Going back in time again reveals more perspectives on necessity that are blunt and cut to the bone.

Thales (born 624 BC) the Greek mathematician, astronomer and pre-Socratic philosopher - the guy who discovered the seasons mathematically and divided the year into 365 days - took quite a simple and authoritative position - 'necessity is the strongest of things, for it rules everything'.

Perhaps if he were alive today he may be surprised to find that virtually everything has been financialised and that system is embedded in every facet of life, while at the same time it is disconnected from the physical and ecological necessities that support civilisation. What would he be thinking about that predicament? There is at least one major mathematical problem there.

And lets not forget Napoleon, a military genius and motivator of men. He had perspectives on necessity, forged through his own experiences through conflict and revolution - 'Great men are never cruel without necessity'. Perhaps another way to read this is that cruelty is possible when necessary. But under what conditions these are, is again drawing a line between true necessity and misguided wants. A related article - Are the pitchforks really coming? Remember that it was food shortages that led to the French revolution. 

Today's article cannot, nor is intended to, be a commentary on the specific transition any of us face as individuals or communities. Which is without exception, specific to the place and the people in that place. 

To put things in perspective, modern systems of financial leverage, industrial production, incredibly intricate supply chains, mass consumption and staggering communication systems, have made things orders of magnitude more complex than when Plato, Euripides and Thales pondered 'necessity'. 

Yet, we are all human and our core nature has not changed. Such great thinkers, like all great thinkers through history, right up to modern day, have been humble enough to seek the views of others. Perhaps this is something we need to remember. 

Perhaps we could do a lot more asking and listening about where to draw the line? If we are not human enough to do this, then perhaps we should realise that we most probably are complicit in the most egregious violation of nature possible - to destroy so many other species and the very survival of future generations, because we have overlooked or miscalculated? This is not necessity at play. This is something else; something we need to overcome sensibly as we move forward. 

If we really want to understand what is necessary, or perhaps the only necessities in future, then we ought to respect and appreciate evidence, science, lived experience, historic knowledge and other forms of wisdom:

• Have a sound relationship with ourselves and truth, beyond just hoping.
• Sit with some 7-10 year olds - ask questions and say nothing.
• Engage with women and our Feminine side more carefully.
• Insist on inclusion of diverse perspectives in matters of transition and the future.
• Embrace those diverse perspectives and back them up with rights and responsibilities at the decision table.
• Cast aside the nonsense that we still need to want from the old playbook, and be prepared to settle for less stuff and better relationships with nature and one-another.
• Avoid the silly and idealistic programs and technologies that perpetrate mainstream consciousness, which are not firmly connected to future necessity. 
• In short, shift our mindset and expectations towards only what is essential. Perhaps there is a lot more to learn about where the line can be drawn? 

We dive into what is essential and what is not in with our Real Transition Leaders.