Kuhn spoke of revolutionary paradigms, not shifts — he barely mentioned ‘shifts’. The title of his book says it: “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” It’s odd, but perfectly understandable that his focus would become as out of focus as it has, given our tendency to speak of revolutions, while finding them distasteful. Our current circumstances, and nearly closed window for action, demand a revolution, not a shift.

What is the revolution we need? We’ll only find out when we stop repeating the tired old tropes about religion versus science, and the horrors of the first and glorious accomplishments of the second. Let’s focus on what is happening for a change.

Science may have given us lots of technology, but it can’t change our lethargy. If anything, the now mythic accomplishments of rationality are what is keeping us all on the sidelines. Rationality told us that our world is a machine, and so are we. Does that mean all our world needs is a few tweaks to get it back on track? Who is fool enough to say that? Apparently we all are.

Revolutions are never top-down affairs, no matter who is out front taking credit. We each need to be a revolutionary in our lives. Science is too slow, governments are designed to be structurally against change, and economic systems are for the protection of the rich and therefore powerful. Thank god for the young today, who are fighting to have a future. The future will belong to the revolutionaries. And entry to that revolution is to see yourself as one — in action.

Let’s leave ‘shifts’ and their tendency to inaction behind. We need to adopt a revolutionary vocabulary — and mean it.

Thank you Mike, for keeping the fires burning.