Dialogue Recording & Sythesis. Pre-emptive Planetary Peace Strikes: Reframing security

Overview

This dialogue convened around a provocative and generative idea: “Pre-emptive Peace Strikes”—a term that flips the traditional concept of peacebuilding from reaction to anticipation, from diplomacy after crisis to regeneration before collapse. PPPS seeks to take innovative approaches to addressing global conflict through systemic preventive measures rather than reactive responses. Featuring systems thinker Indy Johar, the conversation explored planetary fragility, entangled security, and the urgent need to co-create regenerative institutions that can anticipate and avert systemic catastrophe.

Watch the recording of this conversation here.

Dark Matter Labs: Working on System Problems

Indy Johar explained that Dark Matter Labs emerged from his background in architecture and a realisation that many societal challenges weren’t being addressed at their root:

“What we started to realise was that we often solve the problem that’s visible, not the system problem, the Dark Matter problem that sits underneath those things… So, it pains me that whenever you gave an architect a project to address homelessness, to architects, they would build mobile homes on wheels and say, this was the solution of a tent on wheels. And I was like, that is not the solution.”

Founded around 2015, Dark Matter Labs focuses on “large-scale common goods problems” – from glacier systems to river basins to urban tree canopies – recognising that these systems create value that is often privatised while the systems themselves deteriorate.

Core Concepts & Framing

Planetary Entanglement and Degenerative Volatility

The concept of pre-emptive peace strikes emerged from Dark Matter Labs’ work examining glacier systems, particularly in the Himalayas. Johar introduced the term “degenerative volatility” to describe ecosystems that are simultaneously destabilising and accelerating in volatility:

“We’re not just facing spikes in volatility. The baseline is falling. That’s degenerative volatility—when everything is crumbling while also becoming more unstable.”

In regions like the Himalayas, where multiple nuclear powers share critical water resources, this volatility creates conditions for potential catastrophic conflict:

“In those environments, 3.5 billion people rely on the watershed of those glacier systems. In the Himalayas, it is the intersection of at least three nuclear powers.”

Game theory scenarios suggest these situations could lead to “mutually assured destruction” as nations face existential water shortages. These ecosystems underpin the lives of billions and exist at the confluence of geopolitical fault lines. Glaciers, soil, and water systems are not just environmental issues—they are planetary infrastructure. Their collapse could lead to cascading violence, resource wars, and mutually assured destruction.

Security Reframed: From Bounded to Entangled

A crucial aspect of this approach involves reconceptualising security itself. Traditional, bounded national security frameworks are obsolete. Johar urged a shift to “entangled security,” where survival is rooted in mutual thriving rather than domination or insulation:

“I think what I’m seeing is that there is what I call the 19th century idea of security, which is the bounded idea of security. UK can be secure in its boundary. The reality is, it’s not true. The UK cannot be secured in this boundary because if we lose the Amazon, we’re all dead. We’re starting to realise the security is both a boundary problem, a systems problem and an entanglement problem.”

This reframing brings peacebuilding into the core of global strategy and governance—not as a humanitarian afterthought, but as a security imperative. It challenges what Johar calls “the politics of 19th century freedoms” that fails to recognise our biophysical entanglement at a planetary level.

“The more we recognise from the security landscape that this is a non-decouplable event, you start to create a different theory of politics, and also a different theory of alliances rooted in mutual security, as opposed to power over, but as in power with.”

Johar used the example of the “New Zealand strategy for wealth” to illustrate the fallacy of isolated security. The thought that: “I can, I will build a little bunker in New Zealand, and I’ll go and live there, and that will be my safety system… Great New Zealand in COVID did not have penicillin, did not have pharmaceuticals, did not have paracetamol because they had no production capability… So, the level of planetary entanglement means that actually, yes, you can escape in New Zealand, but without antibiotics.” The reality of entangled security means we must rethink wealth management itself:

“Once you start to realise that systemically you are coupled, your theory of wealth cannot be about separationism, but has to move to managing systemic risk as a key part of wealth management.”

What is a Pre-emptive Peace Strike?

Indy Johar proposed a radical model: interventions made before crisis to prevent cascading systemic risks. These include:

• Transnational treaties to protect shared ecological systems
• Regenerative economic institutions (e.g., development banks)
• Infrastructure to stabilise climate-sensitive zones (like glacial watersheds)
• Multilateral governance models beyond the state-centric UN

“You don’t need a water crisis to act. The perception of risk is itself a trigger.”

These peace strikes are not militarised but regenerative, aiming to rebuild the commons and stabilise vital systems before they collapse.

Why We Need Pre-emptive Peace Strikes Now

The urgency for this approach stems from several converging factors:

1. Accelerating Ecological Collapse and Rising Conflicts

The degradation of planetary systems is already triggering resource competition, migration pressures, and state fragility. As Johar explains, once conflict cascades begin, they become self-reinforcing:

“Once we start along a cascading theory of war, there is no pathway for us to stop that because of bioweapons, nuclear weapons, dirty nukes, information systems, bio contagion, all of that stuff… it becomes a self-terminating path.”

2. Current Institutions are Failing to Respond

Traditional peace-building approaches are reactive rather than preventive, typically responding after violence has already erupted. Meanwhile, existing global governance structures remain rooted in nation-state frameworks ill-suited to planetary challenges.

3. Mutual Self-Interest is Becoming Apparent

The recognition that no nation can secure itself in isolation is growing. This creates a window of opportunity:

“Rooting this through a lens of security and entangled security is actually bridging a landscape for the left and right to come together, because it actually roots it in existential survival.”

4. Practical Solutions are Emerging

Approaches to regenerative ecosystem management, transnational governance, and alternative economic models are maturing, offering practical pathways for implementation:

“These transnational locations are a great location for building new planetary relationships and new planetary institutions. I think the design of these institutions is going to be really critical.”

Challenges Acknowledged

1. Realpolitik & Imagination Gaps

Barry Knight raised a sobering point: real-world politics often lacks the imagination and integrity needed for such systemic foresight.

“In diplomacy, people package their self-interest as altruism.” – Barry Knight

2. Institutional Inertia and Distrust

Participants noted how existing global governance structures are failing. New institutions must be designed, but “governance phobia” among innovators remains an obstacle.

“We need to build institutions that do not yet exist—ones that can manage many-to-many agreements and transnational commons.” – Indy Johar

Participant Insights & Expansions

Andrew Kelly (Australia): Shift the Measure of Success – From Accumulation to Connection

Perspective: With decades of experience in philanthropy and environmental research, Andrew offered a bracing critique of philanthropy’s limitations and complicity and a call to redefine what success looks like as a species. Drawing from Antarctic science and philanthropy experience, Kelly argued that existential change will come from redefining human success and meaning—not data.

“We need to redefine what it means to succeed: not by how much you took, but by how little you used.”

Key Themes:

• Philanthropy is often complicit in the very systems it tries to fix; it can seed change but not lead it.
• The planet doesn’t need saving—we do. It will persist; our survival depends on transforming meaning and values.
• We already have enough science. What’s needed is personal and cultural transformation.

Core Message: We must move from a mindset of dominance to one of humility. Until we find meaning in connection, not consumption, we cannot regenerate.

---

Deirdre Williams (Tobago): Hold the Complexity Without Fragmentation

Perspective: Deirdre raised a nuanced challenge about how to translate visionary frameworks into grounded, intersectional action that bridged systemic silos. She asked how to engage the multiplicity of issues—soil, food, water, conflict—without siloing them or becoming overwhelmed.

““If we take a systems approach, how do we avoid splintering by issue and instead build bridges across contexts? We need to tackle it in a deeply intersectional way.”

Key Themes:

• Vulnerability comes in many forms: not just water, but food, soil, and geopolitics.
• The bridge from current fragmentation to a thriving future must be collective and context-aware.
• Philanthropy too often skips the hard part—understanding the local dynamics before prescribing solutions.

Core Message: The path forward must honour complexity without paralysis. Intersectionality isn’t a buzzword—it’s a design necessity.

---

Samantha Waki (Kenya): Don’t Ignore the Inconvenient Truths

Perspective: Samantha brought a grounded, real-world scepticism to the conversation. She emphasised the gap between visionary frameworks and lived experience—especially in contexts like Kenya, where power asymmetries, resource inequality and bad-faith actors remain pervasive.

“Are we building a utopian model for collaboration without paying attention to the reasons why this isn’t happening?” She highlighted the power dynamics that any solution must address “There are bad actors. And in as much as we are getting this awakening and we are all excited and we want to do work together, there are bad actors, and they do have access to considerable resources, and they have considerable ability to mobilise for their agendas, and this is why war happens. And so, does our vision account for this? And are we designing without looking at these inconvenient truths?”

Key Themes:

• Post-COVID, inequality became glaring—even among those within the same society.
• Entanglement is real, but it plays out unevenly. Many who have power mobilise for self-interest, not mutual good.
• The vision must confront the presence of malignant actors and resource asymmetries head-on.

Core Message: Without acknowledging power, bad actors, and structural injustice, we risk designing for a world that doesn’t exist.

---

Louis Klein (Germany): Collective Agency Begins with Small, Courageous Steps

Perspective: Louis provided a powerful systems-thinking lens, advocating for civic diplomacy and regenerative civil society. Drawing on his experience with the Middle East Treaty Organisation at the UN, he emphasised the untapped potential of connecting what already exists.

“Don’t fall into the trap of thinking we must start from scratch. Reach out. Facilitate connections. Grow from lived experience.”

Key Themes:

• We already have actors, networks, and efforts doing peace work. What we need is facilitation, not duplication.
• Civic diplomacy and community-based peace infrastructure are under-leveraged.
• Agency begins by giving ourselves and others permission to connect.

Core Message: We are not short on capacity—we are short on connection. Peace grows from permission and presence, not perfection.

---

Chandrika Sahai (India): Grassroots Peacebuilding is Already Doing Pre-emptive Work

Perspective: As a convenor of Foundations for Peace, Chandrika represents those working at the grassroots, often in volatile, high-conflict areas. She translated the high-level theory of pre-emptive peace into the language of social cohesion and moral imagination.

“Pre-emptive strikes for peace, for us, means building social cohesion. It’s imagining a future with our enemies. Can you imagine a future with your enemies? That’s a pre-emptive strike too.”

Key Themes:

• Peace is being built every day by local actors in fragile contexts—not with treaties, but with relationships.
• Progressive actors often emphasise the harm caused by the other side. Grassroots peacebuilders often emphasise shared humanity and entanglement.
• The work is not abstract—it’s about bridging moral divides in real communities.

Core Message: Pre-emptive peace already exists at the grassroots. It looks like courage, empathy, and human connection across lines of conflict.

---

Godelieve Van Heteren: Urgency, Tipping Points, Governance as a Cultivation Space

Godelieve’s reflections brought a deeply integrative and institutional lens to the conversation. Her remarks underscored both the danger and opportunity of our historical moment, describing it as a “moment of chaos” that could either “fall massively back or fall forward.” She warned against nostalgia for outdated systems while urging the creation of “cultivation grounds” where the new can take root.

“We need to create the spaces for the new governance. New governance is all these new forms of connection and thinking about power relations.” – Godelieve Van Heteren

She emphasised that existing political and institutional infrastructures are exhausted, often unable to accommodate the imaginative and systemic thinking that’s now required. Yet she also observed green shoots: across science, civil society, and even within fragmented institutional spaces, there is a rising tide of people “lost for words” and ready for something different.

Godelieve’s core message:
Don’t underestimate the power of connective spaces like this one.
We need to choose: are we allies of the old regime—or cultivators of the new?

---

Hanna Stähle: Against Magic Bullets – Real Work, Real Roles, and Futures Thinking

Hanna, speaking from her work in philanthropy and systems foresight, emphasised the absence of “magic wands.” Her contribution stood out for its clarity in naming the hard, multi-layered work ahead—and the distinct roles we each play.

“People are waiting for a magic wand that will redesign the system. But it doesn’t exist. There are different energies needed, and a lot of work to be done.” – Hanna Stähle

Hanna suggested three actionable insights:

• We must accept plural responses: A myriad of grassroots initiatives already exist. The role now is to link them, learn from them, and give them visibility and support.
• Roles must align with system positions: Some people are visionaries (like Indy), some are connectors, others are funders or grassroots doers. No one actor will deliver change alone.
• Futures thinking matters: We need longer-term visions to escape reactive cycles and reclaim agency over the future.

Her call to action was both sobering and encouraging:

Recognise that agency is distributed.
Reframe philanthropy not as saviourism, but as resourcing and convening power.
Build from what’s already happening—and don’t wait for perfect coordination.

---

Mike Freedman: Internal and External Connection

Perspective: Mike Freedman highlighted practical challenges in coordination while also emphasising the importance of addressing inner disconnection:

“We are disconnected from our environment, we’re disconnected from each other, and we’re disconnected from ourselves… The biggest cause of 28- to 45-year-old kids dying in the States? Its suicide. Stress is a huge issue. We’re disconnected from each other. We’re fighting each other. So how are we going to get all together?” I love the idea of these pre-emptive strikes for peace, but there’s no peace within us.”

Meta-Layer: Inner and Outer Transformation

Several participants connected inner peace to planetary peace saying “If we can’t resolve conflict within ourselves, we’ll project it onto the world. We must change the outer systems—but that will change us, too.”

Indy responded to this theme in his conclusion:

“I think what’s right is the inner work is really vital, but also we can change the inner by changing the outer. These are reciprocal relationships, and I think we’re going to have to now do the outer.”

---

Emerging Implementation Pathways & Practical Next Steps

Throughout the dialogue, participants outlined several concrete implementation approaches to make Pre-emptive Peace Strikes a reality. These pathways represent complementary routes that could be pursued simultaneously:

1. Identify and Secure Critical Sensitive Ecological-Political Planetary Systems

The most urgent focus would be on vulnerable ecological-political zones where resource degradation intersects with geopolitical tensions:

• Glacier Systems: Particularly in the Himalayas, where multiple nuclear powers share water resources
• Watersheds & River Basins: Creating transnational governance for shared waterways
• Soil Systems: Addressing degradation in regions like Africa where 30% of soil is already compromised
• Antarctic Systems: Protecting ice sheets and the Southern Ocean’s climate regulation capacity

2. Develop New Governance Architectures

These would bridge the gap between nation-state frameworks and the reality of planetary entanglement:

• Transnational Development Banks: Focused specifically on regenerating ecological commons
• Security-Based Multi-Stakeholder Frameworks: Bringing together security institutions, civil society, scientists, and communities
• “Many-to-Many Agreement Spaces”: Creating frameworks that allow multiple parties to work together without traditional hierarchies
• A Parallel Security Council: Focused explicitly on planetary systems security
• New Assemblies: Bridge diplomacy, climate science, security, and civil society in formal new governance structures
• “I think current major powers seem to perceive the world as more resilient than many other people think it is. So, it believes it can offload a whole bunch of risks at a planetary scale with low level of feedback… I expect that the major powers to come together parallelly, to create a parallel Security Council, a different format, and then talk about a world security bank.” — Indy Johar

3. Deploy Regenerative Finance and Economics

New economic mechanisms are needed to fund systemic stability and regeneration:

• World Security Bank: Financing infrastructure for preserving systemic security
• Transnational Conservation Banks: Managing shared ecological assets across borders
• Regenerative Investment Frameworks: Creating financial incentives for system stabilisation
• Alternative Metrics: Shifting success metrics from extraction to regeneration
• Philanthropic and Cloud-Based Investments: Use targeted philanthropic funding and distributed investment models to pilot experimental approaches before scaling

“Security economics is fundamentally different from traditional market, fixed economic theory, and thereby the construction of peace has a different economic value into that chain. “These institutions can’t just conserve. They must actively regenerate. This is dynamic stabilisation.” – Indy Johar

4. Build from Existing Peace Infrastructure

Rather than starting from scratch, participants emphasised building on and connecting existing efforts:

• Mapping Local Peace Initiatives: Identifying and connecting grassroots efforts already doing pre-emptive work
• Civic Diplomacy: Leveraging non-state diplomatic channels like the Middle East Treaty Organisation
• Community Philanthropy: Utilising foundations and grassroots funding networks already building social cohesion
• Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Incorporating traditional ecological knowledge and governance practices

5. Create Systemic Foresight Capabilities

To anticipate and prevent cascading failures, new collective intelligence systems are needed:

• Early Warning Systems: For ecological and social tipping points
• Multi-Stakeholder Sense-Making: Platforms to build shared understanding of systemic risks
• Collective Decision-Making Tools: Methods for societies to make complex, long-term decisions
• Futures Thinking: Building capacity to imagine and create alternative futures

“One of the fundamental problems that we face is our capacity of societies to make decisions… to sense make and inform is fundamentally not fit for purpose, to be able to actually operate in the landscape of prevention, prevention of future harm.” — Indy Johar

6. Develop Public Engagement and Educational Resources

Creating broader understanding and participation is essential for the social adoption of these new approaches:

• Accessible Guides: Create straightforward educational materials that explain complex systemic risks and responses
• Narrative Tools: Develop compelling stories and frameworks that help diverse audiences understand entangled security
• Preventive Frameworks: Design communication approaches that invite participation without triggering panic or reactivity
• Local Action Frameworks: Provide clear pathways for communities to engage in preventive peace work

What’s Next? — Proposals from the Group

Throughout the conversation, the need to move from dialogue to structured action surfaced repeatedly. Several “next step” ideas were proposed explicitly or implicitly, including:

1. Map Existing Initiatives

Louis Klein suggested, “reach out to each other to facilitate the connections between all those who are in the fields.” Concrete steps include:

• Create a shared database of existing transnational peace and ecological governance initiatives
• Form thematic working groups based on the key implementation pathways
• Establish regular coordination calls across working groups
• Develop a community of practice around Pre-emptive Peace Strikes

2. Develop an Accessible Narrative Framework Document

Gerry Salole pointed out: “People will soon surge for answers. Do we have enough guides, simple materials, for them to come on board?” Participants noted the need to create guides, compelling stories, and accessible frameworks to help people understand:

• Why entangled security matters
• What systemic risk really is
• What they can do locally, regionally, globally
• Draft potential governance blueprints that could be adapted to different contexts
• Prepare case studies of existing efforts that embody these principles

3. Identify Experimental Locations, Real World Prototypes, Peace Strikes in Specific Geographies

Hanna Stähle’s asked: “Are there places/countries/regions that would be open to experimentation? To act as labs of the new institutions and approaches we would need?” and suggested “We should identify places open to experimentation—like the Amazon, the Himalayas, the Middle East, or even Southern Africa—where new institutional prototypes could be tested”

These would be applied interventions in areas of systemic vulnerability (glacier systems, soil degradation, watershed regions), forming transnational regenerative institutions focused on ecological restoration, peacebuilding and social cohesion, local governance innovation, shared infrastructure (e.g. conservation banks). Next steps may include creating a lightweight prototype design for a first Pre-emptive Peace Strike and securing seed funding for initial explorations.

4. Continue the Conversation — With Structure and Momentum

Barry Knight suggested that the group reconvene to continue exploring implementation, stating: “We’ve started something. There’s a coherence to this discussion. We need to come back to it.”

Final Reflection

Indy Johar’s vision of pre-emptive planetary peace strikes challenges us to anticipate collapse and act from collective foresight—not wait for the headlines. The dialogue revealed alignment across disciplines—from Antarctic science to African community peacebuilding, from transnational finance to inner transformation.

The group reflected a rare convergence of vision, humility, and readiness. The concept of “pre-emptive peace strikes” is not merely rhetorical—it’s a design challenge, a governance provocation, and an ethical imperative to build new institutions, now, wherever we can.

There is no single route. But there are many pathways. And they begin here, with collective imagination and grounded experimentation.

Indy Johar is an architect, co-founder of 00 (project00.cc) and Dark Matter. He has co-founded multiple social ventures from Impact Hub Westminster to Impact Hub Birmingham. He has also co-led research projects such as The Compendium for the Civic Economy, whilst supporting several 00 explorations/experiments including the wikihouse.cc, opendesk.cc. Indy is a non-executive director of WikiHouse Foundation & Bloxhub. Indy was a Good Growth Commissioner for the RSA, RIBA Trustee and Advisor to Mayor of London on Good Growth, The Liverpool City Region Land Commissioner, The State of New Jersey – The Future of Work Task Force – amongst others. Most recently he founded Dark Matter – a field laboratory focused on building the institutional infrastructures for radical civic societies, cities, regions and towns. Dark Matter works with institutions around the world, from UNDP (Global), Climate Kic, McConnell (Canada), to the Scottish Gove to Bloxhub (Copenhagen) He has taught at various institutions from the University of Bath, TU-Berlin; Architectural Association, University College London, Princeton, Harvard, MIT and New School. Watch his keynote at the Ashoka 2022 conference here Watch his keynote on wild home at RMIT here See his most recent signal spotting report here

Barry Knight is a statistician and social scientist who has
spent many years working in international development,
researching the field, advising philanthropies and
governments, while encouraging civil society activism.
Currently, he writes for Rethinking Poverty and advises
the Global Fund for Community Foundations.