrimental to mental health (particularly involving insanity; Torrey and Bowler 1990), it is also worth noting the abnormality of density in cities. Figure 2 shows the pathological nature of human density in 3,501 cities in the United States. As can be seen, urban density is about ten times (one order of magnitude) more abnormal than density among groups of countries (Figure 1). The prevalence of mental illness in today’s society cannot be disassociated from the pervasive abnormality in population density as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 2: The pathological abnormality of the population density of the human species in cities of the United States.⁷ The data for the density of nonhuman species are the same as for Figure 1.

Systemic thinking, by definition, is not confined to the single concern of population density—there are other forms of pathology, as brought out in the next section, which deals with the pathological size of the total human population and resulting lack of diversity.

A Second Specific Example: Reduced Diversity

As mentioned, Hammoud et al. (2024) focus on a correlation between mental wellbeing and the diversity of natural elements in the environment. Thus, in parallel with dealing with population density, it is useful to observe the abnormality (or pathological quality) of metrics involving diversity insofar as such metrics involve humans. This is shown graphically in Figure 3, where the diversity corresponding to the pathologically large current global human population is nearly zero (for details regarding the diversity metric, see Fowler 2008). Thus, the diversity among this combination of forty-eight species is essentially destroyed by the overwhelming number of humans (the “monoculture” of humans globally). The current global human population size is more than 1,000 times larger than what it would be to maximize diversity. Systemic health is lacking; the biosphere and all of its parts are impacted by the pathologically large human population and associated absence of diversity. Total population is a species-level metric that is obviously closely related to population density (Figure 1).

Figure 3: The pathological abnormality of the global human population and resulting diversity for a set of 48 species (including humans). The curved line illustrates the diversity among the species in the sample as dependent on varying global numbers for humans. The data for the global populations of the non-human species involve the same species represented in Figure 1.

The graphs shown in Fowler (2008) illustrate diversity that has been impacted by various species-level characteristics. For example, production of CO₂ by humans is over 5,000-fold larger than what would maximize diversity—an abnormality with a magnitude very similar to the case for total energy consumption. Water consumption by humans is hundreds of thousands of times greater than what would maximize diversity! For biomass consumption, such multipliers vary from seven to over sixty depending on the ecosystem, species, or group of species from which biomass is taken. Charles Fowler et al. (2013) find that current harvest rates in commercial fisheries are, on average, over twenty-fold too large to maximize biodiversity. Clearly, these examples of compromised diversity are of human origin and impact individual species, combinations of species, ecosystems, and the biosphere—a form of compromised systemic health insofar as everything is involved. Based on work such as that of Hammoud et al. (2024), this includes compromised mental health. Reducing the human population would accomplish the goal of increasing diversity for this dimension of being a species everywhere. In part, this would involve increases in the sizes of the populations of many or most of the nonhuman species. One benefit expected for humans from such a reduction would be reduced insanity.

Responses to the simple recognition of the multiple ways in which humans are a pathogen highlight a key difference between conventional and systemic thinking. Conventional thinking tends to generate support for reducing density or population size based on perceived personal benefits—an attitude of: “If it helps me, I’m in favor of it.” Conversely, a business leader thinking conventionally would oppose such reduction with the understanding that it would reduce their profits—an attitude of: “If it hurts me, I oppose it.” Insanity predominates in both cases. The insanity involves a confining focus, a focus that denies the vast majority of the other connections, ramifications, and consequences. This is plainly obvious when economic factors are emphasized to the exclusion or denial of ecological matters (Daly 1996; Costanza et al. 1997). Systemic thinking, by contrast, emphasizes maintaining human participation in reality within the bounds of normal variation to have a normal impact on all things and accept all consequences—both the full set of repercussions that are considered good and those considered bad in conventional thinking. This broader, holistic perspective extends concern beyond the individual or even humanity, encompassing all of reality—(that from which nothing is excluded) every person, every species, and the countless combinations and interconnections among them. Everything would be freed from the injustice of pathological influence—whether by any individual human or by the human species (Fowler 2021). Everything, all parts of reality, would be granted freedom from such influence. Everything would be granted the right to be safe from the onslaught of pathological influence by the human species—progress toward systemic health to include such safety for the human species itself (Garnett 2018).

The Complexity of Human Impact

Population density and size are just two of many factors with measurable pathological qualities involving human impact on all natural systems—including all human systems. Other key factors include pathological levels of CO₂ emission, pollution, light production, water use, agriculture, industrial activity, sound production, resource and energy consumption, mining, chemical production, technology, and geographic range size (Fowler 2008, 2009, 2021; Thoma et al. 2021). As a species, we are a pathogen, as brought out by authors like James Lovelock (1991). The complexity and combinations⁴ of the numerous pathological qualities and consequences of our species’ existence make up what is often referred to as a polycrisis (the multiplicity of problems facing, and caused by, the human species; Liu and Renn 2025). These all contribute to, or result in, a lack of systemic health, with particular repercussions for ourselves—specifically, compromised mental health.

Thus, adjusting our population density and size to be normal would only be a minuscule isolated step toward becoming a normal, nonpathogenic species—crucially essential but dangerously incomplete. Alone, achieving a normal population density or size would be extremely insufficient—fatally partial and another example of insanity. Confined to either or both, achieving normalcy would involve omission; it would be unrealistically partial in ignoring so many other (especially technological) human impacts on the environment and ourselves. Kurt Göedel would recognize any such progress as incomplete. For example, to fully address the impacts we have on ourselves, we would need to deal directly with (not just mitigate) the production of plastics and the risk of dementia resulting from the accumulation of microplastics in our brains (see Nihart et al. 2025). The impacts of microplastics and other artificial biochemicals on other biota remain almost completely unknown. The list of ways we are having a pathological influence on all beings (including ourselves) is vast (Fowler 2008, 2009). Achieving systemic health is a major undertaking!

Given clear appreciation of at least a few of the consequences of our actions, why do we continue to maintain the status quo? What stands in the way of becoming a normal species to relieve all beings (including ecosystems, the Earth, and humans) of the consequences of our pathological nature—to do what we can to achieve systemic health? Is the collective delusion, or insanity, that prevents such progress self-perpetuating?

Insanity Perpetuates Insanity

Bateson (1979) highlights the imperative of unity between mind and nature. Our belief systems must match, or be isomorphic, harmonious, and congruent with reality⁸; this consistency or coherence is essential, by definition, to avoid insanity. One of the well-recognized patterns in nature is that systems are self-perpetuating, self-organizing, and self-maintaining (they exhibit homeostasis; Fowler 2009).⁹ Our belief systems are no exception (Fowler 2021). The mismatch between conventional thinking and reality is a form of insanity that persists—a long-recognized disconnect (e.g., Dunning-Kruger effects, confirmation bias, ostrich effects, halo effects, blind spots, Rashomon effects, cognitive dissonance, and a variety of well-known biases). Artificial intelligence (AI) aspires to mimic human thinking and consequently produces what AI itself recognizes as hallucinations—a form of mechanized insanity. AI cannot holistically take itself into account without fully embracing systemic thinking.

The insanity of conventional thinking is systematic and self-reinforcing. The vicious feedback loop begins with a devastated environment (systemic malady) that impacts our mental faculties, psychological health, and cognition with related thinking and behavior. The insanity of our thinking stays its course and fails to resolve the pathological impact our species has on the natural environment—prolonging the unhealthy qualities of the natural systems in which humans are embedded and with which we interact. The resulting impaired systemic health reinforces the insanity that began the cycle. This cycle is endlessly repeated, unabated, to exaggerate insanity. Such insanity is exemplified by the concept of sustainable development, which, through systemic thinking, is recognized as a perfect example of an oxymoron (Brown 2015). AI used to promote sustainable development adds to the feedback loop reinforcing insanity.

Breaking the Cycle: Spiritual Experiences

Successful treatment of any mental illness needs to include substantive change. Mitigation treats symptoms but does not change the underlying thinking (Fowler et al. 2024). To break the vicious cycle of insanity perpetuating itself, individuals can contribute by recognizing themselves as infinitely complex and integral parts of reality. This might be considered the rational part of therapy. Developing a felt sense of this reality takes it to a whole different level, as treated by Abraham H. Maslow (1993) and Keith Happawana (2026) in consideration of peak experiences, self-transcendence, or awakening—all elements of humanistic psychology and the realization of unity and meaning (or wisdom). The related epiphanies involve insight, revelation, and enlightenment of stunning proportions—“a ha” moments that are life changing, intensely spiritual, and deeply transformational (experiencing ineffable awe).¹⁰ Collectively, such experiences contribute to a shift in paradigm in which holism is intimately embraced, understood, and assimilated.

However, healing at the individual level need not be confined to short-term or momentary change; it can involve longer-term transition (arguably often unnecessary if living a full life under normal circumstances—full systemic health). Shared stories that illustrate shifts over significant time frames can be very effective in collective change. These include the impact of other species as experienced, over a period of years, in their natural surroundings, as exemplified by “The Healing Woods” (Reben 1952)—a story that includes physical as well as psychological healing that opens “a new way of life.” Other stories involve individuals spending extensive time with wildlife, such as Jane Goodall’s (2000) experience with chimpanzees “to become one with the spirit power of life itself.” The stories from Indigenous people living close to nature provide further examples. Were we all living in such a manner (in other words, if there were full systemic health), there would be little concern about mental health.

Deep gnosis and illumination are involved in a thorough grasp of systemic health. Change to achieve such health, and specifically a shift to the systemic paradigm, obviously includes a change of mind—something that, for some, may include the use of psychoactive substances (Pollan 2018) insofar as these materials contribute to spiritual experiences resulting in transformational change. The grasping of reality (the truth of reality) often involves spiritual experience—an incomparable transition toward unprecedented mental health. It is a deeply and intensely spiritual experience to perceive everyone and everything holistically, as infinitely complex products of, and having influence on, an infinite set of factors—being universe-referent parts of reality (Berry 2009b). It involves a realization that there is meaning to being—inherent wisdom. Such progress at the individual level allows for projection and understanding that the same principles hold for species, ecosystems, and the biosphere (embracing the fractal nature of reality; Fowler 2009, 2021). Based on this systemic perspective, our collective path forward requires intentionally building normal relationships with all systems—a process of mutual enhancement (Berry 1999) that mirrors what is also essential for each individual. Globally, a shift to this paradigm could involve a form of cultural evolution that is more rapid than genetic evolution (Fowler 2021; Waring and Wood 2025) but includes both.

Discussion

Throughout history, paradigm shifts (Kuhn 1962) have brought human beliefs into closer alignment with objective, observable reality. The more closely our beliefs match the truth of reality, the less we experience insanity—by definition. Over history, there have been a number of paradigm shifts. For example, scientific observations gradually convinced most people that the Earth is essentially spherical, and later, that it orbits the sun. The reality of plate tectonics required extensive scientific effort before it became widely accepted. Over time, genetic code also came to be recognized as fundamental in determining the nature of individuals and species. A common thread in such shifts is the importance of careful observation—of truly seeing aspects of reality, mostly through the scientific lens.

As explained in Fowler (2009, 2021), embracing the true nature of reality lies at the heart of the systemic paradigm (Bateson 1979). The shift to this paradigm is imperative. Without this shift, we, as a species, will fail to adequately deal with the risk of self-imposed extinction caused by the pathological nature of our own species (i.e., the risk of extinction posed to all species, including humans). In addition, we will fail to protect all ecosystems from anthropogenic pathological influence by our species; in other words, we fail to make progress toward achieving systemic health and associated mental health. Succeeding in the shift, the human species moves to protect all things, including itself, from all consequences of an abnormal existence—part of the holism of the paradigm. Systemic health will emerge.

The shift to this paradigm involves the convergence of science and religion, as seen in past such shifts; in fact, it involves a merger of all belief systems¹¹—all religions achieve being “on the same page.” Reality, in its entirety, is composed of interconnected parts whose relationships with each other defy human comprehension, yet they are what they are; the statement that “it is what it is” may be the most succinct representation of the systemic view of reality (Fowler 2009). A key insight is that each part reflects the infinite (the “radiance” spoken of by Joseph Campbell [1988]) in both its origin and existence (Fowler et al. 2013)—everything we observe is part of this whole (Fowler et al. 2024). These truths, however, are dangerously absent from the prevailing mindset in today’s world. Notably, our own thinking—particularly the way it brings us to engage with reality—is rarely acknowledged as a systemic element of reality. Almost completely absent from conventional thinking is the full set of consequences of this thinking on all parts of reality—and particularly, as emphasized in this article, on thinking itself. Systemic health is essentially ignored.

This disconnect from reality is insanity and, as previously discussed, involves a self-perpetuating system of thinking in which humans accept (even promote) operating outside the bounds of normal natural variation. However, when we fully embrace reality, we recognize that each entity exemplifies how to be itself—all things considered (Fowler 2021; Fowler et al. 2013). Electrons in the hydrogen atoms of the Earth’s mantle show us how to be electrons in the hydrogen atoms of the Earth’s mantle, mushrooms in a forest show how to be mushrooms in a forest, planets in solar systems show how to be planets in solar systems, and black holes in galaxies show how to be black holes in galaxies. Likewise, mammalian species of human body size in the Sahara Desert demonstrate how to exist as such species in this desert. For every category of being, there is a pattern. Like the patterns of body temperature for individuals (Fowler 2021), such patterns are informative about what works—all things considered, everything taken into account. In other words, there is holistic meaning in everything; the interconnected web of all existence is a web of meaning (Lent 2021)—the wisdom of realty.

This perspective brings an important realization. Like Thomas Berry (2006, 2009a), Bateson (1979), and others (Hobbs and Fowler 2008), various luminaries over the millennia have recognized that other species provide guidance for how to be a species. Other species of mammals of our body size serve as role models, demonstrating how humans can remain systemically viable as a species (Fowler 2009; Fowler et al. 2024). Imitating these natural role models offers a straightforward path out of the insanity that currently prevents/opposes systemic constraints on our species. If we were a species having normal impacts on all things, insanity (both a cause and a consequence of our abnormality) would not be the issue it is today. Huge strides would be made in achieving systemic health—reducing abnormality, not only for our own species but for all systems with which our species interacts and within which it participates.

The insanity of the prevailing perspective today can be given the name Systemic Abnormality Disorder (SAD—not to be confused with Seasonal Affective Disorder). SAD is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR). Richard Louv (2005) coined the term Nature-Deficit Disorder to point to the impact of insufficient contact with normal, healthy natural environments on children. SAD is the more generic and global problem being treated in this article. Systems from the biosphere to local ecosystems (with all the species that inhabit them), and all the individuals involved, are unhealthy, owing to pathological human influence; there is a major lack of systemic health. These maladies are contributing to our collective insanity—a form of psychological and cognitive disorder. Restoring those systems to health through systemically normal participation by humans is a way to heal the mind (Roszak et al. 1995) and promote systemic thinking. This is a means of allowing the brain to function relatively free of the distractions caused by the intensity of abnormal human enterprise and, thus, facilitate systemic thinking.

What does the systemic paradigm have to do with truth? A central connection lies in the fact that insanity reflects a disregard for, or ignorance of, the truth of reality. This can range from deliberate, voluntary, pathological lying to innocent ignorance of the facts, with lying by omission often involving elements of both. Overcoming this form of insanity is essential. For many, making a sincere and responsible effort to tell the truth would represent a profound shift. Resistance to doing so is part of the insanity being treated here. The systemic paradigm is based on reality—that from which nothing is excluded (Fowler 2021); reality includes all modes of thinking. The health of all systems (systemic health) is included. Adopting the systemic paradigm would include embracing wisdom holistically—the wisdom of reality, as advocated repeatedly in the literature (e.g., Fazey et al. 2020). Because AI cannot account for itself and all its consequences, artificial wisdom is impossible. This is the point made by Bateson (1972) when arguing that television sets fall far short in representing themselves.

Thus, a huge step toward truth lies in recognizing the infinite veracity of reality as it is reflected in what we observe (Fowler 2009, 2021; Fowler et al. 2024).¹² The truth inherent in all things is ineffable but real. It is expressed both in Campbell’s (1988) “radiance” and Berry’s (2009b) “voice” of all beings—truths that scientists can also discern, particularly by observing other species. As Berry (1999) urges, we must “listen to the voices of other species.” Even something as simple as learning what constitutes a normal population density (Figure 1) would be a small but significant beginning—learning from other species as they represent (embody) the basic and complete truth of their origins, being, and meaning. The infinite nature of the universe is taken into account—including our thinking and every butterfly effect¹³ over all time and space. Everything embodies the truth of its origins and existence—a truth recognized in Taoism and Buddhism as well as by philosophers such as Aristotle, Baruch Spinoza, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Berry, and Bateson. All contextual and intrinsic factors are taken into account in proportion to their actual importance (their true importance)—thus obviating any problems caused by innate tendencies to legitimize one over the other (Horne et al. 2025).

As is clear, there is nothing trivial about the holistic quality of the truth/veracity (Fowler 2009, 2021) of reality. This is seen in its transdisciplinary nature—the way reality is made up of all the subjects of all disciplines. As such, reality is a union of the “deep” of “deep ecology” with the “deep” of the plethora of other subjects (e.g, history, systems science, geology, mathematics, astronomy, cybernetics, information theory, humanistic psychology, epistemology, ecopsychology, chemistry, physics—ad infinitum). Deep philosophy and deep theology mean that all belief systems are included and that, in a shift to the systemic paradigm, the relevant practitioners all embrace systemic thinking. Such a shift involves knowing that the subjects of all disciplines are all real parts of reality, with each part being what it truly is—always beyond comprehension in any form of thinking or discipline but always accounted for in what we observe.

A typical conventional argument is exemplified by the following assertion: “Stoicism, being very similar to systemic thinking, supports shifting to the systemic paradigm.” However, in systemic thinking, this is recognized as conventional thinking, and that what stoicism treats is already taken into account by the holistic nature of reality. This holism includes the subjects of all disciplines yet to emerge along with the unknowable that will never become the subject of a discipline. The holism of natural integration (Fowler 2009, 2021; Fowler et al. 2013; Fowler et al. 2024) excludes nothing. Teams of interdisciplinary experts are replaced by the observation of reality—guidance provided by the infinite nature of reality (Berry 1999, 2009b; Fowler et al. 2013). Self-proclaimed experts are confined to those with a commitment to finding and revealing observable normative information—holistic information deeply coherent, or consonant, with the action or mode of being under consideration; there is a strict match between information and action (Fowler 2009, 2021; Fowler and Hobbs 2009).

Part, if not all, of Berry’s (1999) The Great Work is the matter of becoming a normal species. Should we become a normal species, everything would be freed of abnormal human impact. This would be a major step toward systemic health in relieving all things of the injustice of pathological human impact. Granting such freedom would become policy codified in legislation to account for all the laws of nature. If humanity were to become normal in every dimension of what it means to be a species—reality (that from which nothing is excluded—not even God, whatever God actually or truly is) would be freed from the injustice of our current pathological influence (Fowler 2021). This transformation would also free humans from the psychological harm brought on by unhealthy environments caused by current pathological human influence—influence that is often justified, in conventional thinking, as being in the best interests of humans, human institutions, and human enterprises. These justifications exemplify what Bateson (1972, 1979) refers to as “conscious purpose”—ignoring the bulk of reality. It is the insanity of conventional thinking that needs to be surmounted by shifting to the paradigm of systemic thinking.

Part of this shift involves expanding—rather than abolishing—democracy (Fowler 2021; Fowler et al. 2024) so that the voices of other species (Berry 1999) are heard.¹⁴ Diversity, equity, and inclusion apply to all things. As illustrated in Figure 3, diversity can be maximized by normal participation in reality (Fowler 2008). Equity is inherent to the fact that all things emerge from reality (Morowitz 2002). Further equity is seen in all things being afforded equal rights to be free of pathological human impact—direct or indirect. Inclusion follows from the truth that reality excludes nothing (Fowler 2009, 2021). These principles can be seen as self-evident truths and, when deeply understood and fully embraced, address much of the insanity present in today’s world.

The bulk of this article has examined the effects of human abnormality on our minds through the anthropogenic degradation of all systems, including ecosystems and the biosphere. It is important to emphasize that the insanity of conventional thinking is not the only explanatory factor behind the origins of the pathological role of humans in the Earth’s systems. These origins, like those of anything we observe, involve a constellation of factors. One of note is the process of evolution; evolution gave rise to both our brains (and the way we think) and the way we are as a species. In this context, it is well known that genes serve to promote their being passed on to future generations, sometimes leading to the process called “evolution to extinction,” “evolutionary suicide,” or “self-extinction” (Parvinen 2005; Parvinen and Dieckmann 2013; Lansing et al. 2021). This exemplifies the general principle that what is good for a part can be detrimental to the whole (and vice versa; Fowler 2021).

Some of our more direct pathological effects are exemplified by technologies—things totally absent in the existence of any other mammalian species. Consider AI; to our knowledge, no other species has developed this technology, making it fully abnormal. How does this abnormality shape our thinking, and how are we affected when it enables us to lie more convincingly, commit crime more effectively, or perpetuate insanity more purposely? It is well established that people can become addicted to technologies—particularly screen-based devices—a direct consequence of this kind of abnormality (Kuss and Griffiths 2012). Even agricultural technologies foster, in some way, the delusional belief that we can control nature. This belief reflects a deeper insanity: the failure to recognize that confining ourselves to mitigating action does not alter the underlying thinking that causes the very problems being mitigated (Fowler et al. 2024). Without a change in thinking, without a shift to the systemic paradigm, today’s problematic behaviors (Merz et al. 2003) are destined to be repeated.

How can we, as a species, return to a state of normalcy and thereby foster improved mental health and a revival of realistic thinking? Our consumption of some resources—such as harvesting fish from the world’s oceans (Fowler et al. 2013) and timber from forests—may be largely within our control. However, collective self-control would be a form of insanity (extreme abnormality); no other species exercises intentional self-control at the species level. Our only realistic option (Fowler 2003) may be relying on the service of the homeostatic processes of the larger systems in which we participate. All systems have self-correcting, self-organizing, self-maintaining properties⁹ (Fowler 2009) upon which we can rely. As Berry (1999) puts it: “The accomplishment of the Great Work is the task . . . of the universe itself.” Becoming a normal species can be seen as a holistically collaborative effort. This would involve a deep acceptance of reality and fully embracing, even welcoming, the creative aspects of cosmogenesis (Swimme 2022) that result in the structure and function of all systems—including ecosystems and, particularly, the informative patterns among species that guide us. When viewed as assistance or help, what we typically perceive as collapse, disaster, or Armageddon can instead be understood as the pain of healing, the pain or suffering involved in regaining systemic health, much like what we experience on a personal level.¹⁵ We, as humans, both as individuals and as a species, will endure all of what is involved in the healing processes (self-organizing dynamics) of ecosystems and the biosphere.

Words often attributed to Thich Nhat Hanh describe these dynamics well: “We have a natural tendency to want to run away from suffering. But without any suffering, we can’t fully develop as human beings.”¹⁶ Despite the pain involved, the self-organizing and self-maintaining nature of systems can ultimately serve long-term human interests (Fowler 2009, 2021; Fowler et al. 2024)—as well as those of all systems making up reality. By shifting to systemic thinking, we can fully accept these forces and their “disciplinary” role.¹⁷ This acceptance involves the submission of Islam, as laid out in the Qur’ān.¹⁸ With the assistance of nature (the expression of natural law), especially in species-level change, all aspects of reality—including ourselves and our mental wellbeing—will be relieved of the burden of the pathological human impact that has destroyed systemic health. Through homeostasis (the self-organizing forces of nature), improved systemic health will include better mental health, benefiting both humanity and the world at large.

To one degree or another, all humans practice thinking that involves insanity. In the drafting of this article, some of the references were found and parts were edited with the assistance of AI—an extremely abnormal construct for a species and thus an example of insanity. The energy and resources required to produce the data used to show how abnormal humans are as a species added to the related abnormalities—exemplified by CO₂ production and energy consumption (Fowler et al. 2024). The delusion that such things have negligible impacts is a form of insanity. This article expresses a hope that most people will eventually embrace the systemic paradigm—a hope that many, thinking conventionally, will dismiss as delusional. While there may be genuine potential for an asymptotic shift toward such a worldview (Fowler 2021), history suggests that only a portion of humanity is likely to adopt it. Reaching a critical mass of influence could take centuries. However, if homeostatic forces begin to counteract our pathological resistance within the next few decades, this transformation might unfold more rapidly—with the possibility of avoiding our own extinction.

The signs of widespread irrationality are almost impossible to overlook; they manifest in international conflicts, politics, marital relationships, fisheries, economics at all levels, medicine, forestry, industry, agriculture, advertising—ad infinitum. The feedback perpetuating insanity is incomprehensible. To break free from this situation, we must acknowledge that the universe is made up of interconnected parts—interrelated in the way they are actually interrelated, the absolute truth about the way they are interrelated (Fowler 2009). If we aim to become a truly normal species under existing circumstances, everything shifts. Adopting a systemic way of thinking dramatically changes our perspective (Fowler 2021; Fowler et al. 2024). By enhancing systemic health, we will also enhance mental health. When systemic thinking is integrated into educational systems, the editorial policies of scientific publications, and world religions, it has the potential to take root and thrive.

Conclusions

A significant contributing factor in our failure to think systemically involves the impact on our minds of the anthropogenically degraded state of the natural environment—brought about by our failure to think systemically. When natural systems are unhealthy (when there is a lack of systemic health), patterns of irrationality in our thinking are reinforced. This makes it difficult for individuals and societies to adopt holistic perspectives. We are caught in a cyclical pattern wherein ill systemic health and dysfunctional thinking perpetuate each other. This insanity involves patterns of thought and behavior that are at odds with reality. These self-reinforcing patterns preserve the status quo and can only be altered by a way of thinking that recognizes the interconnectedness of all things and aligns with reality. Achieving the insight to adopt this way of thinking can be an intense spiritual experience—knowing that it applies to all things, including oneself. Conscious effort can be of help, but systemic assistance is paramount; collaborative efforts involving all things are essential.

Scientific observation is a critical tool for breaking free from self-reinforcing insanity. By observing reality objectively, as Bateson and Berry advocate, we can recalibrate our thinking (part of a spiritual experience) and act in harmony with nature. Such a shift is necessary for both personal and collective wellbeing. Observing other mammals offers valuable insights into healthy systemic living. The very being of such species provides holistic models to guide the human species in adopting more balanced participation in the real world, helping us restore our own systems to health and allow all other systems the option of regaining their health—promoting systemic health. Systemically, when our communities, institutions, and environments are functioning well, when systemic health prevails, individuals are more likely to experience psychological wellbeing with a healthy holistic perspective and embrace the systemic paradigm.

Systemic thinking is vital to human survival. Visionaries like Albert Einstein and Berry recognize the extremely important relationships between various elements of our world as key to addressing complex challenges and ensuring the continued existence of our species. Isolated specific examples involve the relationships between population density/size and mental health. Overcrowding leads to a host of problems, from environmental degradation to mental health issues, demonstrating how systemic failures manifest in real-world consequences. The collective elements of our compromised mental health, and its consequences, make up what can be called Systemic Abnormality Disorder. It is clear that human abnormality is multifaceted, affects many areas of life, and requires a comprehensive paradigm shift.

The shift to the systemic paradigm (the unity of mind and nature; Bateson 1979) means fully committing to objective truth and recognizing the misleading nature of current thinking. Only by acknowledging and correcting our flawed perspectives can we hope to be involved in restoring health to all systems. We must take great care to avoid perpetuating flawed thinking through using AI as automated insanity to further distance us from reality. By learning from nature, embracing scientific observation, and confronting uncomfortable truths, humanity can be moved toward a more harmonious and sustainable future.

Appendix I: Combinations

Embracing combinations of the components of reality is part of the holism achieved in systemic thinking (Fowler et al. 2024). Combinations are the focus of combinatorial mathematics. From a group of m things (e.g., six things), discrete sets of n (e.g., three) can be chosen. With six things taken three at a time, twenty distinct selections can be made. Items two, three, and six are one such combination, and two, four, and five another. Any of the infinite ecosystems of the biosphere involves a particular combination of species. All are part of the infinite complexity dealt with and accounted for in systemic thinking.

Overtly accounting for combinations is exemplified by the 195 countries of Figure 1. When nonrepeating subsets of ninety-seven are chosen, there are 2.86 × 10⁵⁷ distinct combinations—a finite but numerous set. Graphically representing such a large number necessitates sampling. However, in the complexity of reality (in the real world), every single combination of this total is included, along with its distinct impacts on all other combinations—all other components of reality. Such components encompass various aspects of mental health and all their combinations. For example, there is depression and schizophrenia or extinction anxiety and addiction when taken in pairs. If there are 300 such mental disorders, there are 9.376 × 10⁸⁸ combinations when taken 150 at a time. In the interconnected nature of reality, all such combinations are influenced by any lack of health in the systems to which humans are exposed or in which they participate. Of course, the reverse cannot be ignored; any progress toward a healthy, normal participation in reality (and all combinations of its parts) by humans will contribute to improved health for all things, including mental health and the prospects of systemic thinking—collectively improving systemic health.

In the construction of Figure 1, each individual country in the original data was represented by both estimated population size and measured area. For each set of ninety-seven that was randomly selected, the total area and the total population were calculated. The density for that group of countries was then determined by dividing the total population by the total area. The results are presented in log scale to show the order of magnitude of the abnormality (i.e., the pathological nature) of the human species for this metric of being a species—with all its consequences.

Figure 2 illustrates the population density of humans across 3,501 cities in the United States. From the perspective of systemic thinking (Fowler et al. 2024), if human density were within normal ecological bounds, ecosystems would not be subjected to the burdens currently imposed by urban concentrations. The number of ecosystem groupings is infinite, yet each one is impacted by every one of the combinations of 3,501 cities taken 1,000 at a time (there are about 5.1 × 10⁹⁰⁷ of them). Each one of these combinations, and every combination of combinations, exerts a distinct ecological impact that is essentially ignored in conventional analyses. In the context of this article, these ecological effects are especially relevant because of their profound implications for mental health and cognitive functioning.

With regard to urban density, a shift to systemic thinking would include the various combinations of all mayors of the world’s cities. Each combination would wholeheartedly acknowledge the ecologically cancerous quality (Hern 1993, 2008) of their cities—the pathological nature of cities. Similarly, for density in all counties, countries, and other subdivisions of the globe, all combinations of the political leaders would adopt the systemic paradigm by recognizing the infinite set of ecosystems under their administration and the degree to which there is pathological abnormality in human population density for each one—each a clear lack of systemic health. Thinking systemically also involves an acceptance of all the consequences of all combinations of pathological human characteristics—including, particularly, impacts by and on mental health.

Combinations of species are exemplified by the set of 124 species represented in Figure A1. This set of species can be sampled sixty-two at a time for 1.52 x 10³⁶ distinct subsets, each of which presents us with normative information. Each one of these combinations serves to substantiate the conclusion that agriculture joins medicine (Bateson 1972) as part of the insanity being treated in this article. Similar patterns involve water consumption per unit area and CO₂ production per unit area (Fowler 2021). What are known as equivalence rules (in which normative information involves species of any body size) apply to numerous metrics for species and provide normative information to reveal related human abnormalities. The original work involving energy consumption per unit area was published by Damuth (1987) with data for 367 species of herbivores. These involve many combinations (e.g., 1.25 x 10¹⁰⁹, when taken 183 at a time). Again, each distinct combination is a source of normative information for both appraisal and guidance for being a normal species under existing circumstances—that is, including being impacted by human abnormality. Part of the holism of systemic thinking has to do with the option of normal human impact on and by every combination of species everywhere (Fowler et al. 2024)—systemic health with associated impact on mental health.

The combinations of people necessary for a paradigm shift are astronomical. For any group of 9,000 people, if they are sampled 4,500 at a time, there would be 1.57 × 10^2,707 combinations; each would need to have a majority thinking systemically. The adoption of systemic thinking would include groups such as the political parties of all countries, all CEOs of banking institutions, and the officials of both the Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations. It would involve every environmental organization, every family, all university departments, all religious leaders, and anyone contemplating integral thinking. Organizations such as the Lutheran School of Theology, the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology, the Religious Naturalist Association, and the Center for Earth Ethics (and all combinations of such organizations) would all be on the same page. Also included would be all combinations of news analysts, authors, editors, and website designers. Globally, it would require the participation of world leaders, county executives or commissioners, all teachers, and the citizens of every country. Only by such widespread adoption of systemic thinking can humanity move beyond the insanity of conventional thought—the current paradigm.

Figure A1: A comparison of the rate at which energy is extracted per unit area by humans with those of 123 species of nonhuman mammals (Fowler et al. 2024) to reveal the pathological nature of our practice of agriculture.

Of course, the foremost combination is reality—ultimate reality. It is comprised of all combinations and permutations of its parts in the essence of their own existence over time and space. Each is a holistically integral part, reflecting all others and the wholes of which they are a part. In all cases, it is the truth of their interconnectedness that their natural integration represents—full veracity. Thus, in every case, each part represents holistic information about being that part—what it means to be that part—how to be that part. Our thinking, and all combinations of ways of thinking, are all parts of reality, and when they involve misinterpretation, inaccurate concepts, or other mismatches with reality, there is insanity.

Acknowledgments

My heartfelt gratitude goes to the many scientists who have generated normative data in the field of macroecology. The same applies to the innumerable scientists, philosophers, theologians, shamans, and academicians who have shaped my thinking by way of the influence of figures such as Charles Darwin, Thomas Berry, Gregory Bateson, and Joseph Campbell. I owe special recognition to my late friend Larry Hobbs, whose years of personal collaboration with Gregory Bateson left a lasting impact on me. Helpful reviews were provided by Jerry Cufley, Jean Fowler, Alec MacCall, Margy Rockenbeck, and one anonymous reviewer.

Competing Interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.