We wholeheartedly agree with the intention of the article by Wilson et al. to create a “science of intentional change” based on a long overdue integration of evolutionary concepts across the natural and social sciences and the humanities. We also applaud the incorporation of Elinor Ostrom's design principles for effective governance of the commons as a key element, emphasizing the importance of cooperative rules, norms, and behaviors for cultural group selection. Here we expand on these ideas by exploring the use of scenario planning as a design tool for creating what we call a sociotecture of intentional change integrated with basic science.

After admirably demonstrating the power and generality of evolution to describe and solve complex problems across a range of scales, the authors conclude in the last sentence: “If improving the human condition is our goal, there is no alternative to becoming wise managers of evolutionary processes” (sect. 4, para. 14). In this comment we focus on how we might become not just wise managers but creative design agents. We agree that evolutionary science, broadly conceived to include both genetic and cultural evolution acting on multiple levels of organization, as the authors propose, can help us understand how cultures change. But deciding what we want to do is a bit outside this purview. It is a uniquely human ability to bring foresight to the evolutionary table. By using the term sociotecture as opposed to science, we wish to emphasize the application of evolutionary theory toward both understanding and crafting (“-tecture”) our social future. We can, in fact, envision and design the future we want and then use our understanding of evolutionary processes to help achieve it (Beddoe et al. Reference Beddoe, Costanza, Farley, Garza, Kent, Kubiszewski, Martinez, McCowen, Murphy, Myers, Ogden, Stapleton and Woodward2009). Doing this involves the conscious development of technical, institutional, and world view alternatives for selection to act upon, rather than waiting for random mutations. Such an approach can radically speed up the change process, as the rapid rise of Homo sapiens attests.

However, like other evolutionary processes, cultural evolution is susceptible to path dependence, multiple equilibria, lock-in, and traps (Arthur Reference Arthur, Anderson, Arrow and Pines1988; Costanza Reference Costanza1987; Costanza et al. Reference Costanza, Wainger, Folke and Mäler1993). Many historical civilizations have collapsed due to their inability to escape these processes (Costanza et al. Reference Costanza, Graumlich, Steffen, Crumley, Dearing, Hibbard, Leemans, Redman and Schimel2007; Diamond Reference Diamond2005; Tainter Reference Tainter1988). For example, the ancient Maya developed elaborate trade networks, elites, and cities that lost resilience to recurring drought cycles and eventually collapsed (Diamond Reference Diamond2005; Heckbert et al., in press).

What the Maya and other collapsed civilizations lacked was the ability to envision radically different world views, institutions, and technologies – new cultural regimes – and the ability to make smooth, intentional transitions in time.

Scenario planning is one method to discuss and develop consensus about what we want. Predicting the future is impossible. But what we can do is lay out a series of plausible scenarios, which help us to better understand future possibilities and the uncertainties surrounding them. Scenario planning differs from forecasting, projecting, and predicting, in that it explores plausible rather than probable futures, and it lays out the choices facing society in whole-systems terms (DTI 2003; Peterson et al. Reference Peterson, Cumming and Carpenter2003).

Scenario planning both fosters variation in symbotypes and also supports selection of the most desirable pathways for action. The inherent tension between heterogeneity and homogeneity captured in the term “Darwin machine” is, of course, as true for the social transmission of stories as it is for other evolutionary processes. The more different stories (symbotypes) we can generate, the greater likelihood that helpful symbotypes will be available for selection. But too much diversity in our stories reduces the potential for “heredity” – the transmission and sharing of a common vision for the future.

Wilson et al. point out that it is hard “to overestimate the degree to which our symbotypes organize our perception and behavior” (sect. 4, para. 9). We see scenarios as particularly potent symbotypes. By using narrative and metaphor to make sense of complexity, scenarios work both cognitively and affectively. They help direct our attention to the future but, more importantly, they help us comprehend and value different possible outcomes. Scenarios support a kind of collective “selection,” a shared story about the future that is more than the sum of individual perceptions. The whole-systems nature of scenario narratives of possible futures (rather than isolated measures of CO₂ or population, for example) perhaps accounts for their greater efficacy in organizing perception and motivating action.

Several scenario-planning exercises have been conducted in recent years at a range of spatial scales and for a range of purposes, including global futures (Costanza Reference Costanza2000; Gallopín Reference Gallopín, Gunderson and Holling2002; Gallopín et al. Reference Gallopín, Hammond, Raskin and Swart1997; MA 2005; Nakićenović & Swart Reference Nakićenović and Swart2000; Raskin et al. Reference Raskin, Banuri, Gallopín, Gutman, Hammond, Kates and Swart2002), regional futures (Bohensky et al. Reference Bohensky, Butler, Costanza, Bohnet, Delisle, Fabricius, Gooch, Kubiszewski, Lukacs, Pert and Wolanski2011; European Environmental Agency 2009), corporate strategy (Shell International 2003; Wack Reference Wack1985), political transition (Kahane Reference Kahane1992; Reference Kahane2004), and community-based natural resource management (Evans et al. Reference Evans, Velarde, Prieto, Rao, Sertzen, Dávila, Cronkleton, de Jong, Bennett and Zurek2006; Wollenberg et al. Reference Wollenberg, Edmunds and Buck2000).

Although multiple futures are possible and plausible, the goal of a sociotecture of intentional change would be to aid the design of futures that are both sustainable and desirable, recognizing evolutionary dynamics. The goal of a science of intentional change is to bring to bear an integrated understanding of cultural and biological evolution to allow us to accelerate evolution in positive directions.

One compelling example of sociotecture is the transition in South Africa after apartheid. Adam Kahane led a scenario-planning workshop that involved leaders from both the white and black political parties (Kahane Reference Kahane1992; Reference Kahane2004). He convinced them to go beyond recriminations and to create together four possible future scenarios for the country, only one of which – the “flight of the flamingos” – envisioned a shared country with everyone rising together with truth and reconciliation. Its adoption allowed a relatively rapid and smooth transition. Not perfect, but it could have been much slower and more difficult had this important consensus about a vision for the country not been reached. Scenario planning can thus act as a critical catalyst for making change faster and easier.

So, we need not only a science of intentional change, but also a sociotecture integrated with it to develop and test alternative models and visions of the world we want and to help us get there.