What are Planetary Phenomena?

Charlene Sequeira, Prateek Shankar, Tim Maly

Engaging with the planet as a complex of living and mutually constitutive relational models¹ and related intelligences² presents a socio-ecological entanglement with mind-boggling dimensions. We need some language to help us think our way around these concepts. In this essay, we propose Planetary Phenomena as a foundational concept to approach these dynamic relational constructions. We are grateful to our colleagues Indy Johar, Caroline Paulick-Thiel, and Justin Cook for their collaboration in this thinking.

This is the third essay in the Planetary Perspective series. Read Part 1 at No One Lives on the Globe, and Part 2 at More-Than-Human Intelligence.

We offer the term Planetary Phenomena to define the intricate and interconnected dynamics that shape our planet’s systems and processes, encompassing a diverse array of objects, flows, and active entities. In our conception, these Phenomena encompass the complex interactions of Earth's ecosystems, societies, technologies, and natural processes on a planetary scale. Think of it as the underlying (or overarching) fabric that weaves together everything from climate patterns and ecosystems to human cultures and technological networks. We present this concept as a way to explore how these interactions shape the world we inhabit and to prompt us to rethink our understanding of responsibility, comprehension, and intervention within the context of a rapidly changing world.

Further, since the nature of this phenomenon is inherently irreducible, we offer three lenses of varying degrees of solidity to understand Planetary Phenomena.

As Objects

In its most concrete sense, Planetary Phenomena can be framed as an object. Common English usage certainly does this—the ocean, a river, the weather, the Internet, the nuclear weapons system, and the climate. They are strange objects, spread out over space and time, often made up of many discernable parts. A working definition we have been using is “knots of matter and energy, facilitated by and through mass multi-actor agencies and coordinated at a scale not previously possible.” A similar concept (although not explicitly stated as such) is Timothy Morton’s concept of the “hyperobject,”³ which he defines as an agglomeration of networked interactions within the Anthropocene—such as climate change, oil, or the ongoing pandemic—so “massively distributed in time and space relative to humans” that they defy comprehension without the use of mathematical or statistical tools. In a similar way, using the word “object” to label this concept allows for a familiar and manageable entry point to comprehend some aspects of Planetary Phenomena. The word “object” connotes ideas of solid materiality that is largely stagnant or stable over considerable time-frames, and is observable and measurable.

As Flows

Planetary Phenomena seldom keep to fixed qualities. Confining our understanding of it as an object or “thing” has its limitations and can create bottlenecks in our expanded exploration of its aliveness. The dynamic, volatile, often hidden, and non-linear connected existence of these massive constructs could also be understood as “knots and flows” through time and space. A river—which literally flows—makes this easy to see. You can never step in the same river twice, and a river is never identified by its constitutive parts, but by the continual torrent of water that rushes and meanders over time. Even the humble writing instrument of Leonard E Read’s I, Pencil represents a coalescence of flowing graphite, clay, metal, rubber, paint, and wood, which will soon be parted by page and sharpener. More generally, a good example of this Phenomenon is the flow of information through the planetary network of communication technologies: satellites, fiber optic cables, phone lines, cell phones, and more.

And yet, Planetary Phenomena are in constant flux at varying speeds, many beyond our human comprehension and technology. Here, the use of metaphor and shared meaning helps us navigate the gaps in our comprehension.

As Beings

How do we proceed when the gaps themselves remain incomprehensible? Perhaps there is some value here in admitting our own limitations. Appreciation of Planetary Phenomena requires acknowledging that it far exceeds—and perhaps even subsumes—human comprehension and control, and could benefit from ceding agency towards it. That is, Planetary Phenomena are a “being” in and of itself, displaying properties of power, agency, and even personality. A river does not simply flow. It carves the landscape and carries travelers. People have been drowned by rivers. People have been saved by rivers. The river, like all Planetary Phenomena, is an active participant in shaping its environment.

For instance, ecosystems, such as rainforests or coral reefs, could be considered Planetary Beings since they exhibit characteristics of adaptation, interconnectedness, and influence on their surroundings, whose effects are felt planet-wide. This brings us closer to considering it as an equal or even greater participant in addressing current crises and starting the difficult work of ecological reconstruction.⁴

The Dimensions of Planetary Phenomena

Planetary Phenomena, in their vast intricacy, can be better understood by studying some of their key dimensions:

Related Dimensions: Systems and Spheres

These concepts are admittedly overwhelming. Given the urgency of our current predicament, how can we situate human agency within these interactions? One possible response is through the concept of spheres.

The notion of spheres and their harmonious relationship has long been used to understand and appreciate the complexity of our planet. Traditionally, the five natural systems that make up our planet are: geosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. The emergence of the Anthropocene has led to the recognition of multiple additional candidate spheres of varying definitions and scales that have transformed the sensory composition of the planet.

First, the technosphere refers to the ever-expanding realm of human-made technologies and infrastructure that extend over much of the planet. One version of this is described by Benjamin Bratton,² as the emergence of “planetary-scale computation,” an evolving exoskeleton of satellites, fiber optic cables, sensors, electric wiring, and the like. This assemblage is capable of incredible feats of communication and calculation at speeds and scales unimaginable in the history of the planet, enabling what he calls a “planetary self-awareness.”⁵

Second, is the sociosphere, which encompasses the intricate web of social and cultural relationships between humans and the world around them. Similarly, the concept of the noosphere was introduced by Vernadskii (who also coined the term biosphere²) and Chardin to acknowledge the growing impact of human thought and reason on the planet. The term derives from the Greek word “noos,” which means “mind” or “reason,” and recognizes the critical role that human thought has played in shaping the ecosystem.

All these spheres have arisen as a result of human activity and have had a profound impact on the planet's natural systems. In turn, their interaction—technology, socioculturality, and human thought—has resulted in the emergence of tremendous new sensory capabilities, which are as much an opportunity as they are a risk. It’s worth noting that this evolving complex of spheres was designed for speed and scale and not sustainability or harmony, having transferred the location of power and agency into (selective) human hands, and for specific anthropocentric outcomes. In the wake of this destabilization, we now confront the polycrisis.⁶