Reflections on the Future of Knowledge Management Societal Knowledge Management

Introduction

I want to examine Knowledge Management’s future, but I have a warning—it may not be what you expect.

In the last few years, my work has focused on the big picture of the evolution of human knowledge and how we need to think differently to tackle the long list of global issues that we face and avoid the collapse of our global civilization.

I have heavily linked this document to my blook on Conversational Leadership and other resources; if you wish to explore my thoughts in greater depth.

Predicting the future

We live in a complex socio-technical system — a VUCA world - a complex world that is volatile, uncertain, confusing, and ambiguous. One of the facets of a complex system is that it is inherently unpredictable, so these two quotations from Peter Drucker sum things up nicely.

Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window.

Credit: Peter Drucker

The only thing we know about the future is that it will be different.

Credit: Peter Drucker

Given this unpredictability, I try never to make any but the most general predictions and adopt Dennis Gabor's advice.

The future cannot be predicted, but futures can be invented.

Credit: Dennis Gabor

Paradoxically, in thinking about the future, I would like to start by briefly looking at humankind’s history.

Knowledge Management did not start in 1991 or thereabouts. It started 50,000 years earlier with the evolution of language when we first learned to speak.

200,000 years of human history

We (Homo sapiens) emerged from our hominid predecessors in Africa some 200,000 years ago.

For the first 150,000 years, we lived as hunter-gatherers like our cousins, the apes. We lived day to day, and our behaviors changed only a little over time.

Then around 70,000 years ago, a remarkable shift took place—speech and language significantly improved, sparking what is known as the cognitive revolution or cultural big bang.

With the cultural big bang came a great leap forward that allowed us to pass down our knowledge from generation to generation much faster through cumulative cultural evolution and not the biologically slower process through our genes.

Some 40,000 years later, we made another enormous leap with the Neolithic Revolution when we transitioned from a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle to farming and settlement (circa 11,000 years ago).

A little later, early cities emerged around 7,500 BCE, and Sumer, the first known civilization, developed about 4,100 BCE.

Over the following centuries, society and technology co-evolved, biological evolution having stopped with the cognitive revolution.

Then, 500 years ago, during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Scientific Revolution, which laid the foundation for the Enlightenment, drastically changed scientific thinking. The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment were massive leaps forward in the evolution of our knowledge and how we thought about the world and our place in it.

Two hundred years later, in the late 18th century, circa 1760, the pace of change picked up with the dawn of the first industrial revolution, closely followed by the second industrial revolution.

Then, a mere 75 years ago, at the end of the second world war, change dramatically accelerated with the birth of the information/digital revolution (the third industrial revolution) and is further accelerating today with Industry 4.0 (the fourth industrial revolution).

This cumulative socio-technical-economic change has created a modern world vastly different from the hunter-gatherer world in which we evolved and the world of our farming ancestors only a few hundred years ago.

Two Worlds

Since the cultural big bang, the changes over the last 70,000 years have been so significant that we can consider ourselves living in two worlds, World #1 and World #2.

World #1 is the old world, the natural world in which we lived and evolved for 150,000 years.

World #2 is the new world, the socio-technical-economic world we have constructed over the last 70,000 years, particularly the 250 years since the first industrial revolution and the previous 75 years since the third industrial revolution.

In World #1, direct relationships between cause and effect dominate, while in World #2, non-linear relationships between cause and effect dominate.

In the context of the Cynefin domains, World #1 is a simple or complicated world, while World # 2 is a complex one.

Both worlds co-exist, but most of the global population lives in World #2. For example, over 55% of the world's population lives in urban areas, which is expected to increase to 68% by 2050.

Human activity's impact on the planet has been so great that it has been proposed that we have entered a new geological and environmental era known as the Anthropocene.

The Age of Entanglement

The idea that we live in an entangled world is particularly relevant in World #2. Here, the intricate web of connections between technology, society, and the environment creates a landscape where traditional, reductionist approaches to problem-solving are insufficient. In this complex world, everything is interconnected—every action ripples through the system in unforeseen ways, leading to outcomes that are difficult to predict or control.

Understanding the entanglement of systems within World #2 forces us to rethink how we approach challenges. Just as the Enlightenment brought a shift in thinking during its time, recognizing the entangled nature of our modern world suggests a need for an updated perspective—one that embraces complexity and integration over simplicity and separation.

This entanglement between World #1 and World #2 reflects the tension between our evolutionary predispositions and the demands of our constructed environment. While our brains are wired for the simpler dynamics of World #1, we now live predominantly in World #2, where those same dynamics no longer suffice. As such, navigating this entangled, complex landscape requires us to develop new ways of thinking and acting that are adaptive, integrative, and attuned to the interconnected realities of our time.

We still have old World #1 brains

In World #1, our top priority was survival, eating and not being eaten, winning in warfare, and mating.

Although life was difficult, it was simple. Straightforward cause-and-effect relationships dominated. We lived in the here and now from day to day.

Think of other members of the human family tree — apes — such as the chimpanzee or the bonobo. In World #1, our lives were not so different.

We lived in the natural world in small bands of about 25 people and tribes of 500 or more. Our lives were short, and we had few choices.

World #1 was the world in which our brains were shaped by evolution. Evolution wired our brains for short-term tribal thinking—to think in the moment. Our brains have not changed significantly in the last 50,000 years since we started our journey into World #2.

Fifty thousand years is not long in evolutionary terms, and it is not surprising that our modern-day brains have not evolved to handle the dynamics and complexity of World #2.

In the entangled societies of World #2, tribal thinking no longer serves us well. We need to rethink our thinking.

Two Worlds | Podcast Generated by NotebookLM (source)

This is the source material used to create this podcast.

We evolved to be tribal.

For the first 150,000 years of our existence, we lived in tribes, even longer if we consider our earlier hominid ancestors.

There was a substantial survival advantage to cooperating and being loyal to members of our group, competing, and even engaging in warfare with outsiders struggling for the same resources.

Those more predisposed to tribalism were thus more likely to survive and pass down their genes to the next generation.

Tribalism is in our genes.

Tribal Thinking 

We are innately tribal. We have a strong need to belong to groups and maintain fulfilling relationships with others.

This need warps our reasoning ability. It is known as tribal thinking.

Dan Kahan’s research at Yale, for example, demonstrates that people’s numerical reasoning is strongly influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by their political (tribal) pre-dispositions regardless of their political persuasion.

Surprisingly, the more numerate the individuals, the more likely they were to obtain the wrong answer if the correct answer did not align with their political (tribal) beliefs.

In other words, people with better numerical reasoning abilities were more likely to let their political (tribal) beliefs influence them.

In other research, Dan Kahan shows that it is not just strong numerical reasoning that compromises clear thinking but surprisingly also open-mindedness and science literacy.

So we don’t make rational decisions. We have a position that tends to correspond to the beliefs of our tribe, and we post-rationalize this decision by looking for evidence to support it and overlooking conflicting evidence. The smarter we are, the better we are at this rationalization.

We are not rational creatures. We are rationalizing ones.

The Knowledge Delusion

We have built hugely complex societies and technologies since the cultural big bang through cumulative cultural evolution, but most of us don’t even know how a toilet works.

As individuals, we know almost nothing compared to what we think we know. Our personal knowledge is more than just an illusion. It is a delusion. If we thought deeply for one moment, we would realize we are ignorant of our ignorance.

Knowledge is communal. Most of what we consider our knowledge is in the heads of other people.

Our beliefs are tribal. They are not based on our personal experience or even our analysis of the evidence. They are based on our trust or distrust of other people and institutions that actually hold the knowledge.

We trust the beliefs and ideas of people and institutions that are part of one or more of the many tribes we belong to, and we distrust outsiders.

If we trust the scientific community, we will most likely believe in human-made global warming. On the other hand, if we distrust the scientific community, we are unlikely to believe in it.

Individually, we know very little, and what we think we know has little to do with evidence or rational thinking.

Polarization

We are polarized across political, religious, moral, and racial divides. We fail to communicate with each other and treat people with conflicting beliefs as our enemies. We see conquering our ideological opponents as justifying the means.

We wage information warfare, launch ad hominem attacks, make derogatory comments, lie, and sow fake news. We fail to appreciate the damage we do to the information ecosystem, so much so that there is little information we can trust.

Follow almost any discussion thread on social media or view any televised discussion or debate or read any political article to witness the utter disrespect we show for each other. There is precious little constructive disagreement.

Echo chambers and filter bubbles isolate us from the real world, distort reality, and help entrench our existing beliefs.

Furthermore, the pollution of the global information ecosystem by, for example, fake news makes it challenging to determine what is true and what is false and, in turn, makes it difficult to establish evidence for our beliefs.

Implications

As nation-states and as a global civilization, we face a long list of global issues.

Given these issues, our global civilization’s collapse seems increasingly likely, and this would be an obvious prediction to make, but I don’t think it needs to be this way.

A large part of our problem stems from the fact that our World #1 brains were “designed” for short-term tribal thinking in a relatively simple world and do not cope well with the complexity of World #2.

We need to rethink how we form our beliefs.

Rethinking our beliefs

The greatest scientific discovery was the discovery of ignorance.

Once humans realised how little they knew about the world, they suddenly had a very good reason to seek new knowledge, which opened up the scientific road to progress.

Credit: Yuval Noah Harari

Though we face enormous challenges and wish our global civilization to survive and improve, we have different beliefs, values, morals, and ideas about how we should go about it. We need to:

• Default to the fact that most people act in good faith until we have strong evidence otherwise.
• Start talking with each other about our beliefs and how we came to them.
• Understand better how we ourselves think and how others think.
• Be more tolerant of opposing beliefs, especially seemingly radical ones.

Conversation is crucial in achieving this. If we can't talk with each other, we will continue to see each other as enemies and fight.

Conversations across divides may seem fraught with difficulty, but they are possible. There are several preconditions, however, to engaging in what might seem futile, even impossible, conversations.

First and foremost, we need to understand and agree that we have not formed our beliefs via a rational process of evidence evaluation. We need to admit our ignorance on most matters, especially complex social ones, and be prepared to revise our beliefs.

It then follows that seeing each other as stupid or enemies makes no sense and that we need to talk.

These are the preconditions:

1. Be prepared to question and revise our beliefs. Our beliefs rest on shaky ground.
2. Cease seeing each other as enemies. We must not be enemies. If we are enemies, there can be no conversation.
3. Be prepared to talk to people with whom we disagree. We need to recognize that talking is the only way forward. No progress can be made if someone refuses to speak or is violent or threatening.
4. Be willing to trust each other and engage in good faith.   To be sincere, fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the conversation.
5. Be able to show respect for each other and each other's ideas. To recognize that showing respect is quite different from having respect.
6. Be willing to abide by some rules of engagement. To create and use conversation covenants.
7. Be ready to learn how to have impossible conversations.

People are enthusiastic about other people re-thinking their beliefs but are less motivated to re-think their own.

Credit: David Creelman

Conclusion

So what has this all got to do with Knowledge Management?

I hope you can see that although it has only a little to do with today’s KM, it is evident that what I have written is about how we manage our knowledge — not in a business or even an international development sense but at a societal level.

One might call it Societal Knowledge Management.

Today’s KM we know and love will continue to develop and improve, but I would like to see societal KM emerge as a new strand.

I’ll leave you with one last thought — a favorite quotation of mine.

We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies.

Credit: Abraham Lincoln

---

Tags: civilization (21) | future (32) | global society (21) | knowledge delusion (11)

RSS: Blog Feed

Photo Credits: Midjourney (Public Domain)