This essay nails the core anxiety of our age: the sense that the world needs saving, and no one’s qualified to do it. But maybe that framing is the problem. From a heliogenetic lens, the world doesn’t need saviors. It needs systems that no longer require saving.
The desire to "fix everything" often mirrors the same mindset that broke it—centralized control, heroic individualism, and the fantasy of mastering complexity from the top down. But regeneration doesn’t start with expertise. It starts with reconnection—to soil, to slowness, to the sun.
No one is qualified to save the world.
But everyone is qualified to restore a piece of it—especially if we act from within systems designed not for dominance, but for coherence.
So the question isn’t “who will save us?”
It’s “how do we stop building things that need saving?”
I love this: "No one is qualified to save the world. But everyone is qualified to restore a piece of it."
But I disagree with this concept: "How do we stop building things that need saving?" Because many of the things we build DO fix or save something. That doesn't mean we won't always need to fix something else as we go.
In other words: I don't think there's a past we should have just stuck to, without building something that would try to make it better. It's not the building that is the problem, it's just that even when we make things better, there will always be something we could make better still.
Yes — "everyone is qualified to restore a piece of it" aligns beautifully with the deep ecological self. We are not separate from the world; our healing and its healing are intertwined.
As for the question of building: I would say, let us not fear building, but let us build with ecological wisdom. The issue is not building, but building from a shallow place — from ego, not from care. When we build with awareness of the total field of life, we are not disrupting harmony, we are participating in it.
There is no golden past to return to, but there is a deeper present we can remember — one of simplicity, richness, and relationship. So yes, continue building — but do so as a gardener, not an engineer of control.
This is really intriguing. One thing I'll point out is that in the Scandinavian countries Democratic Socialism has resulted in greater security and prosperity for everyone. The government has more control but the citizens are also more educated and have more control over their government. The problem with having any one person in charge is that it denies power and responsibilities both to the majority of people, ergo the majority of people lose the ability to better their lives. A truly enlightened billionaire wouldn't invent a machine to fix everything. They would create an organization that harnessed everyone's strength to create a solution to a problem, and would distribute the profits equitably, thereby not becoming a billionaire. Frankly, having that much wealth while others suffer is a sign of moral failing on its own. If you "help" others, but also create inequality in the process, it's not really help then...I think of Bezos and Amazon. I've benefited from Amazon in ways that are obvious, but I've been harmed by their control over our government in ways that are less obvious. Would I want Bezos to save the world? No. He would save it only to enslave it. I want someone to create an alternative to Amazon that shares profits and and also pays it's fair share of taxes.
I'm serializing my own candidate for world savior, in a sense, in my literary thriller novel "Most Revolutionary" at my Lib Lit substack: https://fictiongutted.substack.com/ Maybe you would be interested in checking it out because even though the revolutionary hero is no Utopian, she's probably closer to that line of thought than she might think given all she's willing to put on the line, as regular people not uncommonly do, to create a bit of the ideal.
This piece reminds me of a market-related conundrum that I often write about; making money off of companies that are "bad."
Take Altria (formerly Philip Morris) for example. Their stock has been one of the best performers over the past 30 years, yet many investors won't buy it because they make cigarettes.
People who are big into ESG often take the same tact, only investing in companies considered "green," and thus eliminating many of the biggest winners from consideration in their portfolios.
I've never understood this approach. I mean, if not buying your 200 or 500 shares would materially effect these companies or change the way they do business, then I could see the argument.
But of course it won't.
And that's why I think a lot of the decisions you see people make these days aren't really motivated by ethics, or values, or a moral framework as much as a desire to be performative. To say, "look at me, look how great I am."
Always the cynical pragmatist, I suggest that if these people really believe in the causes they say they do, why not use these "bad" companies to do good? Invest in Altria, then take your profits and donate them to a cancer charity. Make a ton of money off Exxon, then give the funds to The Ocean Conservancy.
I mean, not only will you be doing actual good, but you'll get a tax write-off as well :)
Oh that's a very interesting take. I don't know if I could fully get onboard with investing in Exxon, but I do love the idea of using the profits to reinvest in good!
Here in the UK we are a broken society & I despair for the election next week will do nothing to solve our problems. The rich landowners & business men still run our world and the politicians are just puppets.
Mass media & poor schools are making sure that ordinary people don’t have a clue about anything & so nothing will get better.❤️🩹
The discussion here remind me so much of Elon Musk.
He was once a wacky dude with a crazy idea of starting an electric car/solar company that would accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. He was a “left wing” business leader who spoke of a moral obligation to save the planet. More than any single individual, he succeeded, most automakers joining in and solar energy/battery storage is rapidly growing.
Yet, he also became a victim of his own success, for as the value of his company rose, he became richer. So rich, in fact, that the same people who initially celebrated his success came to hate him.
Make no mistake, Elon Musks move to the “right” is also very much a reaction to how he was treated by the “left,” the moment he became a dreaded “billionaire.”
There's a film slated for 2025, starring Emma Stone, which takes a more playful sci-fi approach to some of the first book's themes: "Based on the South Korean sci-fi comedy Save the Green Planet!, Bugonia centres on two conspiracy-obsessed men who decide to kidnap the powerful CEO of a major company, believing she is an alien sent from outer space to destroy planet Earth." https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a61416843/emma-stones-sci-fi-remake-release-date/
Really cool essay, Elle. Though I have my (strident) criticisms of it as a novel, Kim Stanley Robinson's "Ministry of the Future" does a great job of depicting a coordinated, cooperative, global response to an ailing Earth. In his view, we don't need saviours. We need each other. The elites, especially the corporations and entrepreneurs who reflexively block progress in the service of endless wealth accrual, have to be chastened. And the world's voiceless, who number in the billions, must be permitted the self-determination to join what will almost certainly be the most harrowing and spectacular rescue mission in our planet's history. It's hard to imagine this coming to be. But as the great Ursula Le Guin said in her National Book Awards speech, "Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art." Thanks for shining a light!
When it’s up to the elite and powerful to save the world, will they actually recognize their solidarity and act on it? Or tell everyone else to eat cake?
For me, the problem with tales such as these are that they want to project a dystopia where the earth is unlivable, but somehow-in these tales saviors-humanity survives. Without sunlight, there would be no recognizable life on earth, we would all go extinct. It's what killed off the dinosaurs. Leaving aside how these mountain retreats are actually built and how they function, i.e. water, waste, power, space, O2, etc, (and the people and equipment and time to do it) the idea that saviors exist, and will have the means, desire, and intellect to make it happen is highly unlikely outside of what we would consider a primitive existence where the complexities of modern life no longer exist.
That said, stories like these are about the human condition and what, given the situation, the writer sees as ways forward or backward for people, or whether it's even possible to survive. The altruistic never run the show and those that do fall to grandiosity or hubris or fate, which is never kind.
I personally don't see any saviors coming from technology, though I do see how we, through technology, create utopia (though not how we envision it) and ceed control to beings no controlled by emotion who act by design and what's best for the whole, not the individual.
I wish you'd read what I put out, which is the only place you'd find any dealing with what we-the-people could do now to make the massive shift we need that would end run around what money and power does. You reply saying you have to check out things I comment with, but you never come back to say you've done that. Maybe now for NOW WHAT? https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/about????
Yes of read several of your posts to that end, but I’m afraid I don’t think quite as esoterically. I believe our evolution in consciousness happens as a result of our inherent humanism, that we continually want to eradicate human suffering and have been steadily doing that over centuries. It’s more of an action we are constantly taking than any kind of awakening we are experiencing. At least from my perspective!
Evolution's arrow is toward progress, but waiting for individual wake-ups to tip mass consciousness is a dangerous way to go. Speeding up that natural process, tlo where we work together as one humanity, could be what saves us from a cataclysmic consequence.
Maybe it's because I'm not spiritual in anyway, but I struggle to understand what the call to action is. Like what is the thing that's going to turn ""dominators of the earth" to "caretakers"? hat could possibly cause a "mass wake-up?" I don't think humans are just going to magically start behaving better toward other humans and the planet we live on. Certainly scientific discovery reshaped our understanding of the universe and that changed the way we act toward religion and the planet, but is there something you imagine that will happen now to do that again? Because from reading your work it seems like that shift is more spiritual than tangible?
Have you watched Brian Swimme videos? He is beloved by those who understand, and he says the scientific position we are in now, when it gets interpreted as to its meaning and significance, will institute a bigger change in humanity’s consciousness than from what Copernicus contributed. As we understand the cosmos differently, we understand ourselves differently. Before Hubble we thought we were the only galaxy and we know now there are 2 trillion. The story we subscribe to, essential being sinners, has not been rewritten since that discovery. What I linked you to was about the significance of a creation story – how it affects the gestalt of how a civilization operates.
You don’t need to be spiritual for this, just scientific. But a beauty of that is that when you delve into the science you find the spirit. There are organizations devoted to that merger.
But, gently and with love, we don't have to invent better protein sources. We already have them. All plant foods have all the essential amino acids in varying amounts. Legumes and whole grains provide plenty of protein. "Plants have protein." We need T-shirts made.
Really need more education on this as I personally struggle to eat enough protein, as I get bored with meat, but then can’t figure out what else has enough protein besides like protein powder…
Same, I'm constantly battling iron deficiency and anemia. I don't like meat and I'm allergic to beans, it's a problem! Personally I would love it if we could somehow fortify pasta and rice to be protein rich!
This is brilliant. This part especially. "The problem with our saviors has always been a problem with ourselves. We drive gas-powered cars and take gas-powered airplanes and eat meat that takes up most of the habitable land, and buy things that fill up our landfills. We hate the rich, but only because they are us at scale—bigger cars, private airplanes, more lavish feasts, more stuff. We imagine we wouldn’t do the same if we were richer, but we would. We do."
This essay nails the core anxiety of our age: the sense that the world needs saving, and no one’s qualified to do it. But maybe that framing is the problem. From a heliogenetic lens, the world doesn’t need saviors. It needs systems that no longer require saving.
The desire to "fix everything" often mirrors the same mindset that broke it—centralized control, heroic individualism, and the fantasy of mastering complexity from the top down. But regeneration doesn’t start with expertise. It starts with reconnection—to soil, to slowness, to the sun.
No one is qualified to save the world.
But everyone is qualified to restore a piece of it—especially if we act from within systems designed not for dominance, but for coherence.
So the question isn’t “who will save us?”
It’s “how do we stop building things that need saving?”
I love this: "No one is qualified to save the world. But everyone is qualified to restore a piece of it."
But I disagree with this concept: "How do we stop building things that need saving?" Because many of the things we build DO fix or save something. That doesn't mean we won't always need to fix something else as we go.
In other words: I don't think there's a past we should have just stuck to, without building something that would try to make it better. It's not the building that is the problem, it's just that even when we make things better, there will always be something we could make better still.
Yes — "everyone is qualified to restore a piece of it" aligns beautifully with the deep ecological self. We are not separate from the world; our healing and its healing are intertwined.
As for the question of building: I would say, let us not fear building, but let us build with ecological wisdom. The issue is not building, but building from a shallow place — from ego, not from care. When we build with awareness of the total field of life, we are not disrupting harmony, we are participating in it.
There is no golden past to return to, but there is a deeper present we can remember — one of simplicity, richness, and relationship. So yes, continue building — but do so as a gardener, not an engineer of control.
In response to all this I'll just keep pointing to the Scandinavian countries. They seem to have it figured out pretty well. Let's do what they do.
This is really intriguing. One thing I'll point out is that in the Scandinavian countries Democratic Socialism has resulted in greater security and prosperity for everyone. The government has more control but the citizens are also more educated and have more control over their government. The problem with having any one person in charge is that it denies power and responsibilities both to the majority of people, ergo the majority of people lose the ability to better their lives. A truly enlightened billionaire wouldn't invent a machine to fix everything. They would create an organization that harnessed everyone's strength to create a solution to a problem, and would distribute the profits equitably, thereby not becoming a billionaire. Frankly, having that much wealth while others suffer is a sign of moral failing on its own. If you "help" others, but also create inequality in the process, it's not really help then...I think of Bezos and Amazon. I've benefited from Amazon in ways that are obvious, but I've been harmed by their control over our government in ways that are less obvious. Would I want Bezos to save the world? No. He would save it only to enslave it. I want someone to create an alternative to Amazon that shares profits and and also pays it's fair share of taxes.
All is necessary, I suppose.
Though it's said the Devil comes in disguise.
I'm serializing my own candidate for world savior, in a sense, in my literary thriller novel "Most Revolutionary" at my Lib Lit substack: https://fictiongutted.substack.com/ Maybe you would be interested in checking it out because even though the revolutionary hero is no Utopian, she's probably closer to that line of thought than she might think given all she's willing to put on the line, as regular people not uncommonly do, to create a bit of the ideal.
This piece reminds me of a market-related conundrum that I often write about; making money off of companies that are "bad."
Take Altria (formerly Philip Morris) for example. Their stock has been one of the best performers over the past 30 years, yet many investors won't buy it because they make cigarettes.
People who are big into ESG often take the same tact, only investing in companies considered "green," and thus eliminating many of the biggest winners from consideration in their portfolios.
I've never understood this approach. I mean, if not buying your 200 or 500 shares would materially effect these companies or change the way they do business, then I could see the argument.
But of course it won't.
And that's why I think a lot of the decisions you see people make these days aren't really motivated by ethics, or values, or a moral framework as much as a desire to be performative. To say, "look at me, look how great I am."
Always the cynical pragmatist, I suggest that if these people really believe in the causes they say they do, why not use these "bad" companies to do good? Invest in Altria, then take your profits and donate them to a cancer charity. Make a ton of money off Exxon, then give the funds to The Ocean Conservancy.
I mean, not only will you be doing actual good, but you'll get a tax write-off as well :)
Oh that's a very interesting take. I don't know if I could fully get onboard with investing in Exxon, but I do love the idea of using the profits to reinvest in good!
Here in the UK we are a broken society & I despair for the election next week will do nothing to solve our problems. The rich landowners & business men still run our world and the politicians are just puppets.
Mass media & poor schools are making sure that ordinary people don’t have a clue about anything & so nothing will get better.❤️🩹
The discussion here remind me so much of Elon Musk.
He was once a wacky dude with a crazy idea of starting an electric car/solar company that would accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. He was a “left wing” business leader who spoke of a moral obligation to save the planet. More than any single individual, he succeeded, most automakers joining in and solar energy/battery storage is rapidly growing.
Yet, he also became a victim of his own success, for as the value of his company rose, he became richer. So rich, in fact, that the same people who initially celebrated his success came to hate him.
Make no mistake, Elon Musks move to the “right” is also very much a reaction to how he was treated by the “left,” the moment he became a dreaded “billionaire.”
There's a film slated for 2025, starring Emma Stone, which takes a more playful sci-fi approach to some of the first book's themes: "Based on the South Korean sci-fi comedy Save the Green Planet!, Bugonia centres on two conspiracy-obsessed men who decide to kidnap the powerful CEO of a major company, believing she is an alien sent from outer space to destroy planet Earth." https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a61416843/emma-stones-sci-fi-remake-release-date/
Whoa fascinating!!!!
Really cool essay, Elle. Though I have my (strident) criticisms of it as a novel, Kim Stanley Robinson's "Ministry of the Future" does a great job of depicting a coordinated, cooperative, global response to an ailing Earth. In his view, we don't need saviours. We need each other. The elites, especially the corporations and entrepreneurs who reflexively block progress in the service of endless wealth accrual, have to be chastened. And the world's voiceless, who number in the billions, must be permitted the self-determination to join what will almost certainly be the most harrowing and spectacular rescue mission in our planet's history. It's hard to imagine this coming to be. But as the great Ursula Le Guin said in her National Book Awards speech, "Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art." Thanks for shining a light!
Good points here, Ben. I guess the artists have work to do.
Love that quote. Though not KSR’s novel haha. But I agree with your take on it. Everyone has a piece of the solution!
I heard someone describe it as "a horrible novel and a pretty good book."
Ha! Well that might be a good way of putting it
When it’s up to the elite and powerful to save the world, will they actually recognize their solidarity and act on it? Or tell everyone else to eat cake?
It’s not up to the elite to save the world. It’s up to everyone!
Elle, you need not worry. The problem is already being solved as you write. Read this piece from this morning.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/g3p-global-public-private-partnerships-346?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=146053114&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=udlz6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Saving this one to read. Thank you!
For me, the problem with tales such as these are that they want to project a dystopia where the earth is unlivable, but somehow-in these tales saviors-humanity survives. Without sunlight, there would be no recognizable life on earth, we would all go extinct. It's what killed off the dinosaurs. Leaving aside how these mountain retreats are actually built and how they function, i.e. water, waste, power, space, O2, etc, (and the people and equipment and time to do it) the idea that saviors exist, and will have the means, desire, and intellect to make it happen is highly unlikely outside of what we would consider a primitive existence where the complexities of modern life no longer exist.
That said, stories like these are about the human condition and what, given the situation, the writer sees as ways forward or backward for people, or whether it's even possible to survive. The altruistic never run the show and those that do fall to grandiosity or hubris or fate, which is never kind.
I personally don't see any saviors coming from technology, though I do see how we, through technology, create utopia (though not how we envision it) and ceed control to beings no controlled by emotion who act by design and what's best for the whole, not the individual.
I wish you'd read what I put out, which is the only place you'd find any dealing with what we-the-people could do now to make the massive shift we need that would end run around what money and power does. You reply saying you have to check out things I comment with, but you never come back to say you've done that. Maybe now for NOW WHAT? https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/about????
Yes of read several of your posts to that end, but I’m afraid I don’t think quite as esoterically. I believe our evolution in consciousness happens as a result of our inherent humanism, that we continually want to eradicate human suffering and have been steadily doing that over centuries. It’s more of an action we are constantly taking than any kind of awakening we are experiencing. At least from my perspective!
Evolution's arrow is toward progress, but waiting for individual wake-ups to tip mass consciousness is a dangerous way to go. Speeding up that natural process, tlo where we work together as one humanity, could be what saves us from a cataclysmic consequence.
Speeding up individual wake ups?
It's what I write about. Like this:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-115508252
Delivering the Universe Story
Getting Serious About Changing the World
Maybe it's because I'm not spiritual in anyway, but I struggle to understand what the call to action is. Like what is the thing that's going to turn ""dominators of the earth" to "caretakers"? hat could possibly cause a "mass wake-up?" I don't think humans are just going to magically start behaving better toward other humans and the planet we live on. Certainly scientific discovery reshaped our understanding of the universe and that changed the way we act toward religion and the planet, but is there something you imagine that will happen now to do that again? Because from reading your work it seems like that shift is more spiritual than tangible?
Have you watched Brian Swimme videos? He is beloved by those who understand, and he says the scientific position we are in now, when it gets interpreted as to its meaning and significance, will institute a bigger change in humanity’s consciousness than from what Copernicus contributed. As we understand the cosmos differently, we understand ourselves differently. Before Hubble we thought we were the only galaxy and we know now there are 2 trillion. The story we subscribe to, essential being sinners, has not been rewritten since that discovery. What I linked you to was about the significance of a creation story – how it affects the gestalt of how a civilization operates.
You don’t need to be spiritual for this, just scientific. But a beauty of that is that when you delve into the science you find the spirit. There are organizations devoted to that merger.
But, gently and with love, we don't have to invent better protein sources. We already have them. All plant foods have all the essential amino acids in varying amounts. Legumes and whole grains provide plenty of protein. "Plants have protein." We need T-shirts made.
Really need more education on this as I personally struggle to eat enough protein, as I get bored with meat, but then can’t figure out what else has enough protein besides like protein powder…
Same, I'm constantly battling iron deficiency and anemia. I don't like meat and I'm allergic to beans, it's a problem! Personally I would love it if we could somehow fortify pasta and rice to be protein rich!
I'll make a note to do a protein post asap.
This is brilliant. This part especially. "The problem with our saviors has always been a problem with ourselves. We drive gas-powered cars and take gas-powered airplanes and eat meat that takes up most of the habitable land, and buy things that fill up our landfills. We hate the rich, but only because they are us at scale—bigger cars, private airplanes, more lavish feasts, more stuff. We imagine we wouldn’t do the same if we were richer, but we would. We do."
What an incredible post! Thank you for the guided tour or these two remarkable books and the worldview they share.
Thanks Cathy! So glad you enjoyed it!