Conceptual analysis reveals climate change as a feedback crisis in human systems, emphasizing climate governance and resonance in the Earth system.
Climate change is commonly approached as an environmental technical problem, centered on emissions metrics, carbon reduction targets, and net-zero pathways. However, this approach increasingly reveals its limitations as global efforts repeatedly fail to reverse the growing instability of the planetary system. This paper proposes an alternative perspective: climate change is not the root cause, but a symptom of a deeper systemic crisis, reflecting a breakdown in the feedback, resonance, and self-balancing capacities of human civilization. Drawing on the Symbiotic Doctrine, the paper analyzes climate change as a feedback crisis, in which delayed and distorted signals cause human decisions to rely continuously on outdated information, pushing the Earth system beyond its self-regulatory thresholds. At the same time, it highlights the failure of resonance between the short-term operational rhythms of economic and political systems and the long-term adjustment rhythms of planetary ecosystems, leading to growth illusions and misdirected technological solutions. On this basis, the paper critiques net-zero thinking as a static conception of balance, arguing that planetary equilibrium cannot be achieved through carbon accounting targets, but through the preservation of a living system’s capacity for dynamic balance. Rather than proposing specific policies, the paper introduces a symbiotic climate governance framework grounded in three pillars—feedback, resonance, and equilibrium—and opens a conceptual role for artificial intelligence as a reflective and early-warning instrument at the planetary scale. Ultimately, the paper argues that climate change does not question the limits of human technology, but serves as a test of the maturity of a civilization compelled to live with the planetary system on which it depends.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Văn Lữ Phạm (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: