Phase Space

This note is about the space of possibilities or search space that evolution, organisms, human designers or artificial systems can explore.

Related Notes

• Transformation
• Measuring Design-Pathway Transformation
• Redundancy
• Deliberation
• Innovation
• Resilience
• Uncertainty
• Niche
• Evolution
• Future
• Futuring
• Scenarios
• Intelligence
• Temporal
• Econormativity
• Design Potential (Private)
• Thriving
• Justice
• Ethics
• Ontology
• Agency
• Personas
• Organisational

Cf.

• Configuration space
• Decision space
• Design universe
• Dynamical landscape
• Evolutionary space
• Exploratory domain
• Feasible region
• Feasible set
• Fitness landscape
• Form space
• Generative field
• Geometric variation space
• Idea space
• Modal space
• Morphological space
• Optimization landscape
• Outcome space
• Parameter space
• Phase space
• Potentiality space
• Search space
• Shape grammar space
• Solution space
• State space
• Strategy space
• Structural possibility space
• System topology
• The space of possibilities
• Typological field

The meanings and usage vary.

Physics and Dynamical Systems

Phase space is a multidimensional space in which each possible state of a system corresponds to one unique point. It is a mathematical framework that describes the dynamics of a system, where each axis represents one of the system's coordinates or momenta.

Cf.

• classical mechanics
• nonlinear dynamics

Attractors, Basins, and Thresholds

These terms apply to any dynamical system, whether a pendulum, a circuit, a climate model, an ecosystem, or an economy. Later sections cover the domain-specific elaborations.

• Goal: a state that a system actively works to restore or maintain despite perturbations. Goal-directedness is a property of agents, whether biological, hybrid or collective.
• Attractor: a state or set of states toward which a system evolves (these can represent objects, physical forms or other entities within possibility spaces, e.g., morphogenetic or behavioural spaces). It is a region of relative stability in the landscape of possibilities, where the system tends to settle over time. Attractors can be points, curves, or more complex structures in phase space. (Examples: a pendulum settling at the bottom; a hurricane maintaining its structure; a developing embryo finding a stable anatomical form; a habitual thought pattern; a social convention)

Goals and attractors are different descriptions that can apply to one phenomenon/process. For example, a body shape can be seen as an attractor in a morphogenetic space, or as a goal encoded and defended by agentic cellular collectives.

Emergence of goals is a matter of debate and ongoing research.

• Dynamical emergence (René Thom) sees goals emerging from attractors.
• Cybernetic emergence (Wiener, Ashby, Powers, Rosenblueth) adds feedback.
• Active inference sees systems as minimising prediction errors, embodying expectations about viable states (goal = attractor + predictive model + error correction)1234
• Higher-level goals emerge when communication links lower-level agents into larger collectives.

Emergence of attractors:

• Self-organisation.

• Constraint closure: attractors can become mutually stabilising through networks of constraints. Stable attractors can create conditions favouring other attractors, producing self-reinforcing structures.5

• Evolution. Evolution discovers robust attractors. Organisms survive because development repeatedly converges on viable configurations.

• Learning. Neural networks create new attractors through experience. Habits, memories, and concepts can be interpreted as learned attractor basins.

• Basin of attraction: the set of all states from which a system settles to the same attractor if left alone. E.g., a ball on a hilly surface, where valleys are basins, valley bottoms are attractors, and ridges are thresholds. The word comes from drainage basins, where every drop falling within a catchment reaches the same river wherever it lands.

• Bifurcation: a change in a control parameter that alters the number or stability of attractors, so valleys appear, merge, or vanish.

• Hysteresis: the threshold for shifting from state A to state B differs from the threshold for shifting back from B to A. As a result, restoring a driver to its previous value does not necessarily restore the previous state. The system's state depends on its history. (a paperclip, if bent a little, returns to its original shape; bend it more and the stable state changes; social norm: a small change can result in the abandonment of an old practice, and returning to it is much harder; cf. climate, landscape ecology). The return trajectory is likely to be different from the forward trajectory.6

"Another important feature is that to induce a switch back to the upper branch, it is not sufficient to restore the environmental conditions of before the collapse (F2). Instead, one needs to go back further, beyond the other switch point (F1), where the system recovers by shifting back to the upper branch. This pattern, in which the forward and backward switches occur at different critical conditions, is known as hysteresis."7

In applied uses:

• Do not assume a fixed landscape. In many systems, and in all living ones, movement through the landscape reshapes it. See Niche Construction below and Niche.
• Noise impacts the outcomes. The ball-and-cup picture assumes small perturbations around a deterministic pattern expressed as a landscape of potential. Many ecological and social systems are noisy and do not exhibit such smooth potential. Cf. quasi-potential, a landscape-like measure that estimates how difficult it is for stochastic fluctuations to push a system between states or make system or agent dislocation more likely. Such "quasi-potentials" act like dynamically generated resistance or cost surfaces in phase space, indicating the likelihood of persistence, transition, and escape.8 Cf. resistance. See The Normative Field below for a quasi-potential carrying a normative reading.

This machinery recurs across physics, ecology, climate, and society, and one volume treats all of it together as a useful general reference.9

General form of the stability landscape and the hysteresis fold.9

Stability Is Indexed

Stability is never a bare property of a state. A claim of stability needs five indices: the variables observed, the spatial and organisational scale, the class and magnitude of perturbation, the response criterion, and the observation duration relative to the system's characteristic times. A stand can hold its biomass while losing its species composition, a mosaic can persist while every patch turns over, and a short record can mistake a long transient for an attractor. Transient dynamics now count as a regime in their own right rather than noise on the way to equilibrium, because a system can look stable for a very long time and then shift with no change in external conditions.58^, 82 Ecosystem models that couple several slow variables make the related point that no single relaxation time characterises a living system.59 The Francis figures under Regime Shifts below show the observer-scale version of the same claim.

Terms that make duration explicit:

• Observation window: the duration over which variables get measured.
• Characteristic time: the duration of a process, cycle, generation, or turnover.
• Return time: the duration a displacement takes to decay toward a reference regime.
• Residence time: the expected duration in a region before exit.
• Long transient: a trajectory that persists long enough to be mistaken for an attractor.58
• Metastability: locally persistent organisation without global or indefinite stability.
• Critical slowing down: slower recovery from small perturbations near some bifurcations. Treat it as model-dependent rather than as a universal warning signal.9

A rough diagnostic is the ratio of observation window to characteristic time. Well below one, apparent stasis may be an artefact of looking briefly. Near one, cycles and recovery become visible. Well above one, regime persistence and alternative trajectories can be compared. A place holds many characteristic times at once, from physiology through gap dynamics to soil formation, so the ratio has to be taken per process rather than per place.

"Stable" also needs a dimension:

Tropical secondary succession shows why the indices matter. Succession runs continuously, no exact moment marks a forest as mature, structure recovers on different timescales from composition, and two stands that look alike can be moving in opposite directions, one recovering and one degrading.60 Disturbance regimes belong inside the description rather than outside it, so testing stability against an imagined absence of fire or flood tests the wrong thing. Memory as Stored Reachability below adds the reachability version, where latency and absence look alike without the substrate.

Three Landscapes That Invert Each Other

The Cf. list above contains fitness landscape, optimization landscape, and dynamical landscape. These use the same drawing with opposite conventions, and conflating them produces nonsense.

Morphospace differs from both landscapes because it maps the space of forms without assigning a value to each point.10^, 11

Biology and Evolutionary Theory

Cf.

• Niche

This notion, in the sense of a total sum of possibilities, does not apply, or else the possibility is predefined and real innovation is impossible. Cf. Econormativity

Multiple interacting constraints (functional, developmental, historical, genetic) act on high-dimensional spaces where living entities construct new evolutionary spaces rather than merely search through pre-existing landscapes, with path dependency limiting accessible trajectories.12

Morphological space describes:

• Phenotypic variation
• Evolutionary pathways
• Developmental constraints

Morphospace in evolutionary and developmental biology.13^, 10^, 11

The topology of evolutionary novelty and innovation.14

How Much of the Space Life Occupies

Cf. the geometric complexity space covering all known unicellular and multicellular phyla, using fractal descriptors of the density and heterogeneity of body mass and structure.15 Findings:

• Life clusters around linear, rounded and densely structured forms.
• Life consistently avoids highly heteromorphic complex forms.
• Realised forms fill a small share of the field defined by artificial biomorphs.
• Physical, metabolic and developmental limits produce the restriction, modulated over geological time by body size and ecological lifestyle.
• Body size sets much of the pattern. Prokaryotes stay simple and rounded at the smallest scales, and complexity options open as size increases.

This supplies an empirical answer to how much of a possibility space a real evolving system uses. Cf.:

• forbidden phenotypes.16
• the limits of biological form according to theoretical morphology.17

Thermodynamics, the linear character of many biological responses, and other structural facts limit the design principles that evolution can reach, so contingency and convergence both operate inside a bounded fabric of the possible.18

Functional Information and Bounded Spaces

Cf. the law of increasing functional information: functional information rises when many configurations of a system undergo selection for one or more functions.19 Three attributes define evolving systems: combinatorially vast configuration spaces, processes that generate many configurations, and selection on function.

See the application of this to mineral evolution across nine stages of Earth history.20 Functional information increases monotonically, and it approaches an upper limit, so mineral evolution is bounded. Consequences:

Assembly theory offers a related measurable quantity. The assembly index counts the minimal steps needed to build an object from basic parts, and copy number counts observed instances.21 This gives a construction-cost measure over a space of possible objects. Cf. trajectory cost in Design Potential (Private).

The Epigenetic Landscape

The landscape picture for development predates its ecological adoption for regime shifts by decades. A ball rolls down a branching valley system, where valleys represent developmental trajectories and ridges represent the cost of switching between them. Beneath the surface, guy-ropes and pegs stand for the genetic and molecular relations that hold the landscape in shape.22

Two features matter for later sections. Valleys here describe canalisation, so development resists perturbation and returns to its trajectory. And the drawing separates the surface from what holds its shape, which locates leverage at the pegs rather than at the ball. This anticipates accounts that treat morphogenesis as navigation through morphospace toward a target, and it explains why developmental and ecological literatures converge on the same claim about where leverage sits. See Transformation.

The epigenetic landscape and the relations that shape it.22

Ecology and Social-Ecological Systems

Ecology supplies the most developed applied vocabulary for basins, and it adds terms that do not exist in the general formalism. This section holds the domain-specific material. Transformation draws on it directly, since it defines transformation as a change in the constraints and feedbacks that hold a system in a partial and temporary equilibrium.

Regime Shifts and Alternative Stable States

Ecosystems can occupy more than one self-maintaining configuration under the same external conditions. Shallow lakes sit clear and plant-dominated or turbid and algae-dominated. Rangelands sit grassy or shrub-encroached. Reefs sit coral-dominated or algae-dominated. Gradual change in a driver produces little visible response until the system crosses a threshold and reorganises quickly.23^, 24

Hysteresis makes these shifts expensive. Cutting nutrient loading back to the level that tipped a lake turbid leaves it turbid. Managers have to push much further, and some systems never return.

Catastrophic shifts and the hysteresis loop.23

Cf. seral stage in succession processes, especially in application to novel ecosystems and future scenarios.

Francis, Robert A. “Ecosystem Prediction and Management.” In A Companion to Environmental Geography, edited by Noel Castree, David Demeritt, Diana Liverman, and Bruce Rhoads, 421–41. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Stability according to the observers looking at different scales.

Francis, Robert A. “Ecosystem Prediction and Management.” In A Companion to Environmental Geography, edited by Noel Castree, David Demeritt, Diana Liverman, and Bruce Rhoads, 421–41. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Two Perspectives That Get Conflated

Two pictures need separating here. Both get drawn as balls in cups, and the difference matters for anyone using the metaphor carefully.25

• Community perspective: the environment stays constant and the state variables move. The ball rolls across a fixed landscape.
• Ecosystem perspective: the parameters change, so the landscape deforms. Valleys deepen, flatten, merge, or disappear while the ball sits still.

Most real cases involve both. Treating one as the other produces confused claims about what an intervention achieved.

Community and ecosystem perspectives on alternative stable states.25

Named Dimensions of a Basin

Resilience research decomposes the stability landscape into three measurable aspects and adds a fourth for cross-scale effects. These terms come from social-ecological systems research and have no counterpart in the general dynamical-systems vocabulary.26

• Latitude (L): how far the system can move within the basin before it crosses a threshold. Basin width.
• Resistance (R): how much force it takes to move the system. Basin depth.
• Precariousness (Pr): how close the system currently sits to a threshold.
• Panarchy (Pa): how the other three depend on basins at scales above and below. Cf. Organisational.

The same work distinguishes adaptability, the capacity to manage resilience and stay within the basin, from transformability, the capacity to create a new system when the current one becomes untenable. Transformation builds on that distinction. A plain-language version follows, with each element labelled.27

Stability landscape with latitude, resistance and precariousness, and the same landscape after it changes shape.26^, 27

Niche Construction

Living systems reshape the landscape they move across. Organisms alter the selective and material conditions that they and their successors inherit, so the basin structure itself becomes an output of the system rather than a fixed backdrop.28 This limits how far the ball-and-cup picture can carry, and it explains the caution given under Attractors, Basins, and Thresholds above.

Memory as Stored Reachability

Ecological memory holds states reachable after the practices that produced them have stopped. Walls and Pokorný find it materially embedded in soils, species assemblages, successional pathways, seedbanks and management legacies, and show it persisting through millennia of degradation in Central European forests, where Mesolithic soils and seed banks carried possibilities for recovery long after the dynamics that built them had reversed.29

Two consequences:

• Reachability has a material substrate, so a possibility space can be depleted or stocked by physical means. Cf. Design Potential (Private).
• Latency and absence look alike from the present state. A configuration missing from current practice may stay cheap to reach, or may have become unreachable, and only the substrate distinguishes the two.

See Transformation on runaway and creative dynamics, and on why a restoration baseline can forbid the practices that built the memory.

Feasibility Domains

The feasibility principle offers an alternative organising idea for community ecology.30 Three hypotheses:

1. For a given interaction structure at a given time, each potential community holds a feasibility domain, the range of environmental conditions under which it can persist.
2. During assembly, the communities most likely to appear are those whose feasibility domains overlap most with local conditions.
3. Transitions happen when environmental change or species gains and losses move the system across a boundary between domains. Transition probability falls as the overlap between the two domains shrinks.

• This framing predicts assembly and transitions without committing to any dynamical endpoint, so it describes a possibility space without needing attractors, setpoints or equilibria. It replaces "which attractor" with "which domain overlaps present conditions". (maybe relevant to human or synthetic systems creating inventions that might or might not overlap with present conditions or community capabilities?)
• Overlap gives a graded measure of reachability between configurations, which might approach Design Potential (Private) better than a binary basin boundary does.
• Boundaries between domains, rather than thresholds within a landscape, become the objects that intervention targets.

Attractor and Target

A basin describes where a system ends up. It carries no claim that the system represents the destination or works toward it. Whether ecological collectives hold represented setpoints or only occupy attractors remains open, and the answer determines whether retargeting works as a design method. See Transformation and Intelligence. Feasibility domains above offer one way to proceed while the question stays open, since they need no represented target.

From Regulation to Agency

An attractor requires no agent. An evidence ladder separates dynamical convergence from agency, running from persistence through attraction, regulation, and adaptivity to goal-directed, collective, and representational agency. Agency details the rungs and pairs them with operational questions for any alleged agent. Two consequences matter here. Persistence alone, the bottom rung, supports no agency attribution, so basin membership never demonstrates a goal. And retargeting as a design method assumes a system on the fifth rung or above, which is why the open question under Attractor and Target decides what design can do. See Transformation.

Is a Forest an Agent?

Three positions stay defensible, and they do different work.

• A dynamical system. State variables and trajectories suffice, and goals never enter. Succession, disturbance, path dependency, and regime shifts all get analysed without agency. This is the null hypothesis.
• A multi-agent ecology. Trees, fungi, animals, microbes, and people exercise diverse agency while reshaping one another's affordances and viability conditions. The forest is arena, product, and constraint of these agencies rather than a single agent. Plant sensing and signalling give strong evidence for component-level agency without settling anything at forest level.66 This is the safest default for the nonhuman-led design argument.
• A candidate collective agent. The strong claim needs evidence that regulation closes at forest level, and persistence, nutrient cycling, or succession do not supply it. Interdependency alone does not make a superorganism, which requires goals, communication, and control, however distributed those turn out to be.65 Treat this as a research question scored against the ladder in Agency, not as a premise.

The same discipline scales to the planet. Earth-system feedbacks exist, life participates in them materially, and selection-based accounts explain how regulation can arise and persist without foresight, through differential survival of configurations that happen to stabilise themselves.67^, 68 An Earth-scale agent with goals is a further claim, and it needs the ladder like everything else. See Gaia.

Linguistics and Semiotics

Phonological or semantic spaces describe:

• Variations in sound or meaning
• Conceptual mappings

Design, Engineering, and Architecture

Morphological space and space of possibilities in:

• Parametric design
• Generative design
• Shape grammars
• Design space exploration

One volume collects morphological research across planning, urban design and architecture.31

Cognitive Science

Conceptual or possibility spaces:

• Human reasoning
• Decision-making
• Creativity and imagination

Cf. Arobowitz for values within the space of possibilities.32

Human/Nonhuman Society and Culture

Niche construction links biological evolution to cultural change.28

Fitness landscape models transfer to collective decision-making, though with limits.33

Path Dependency and Lock-In

Lock-in and path dependency recur across disciplines and socio-environmental contexts.34

Path-dependent rigidity traps arise through increasing returns, power, discourses, and entrepreneurship.35

Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics

Solution space or search in:

• Algorithm design
• Machine learning
• Evolutionary computation
• Constraint satisfaction problems

Bioinspired methods can also analyse bioinspired robots.36

Scale, Observers, and Plural Ontologies

A possibility space needs a scale of description and a standpoint before anyone can draw it.

No Single Natural Scale

Pattern and scale form the central problem of ecology.37 Four claims transfer directly:

• No single natural scale exists at which ecological phenomena should be studied. Systems show characteristic variability across ranges of spatial, temporal and organisational scale.
• The observer imposes a perceptual filter, and patterns unique to a range of scales have causes and consequences unique to that range.
• Every organism observes its environment, so the filter is a biological fact rather than a methodological artefact. Dispersal and dormancy alter a species' perceptual scale and therefore alter the variability it encounters.
• Mechanisms usually operate at scales other than the ones where patterns appear, either through the collective behaviour of smaller units or through constraint from larger ones.

Taken together, these turn scale choice into a substantive commitment. A possibility space drawn at one scale answers different questions from one drawn at another, and neither reduces to the other. This grounds ontological plurality in mainstream ecology rather than in critical theory alone. Cf. Organisational and panarchy above.

Nested Problem Spaces

Biology forms a multiscale competency architecture.38 Each level solves problems in its own space: metabolic, transcriptional, physiological, anatomical, behavioural. Morphogenesis then reads as cellular collectives traversing anatomical morphospace.

Consequences for this note:

• Possibility spaces nest, and each level navigates its own (actually, they do not necessarily nest, they can be separated or overlap). A claim about the space at one level implies little about the space at another.
• Collective intelligence names a symmetry across levels, which licenses transferring behavioural-science tools to cells, tissues and swarms.38
• Agency spreads across scales, so questions about who navigates a possibility space apply to cell collectives and institutions alike. See Agency and Personas.

Intelligence as Search Efficiency

Biological intelligence can be formalised as search efficiency in multiscale problem spaces.39 The metric is the decimal log of the ratio between the cost of a random walk and the cost incurred by the agent, so it counts the orders of magnitude of dissipative work that an agentic policy saves against a maximum-entropy search.

Empirical cases: amoeboid chemotaxis and barium-induced planarian head regeneration come out between two hundred and a sextillion times more efficient than random search, under assumptions chosen to underestimate intelligence.

Three points for this note:

• The metric is defined on a possibility space, so it measures navigation rather than a property of a substrate.
• It gives a substrate-neutral comparison across scales, which suits the nested problem spaces above.
• It supplies a cost baseline. Random search sets the reference against which any pathway can be scored. Cf. trajectory cost in Design Potential (Private).

Contested Occupants

Who counts as an occupant of a possibility space stays unsettled. Definitions of life offered by cross-disciplinary experts form a continuous landscape of positions rather than rival camps, which suggests treating the definition of life as differentiated perspectives within one conceptual space rather than as a binary taxonomy.40 That same disagreement also takes the form of a conversation among specialists.41

The methodological point generalises. Where participants disagree about ontology, the disagreement itself maps as a space, and that map beats a forced consensus.

Plural Worlds in Design

Intelligence, treated as plural, situated and ecological, raises five troubles for participation.42

Three commitments from that framing apply here. State goals and trade-offs explicitly, including whose goals count. Map the assemblage of data, labour, institutions, devices and ecological resources that makes a model possible, and treat that map as a substrate for participation. Treat robustness, redundancy, simplification and restraint as first-class alternatives to intensified intelligence, because under uncertainty and power asymmetry they can support viability more effectively than more data and more modelling.42 See Redundancy.

Two cautions carry over. Participation changes what can be known, so mapping a possibility space alters it. And interpretation fails in two directions, through anthropomorphism and through reductionism.

For the ontological politics behind this, see one world and many worlds and Ontology.

Normativity and Ethics

The sections above describe where systems can go. This one covers how a possibility space acquires an account of where they should go, and whose standpoint the "should" answers to. It supplies the commitments that Design Potential (Private) formalises.

Where Value Enters a Possibility Space

Three positions, and conflating them causes the same trouble that conflating the three landscapes did.

• Imposed from outside. An analyst supplies an objective function and the height of the landscape encodes it. Optimisation landscapes work this way, and the value belongs to whoever wrote the function.
• Generated from within. A self-maintaining system holds a stake in its own continuation, so better and worse exist for it without an external evaluator. See The Normative Field below and Life.
• Constitutive. The space consists of the strivings of its occupants, so no value-neutral description of it exists.

Morphospace sits outside all three because it assigns no height.10 Locating values in a space of possibilities is a more general problem than the three positions above.32

Viability as a Floor

Latitude, resistance and precariousness describe basin geometry. They say nothing about where inside a basin an occupant resides, so a norm defined on basin membership alone tolerates pushing every occupant to the margin.

This objection holds where the criterion is already operational. The Convention on Biological Diversity commits to maintaining viable populations, viability means a minimum, and obligation therefore triggers only when non-viability threatens. Minimum Viable Population figures run to hundreds or a few thousand individuals, with one meta-analysis averaging 4169. The result amounts to an ecology of the minimal, and it remains compatible with large-scale exploitation, which exposes the anthropocentrism of a conservation project framed as ecological.43^, 44

The replacement is bio-proportionality, an allocation rule rather than a raised threshold. Each species should be as abundant as is consistent with proportionate abundance of the populations adjoining it. Four features matter here.

• Entitlements are joint. No per-species figure can be read off independently, because each depends on what the others sustain. The norm therefore constrains how the space is partitioned among occupants, which differs from constraining trajectories and from assigning value to states.
• Proportions follow ecological structure. Trophic checks and balances set relative abundance, so an abundant top-predator population stays smaller in absolute terms than an abundant herbivore population. Optimal sizes get computed against a background model of ecological stability and health, and that model establishes the proportions.43
• The reference frame moves. Proportionalities from before major anthropogenic disturbance supply a yardstick without appeal to wilderness and without excluding human agency, and the yardstick stays loose because changing conditions alter relative abundance. The normative frame behaves as a parameter, which connects to the ecosystem perspective above.25
• Entitlement tracks contribution. Biomass alone fails to measure impact. Ants outweigh humanity and may sit at an ecologically optimal level because they add to overall functionality, and a civilisation that contributed to ecological productivity could justify a larger population than a baseline implies.43

The last feature carries the most weight for this note. Nonhuman-Led Design below argues that nonhuman activity generates reachable states as a by-product of ordinary living while human-led design narrows latitude. Bio-proportionality converts that into a currency, because agents that enlarge what others can occupy earn a larger share of the space. The claim then rests on an ethical principle as well as on capability.

Difficulties to consider:

Proportionality is defined over populations while design potential is defined over reachable futures, and neither paper makes that translation, so population size stands in for room to live and the proxy does heavy work. The background model of ecosystem health holds the normative load, and the question resists settlement by science. A baseline-referenced norm sits awkwardly with genuine novelty, which repeats the objection raised under Biology and Evolutionary Theory above. The eco-ableism critique in Econormativity applies to bio-proportionality itself, since it optimises over populations and implies a large reduction in human numbers. The unit stays the species throughout, so individuals never appear, which reproduces the split recorded in Justice. Cf. Thriving.

The Normative Field

Bare self-production is all-or-nothing, so it grounds no gradation of better and worse. Adaptivity adds that gradation: the capacity of a system to regulate its position with respect to its own viability boundaries and to do so before reaching them. Graded normativity arrives with that capacity, which gives a dynamical-systems account of the difference between persisting and faring well.45

How to give a viability space a topology with gradation rather than a binary boundary? One solution is to use a normative field, defined as the change in conditions required to return a system to its viable region. The field assigns a magnitude and a direction to each point, so it reads as a quasi-potential carrying a normative interpretation. A precarious region also gets identified, where the system dies unless conditions change, and whether that sense coincides with precariousness as defined in Named Dimensions of a Basin above remains to be checked.46

This bears on scale. If norms arise wherever adaptive self-maintenance arises, then cells, colonies, ecosystems and institutions all generate them, and the question becomes which collectives hold norms rather than whether nonhuman beings have interests. Design Potential (Private) treats the related question of how far a given agent's goals reach. Cf. Agency and Intelligence.

Personhood as Installed Agency

Law answers the agency question by other means, and the mechanics repay attention here because they show represented targets being built rather than found.

Nonhuman rights and personhood scholarship determines agency through rival tests: cognitive capacity, institutional incidents, relational vulnerability, and social membership. Personhood surveys them. The pattern that matters for this note is institutional. Rights-of-nature instruments mostly skip agency tests and legislate personhood directly, installing guardians who speak for the entity.74^, 75^, 76 Comparative studies of the resulting laws show the entity's goals being written as ecological criteria, with wellbeing specified through existence, regeneration, and the maintenance of vital cycles, structures, and functions, which are stability terms in the sense of this note.84 In Indigenous law the sequence reverses, since the Martuwarra's personhood follows from First Law and ancestral relationship, with agency, goals, and obligations already given in the legal order rather than awaiting empirical detection.77^, 78 See Rights.

Read in this note's vocabulary, a personhood instrument installs the upper rungs of the agency ladder institutionally, and critical scholarship reads the instruments the same way, as constructing their legal subjects rather than discovering them.83

• It fixes a boundary by naming the entity.
• It fixes controlled variables through statutory objectives, which act as a represented setpoint for a system that may itself only occupy basins.
• It appoints guardians as error-correctors, which closes a regulation loop at a chosen scale.
• It supplies retention, because the legal person persists through turnover of constituents, guardians, and governments.
• It declares whose viability counts, which is the question the justice condition in Design Potential (Private) makes formal.

The open question under Attractor and Target, whether collectives hold represented targets or only occupy attractors, therefore has a legal answer running ahead of the empirical one: institutions can add the target. Institutional design then becomes the practical site for multispecies justice.79 The live risk is that an installed setpoint substitutes a human proxy for the entity's own normative field, so the operational questions above apply to guardianship arrangements exactly as they apply to organisms.

Admissible Regions and Corridors

Viability theory supplies the mathematics for a normatively bounded space. It optimises nothing. Constraints define what counts as acceptable, and the viability kernel is the set of states from which acceptability can be maintained indefinitely.47 The value content sits entirely in the constraint set, which resists empirical derivation, and the framework says so. Resource-management applications extend this, including co-viability for parties with conflicting requirements.48

Consumption corridors give the same shape a social form. A floor of minimum standards lets each person live well, and a ceiling stops some living well from foreclosing it for others.49 The corridor is the region satisfying both, which is the applied form of the justice condition in Design Potential (Private).

Measuring an Option Set

These considerations are relevant to the open question about an upper bound below, and on any attempt to score a possibility space by extent.

Foreclosure

Ordinary death, which living systems produce continuously, differs from double death, the destruction of the capacity of life to renew itself.50 The distinction distinguishes movement within a possibility space from collapse of the space, and it explains why foreclosure differs in kind from loss. Defuturing below names the same phenomenon from the design side.

Moral Inertia

Normative commitment contributes to resistance independently of material and financial cost. One hypothesis applies this to infrastructure: people resist change when they judge the status quo morally acceptable or obligatory, and pride in cultural icons can generate resistance to proposals to alter them.51 Moral ecologies, on this account, comprise shared understandings of appropriate relations between human and nonhuman beings, forms of participation that enact those understandings, and accountability mechanisms that enforce them. Leverage therefore sits in the third element rather than in the state of the system, which repeats the structure of the epigenetic landscape above, where the pegs hold the surface in shape.

Two limits apply. The framework treats human groups as the holders of moral ecologies, so nonhuman beings appear as objects of moral assessment rather than as generators of norms, and the literature still lacks a theory of change.51 Moral ecologies carry no guarantee of being emancipatory, inclusive, progressive, or sustainable, because capitalism and ethnonationalism have them too.52 Adding a normative axis to a possibility space therefore improves nothing by itself. Cf. Econormativity.

Design Potential

Definition

The full set of reachable design options forms a possibility space, also called design potential. See Redundancy and Deliberation.

Reachability matters more than size. A vast possibility space whose regions no one can reach from the current state supplies no design potential. The ecological vocabulary above therefore does useful work here, because latitude, resistance, precariousness and hysteresis give four dimensions along which a possibility space stays reachable or stops being so.

Stability-Landscape Terms Read as Design Terms

This gives design potential a set of dimensions and connects it to the irreversibility ledger and inflection-point tests in Measuring Design-Pathway Transformation.

Nonhuman-Led Design as Expansion of Design Potential

• A useful form of redundancy multiplies options within the possibility space and keeps them reachable. This supports nonhuman leadership, because nonhuman proposers reveal viable futures that humans fail to foresee, and a design that forecloses reachable options blocks that leadership.53
• Read through the landscape, optimisation-intensive design narrows latitude and raises precariousness, because it works toward a single intended state and strips the slack that kept alternatives reachable. This is a hypothesis about control-heavy design rather than about humans as such, since restoration that returns propagules, hydrology, or disturbance regimes can enlarge reachability. The five-questions test supplies the diagnostic form, because what matters is whether a design blocks nonhuman proposals, not who authored it.53
• Nonhuman activity often works the other way, because ecosystem engineering, niche construction and succession generate new reachable states as a by-product of ordinary living. It can also foreclose, since engineering, competitive exclusion, and disease contract options for some while expanding them for others, so expansion claims need the same who-gains accounting as any other. See Niche and Transformation.
• Distributed and multi-agent systems can keep more futures reachable than any single agent manages, which argues for plurality on capability grounds as well as ethical ones. The advantage is conditional, because distribution also produces lock-in, cascades, and collective failure. Decision environments that hold proposals from many agents, with participation graded by role rather than by species, describe the arrangement under which plurality delivers.80^, 81 See Intelligence and Redundancy.
• Deliberation supplies the complementary move. The propositional community expands the possibility space, and the evaluative community focuses effort so that expansion avoids becoming noise, surplus novelty, or unmanaged risk. See Deliberation.
• More options do not always help. Pathway diversity counts only pathways that stay genuinely reachable, so actions that run down shared capacity or foreclose others' futures add no potential.54 Ask who gains reachable options, who loses them, and whether today's design keeps nonhuman-led pathways open. See Justice.

Defuturing as the Negation of Design Potential

Defuturing approaches the same phenomenon from the other side: design that destroys future possibility, taking away the futures of human and nonhuman beings alike.55^, 56 Sustainability efforts that stay inside the industrial logic they set out to reform defuture despite their stated intent, because they leave the option-foreclosing structure intact.55

Read through the landscape, defuturing reduces latitude while deepening the basin the system already occupies. It works as the design equivalent of lock-in, and hysteresis explains why undoing it costs so much. See Path Dependency and Lock-In above, Futuring, Future, and Transformation on directionality, where transformation carries no intrinsic value and can foreclose futures as readily as open them.

Open Questions

• Can latitude, resistance and precariousness be estimated for a design pathway, or do they stay qualitative outside modelled ecological systems? Cf. Measuring Design-Pathway Transformation.
• Does expanding design potential have a defensible upper bound? Bio-proportionality locates one in outline, because the bound on any party's share is the proportionate abundance that the others sustain. Two gaps remain: the translation from populations to reachable futures, and the choice of the background model that fixes the proportions. See Viability as a Floor above.
• Whose possibility space? A space that expands for one party while contracting for another has not expanded. Bio-proportionality offers a candidate allocation rule and consumption corridors offer a floor-and-ceiling version, so the live question is which rule to defend rather than whether any exists. See Justice and Power.
• Can the extent of a possibility space be scored without collapsing into option counting? Plausible axioms force exactly that collapse.57
• Do nonhuman collectives navigate possibility spaces they represent in some sense, or only occupy basins? Transformation flags the same question. The normative-field account answers a weaker version of it, since graded norms follow from adaptivity and require no representation.
• Does the normative field coincide with precariousness as resilience research defines it, or do the two measure different things? Both name a region close to failure, and neither literature cites the other.
• What observation duration distinguishes an attractor from a long transient in the system at issue, given that the system carries several characteristic times at once?
• Which variable does a given stability claim concern: composition, structure, function, identity, or a distribution?
• What evidence would distinguish forest-level regulation from the aggregate consequences of organism-level agency?
• Can a collective be an agent while its members hold incompatible goals?
• When does an agency attribution improve prediction or design rather than redescribe an outcome?
• Do personhood instruments track the normative fields of the entities they name, and what would show that a guardianship arrangement has drifted into proxy substitution?

References

---

Footnotes

1. Pezzulo, Giovanni, Thomas Parr, and Karl Friston. “Active Inference as a Theory of Sentient Behavior.” Biological Psychology 186 (2024): 108741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108741.˄

2. Parr, Thomas, and Karl J. Friston. “Generalised Free Energy and Active Inference.” Biological Cybernetics 113, no. 5 (2019): 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-019-00805-w.˄

3. Friston, Karl. “Affordance and Active Inference.” In Affordances in Everyday Life: A Multidisciplinary Collection of Essays, edited by Zakaria Djebbara, 211–19. Cham: Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08629-8_20.˄

4. Friston, Karl, Conor Heins, Tim Verbelen, Lancelot Da Costa, Tommaso Salvatori, Dimitrije Markovic, Alexander Tschantz, Magnus Koudahl, Christopher Buckley, and Thomas Parr. “From Pixels to Planning: Scale-Free Active Inference.” Frontiers in Network Physiology 5 (2025): 1521963. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnetp.2025.1521963.˄

5. Jacob, Michael S. “Toward a Bio-Organon: A Model of Interdependence between Energy, Information and Knowledge in Living Systems.” Biosystems 230 (2023): 104939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104939.˄

6. Beisner, Beatrix E., Daniel T. Haydon, and Kim Cuddington. “Alternative Stable States in Ecology.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, no. 7 (2003): 376–82. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001%255B0376:ASSIE%255D2.0.CO;2.˄

7. Scheffer, Marten, Steve Carpenter, Jonathan A. Foley, Carl Folke, and Brian Walker. “Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems.” Nature 413, no. 6856 (2001): 591–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000.˄

8. Nolting, Ben C., and Karen C. Abbott. “Balls, Cups, and Quasi-Potentials: Quantifying Stability in Stochastic Systems.” Ecology 97, no. 4 (2016): 850–64. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1047.1.˄

9. Scheffer, Marten. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton Studies in Complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.˄

10. Hastings, Alan, Karen C. Abbott, Kim Cuddington, Tessa Francis, Gabriel Gellner, Ying-Cheng Lai, Andrew Morozov, Sergei Petrovskii, Katherine Scranton, and Mary Lou Zeeman. “Transient Phenomena in Ecology.” Science 361, no. 6406 (2018): eaat6412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6412.˄

11. Morozov, Andrew, Karen Abbott, Kim Cuddington, Tessa Francis, Gabriel Gellner, Alan Hastings, Ying-Cheng Lai, Sergei Petrovskii, Katherine Scranton, and Mary Lou Zeeman. “Long Transients in Ecology: Theory and Applications.” Physics of Life Reviews 32 (2020): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2019.09.004.˄

12. Meron, Ehud. Nonlinear Physics of Ecosystems. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2015.˄

13. Chazdon, Robin Lee. Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age of Deforestation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2014.˄

14. Mitteroecker, Philipp, and Simon M. Huttegger. “The Concept of Morphospaces in Evolutionary and Developmental Biology: Mathematics and Metaphors.” Biological Theory 4, no. 1 (2009): 54–67. doi:10/cx74fj.˄

15. McGhee, George R. The Geometry of Evolution: Adaptive Landscapes and Theoretical Morphospaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.˄

16. Longo, Giuseppe. “How Future Depends on Past and Rare Events in Systems of Life.” Foundations of Science 23, no. 3 (2018): 443–74. https://doi.org/10/g8q6q7.˄

17. Lamsdell, James C. “The Conquest of Spaces: Exploring Drivers of Morphological Shifts through Phylogenetic Palaeoecology.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 583 (2021): 110672. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2021.110672.˄

18. Erwin, Douglas H. “The Topology of Evolutionary Novelty and Innovation in Macroevolution.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372, no. 1735 (2017): 20160422. doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0422.˄

19. Dera, Guillaume, Elise Nardin, Laurent Risser, Marius Albino, Quentin Garnier, Marion Kardacz, and Léa Monge-Waleryszak. “Mapping Life’s Disparity and Evolutionary Constraints in a Geometric Complexity Space.” Science Advances 12, no. 2 (2026): eaea6945. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aea6945.˄

20. Vermeij, Geerat J. “Forbidden Phenotypes and the Limits of Evolution.” Interface Focus 5, no. 6 (2015): 20150028. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0028.˄

21. McGhee, George R., Jr. “Limits in the Evolution of Biological Form: A Theoretical Morphologic Perspective.” Interface Focus 5, no. 6 (2015): 20150034. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0034.˄

22. Solé, Ricard, Christopher P. Kempes, Bernat Corominas-Murtra, Manlio De Domenico, Artemy Kolchinsky, Michael Lachmann, Eric Libby, Serguei Saavedra, Eric Smith, and David Wolpert. “Fundamental Constraints to the Logic of Living Systems.” Interface Focus 14, no. 5 (2024): 20240010. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2024.0010.˄

23. Wong, Michael L., Carol E. Cleland, Daniel Arend, Stuart Bartlett, H. James Cleaves, Heather Demarest, Anirudh Prabhu, Jonathan I. Lunine, and Robert M. Hazen. “On the Roles of Function and Selection in Evolving Systems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, no. 43 (2023): e2310223120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310223120.˄

24. Hazen, Robert M., and Michael L. Wong. “Open-Ended versus Bounded Evolution: Mineral Evolution as a Case Study.” PNAS Nexus 3, no. 7 (2024): pgae248. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae248.˄

25. Kempes, Christopher P., Michael Lachmann, Andrew Iannaccone, G. Matthew Fricke, M. Redwan Chowdhury, Sara I. Walker, and Leroy Cronin. “Assembly Theory and Its Relationship with Computational Complexity.” Npj Complexity 2, no. 1 (2025): 27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44260-025-00049-9.˄

26. Waddington, Conrad Hal. The Principles of Embryology. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1956.˄

27. Scheffer, Marten, Steve Carpenter, Jonathan A. Foley, Carl Folke, and Brian Walker. “Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems.” Nature 413, no. 6856 (2001): 591–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000.˄

28. Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance Gunderson, and C. S. Holling. “Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35 (2004): 557–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711.˄

29. Beisner, Beatrix E., Daniel T. Haydon, and Kim Cuddington. “Alternative Stable States in Ecology.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, no. 7 (2003): 376–82. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0376:ASSIE]2.0.CO;2.˄

30. Walker, Brian, Crawford S. Holling, Stephen Carpenter, and Ann Kinzig. “Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 9, no. 2 (2004): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00650-090205.˄

31. Walker, Brian, and David Salt. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.˄

32. Laland, Kevin N., John Odling-Smee, and Marcus W. Feldman. “Niche Construction, Biological Evolution, and Cultural Change.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23, no. 1 (2000): 131–46. doi:10/c58hwb.˄

33. Walls, Matthew, and Petr Pokorný. “Cybernetics in the Anthropocene’s Wake: Reframing Global Transformations through the Emergent Human–Earth System.” Complexity 2026, no. 1 (2026): 7539869. https://doi.org/10.1155/cplx/7539869.˄

34. Saavedra, Serguei. “The Feasibility Principle in Community Ecology.” Oikos 2026, no. 6 (2026): e11355. https://doi.org/10.1002/oik.11355.˄

35. Karban, Richard. Plant Sensing and Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.˄

36. Corning, Peter A. Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.˄

37. Lenton, Timothy M., Stuart J. Daines, James G. Dyke, Arwen E. Nicholson, David M. Wilkinson, and Hywel T. P. Williams. “Selection for Gaia Across Multiple Scales.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33, no. 8 (2018): 633–45. https://doi.org/10/gd3qcm.˄

38. Lenton, Timothy M., Timothy A. Kohler, Pablo A. Marquet, Richard A. Boyle, Michel Crucifix, David M. Wilkinson, and Marten Scheffer. “Survival of the Systems.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36, no. 4 (2021): 333–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.12.003.˄

39. Oliveira, Vítor, ed. Morphological Research in Planning, Urban Design and Architecture. Cham: Springer, 2021.˄

40. Aronowitz, Sara. “Locating Values in the Space of Possibilities.” Philosophy of Science 92, no. 1 (2025): 121–40. doi:10/g99d6v.˄

41. Marks, Peter, Lasse Gerrits, and Johannes Marx. “How to Use Fitness Landscape Models for the Analysis of Collective Decision-Making: A Case of Theory-Transfer and Its Limitations.” Biology & Philosophy 34, no. 1 (2019): 7. doi:10/gjpt4h.˄

42. Goldstein, Jenny E., Benjamin Neimark, Brian Garvey, and Jacob Phelps. “Unlocking ‘Lock-in’ and Path Dependency: A Review across Disciplines and Socio-Environmental Contexts.” World Development 161 (2023): 106116. doi:10/g83j86.˄

43. Méndez, Pablo, Jaime Amezaga, and Luis Santamaría. “Explaining Path-Dependent Rigidity Traps: Increasing Returns, Power, Discourses, and Entrepreneurship Intertwined in Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 24, no. 2 (2019). doi:10/gkshvh.˄

44. Aaron, Eric, Joshua Hawthorne-Madell, Ken Livingston, and John H. Long. “Morphological Evolution: Bioinspired Methods for Analyzing Bioinspired Robots.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2022): 717214. doi:10/g9pv2h.˄

45. Levin, Simon A. “The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture.” Ecology 73, no. 6 (1992): 1943–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941447.˄

46. McMillen, Patrick, and Michael Levin. “Collective Intelligence: A Unifying Concept for Integrating Biology across Scales and Substrates.” Communications Biology 7, no. 1 (2024): 378. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06037-4.˄

47. Chis-Ciure, Robert, and Michael Levin. “Cognition All the Way down 2.0: Neuroscience beyond Neurons in the Diverse Intelligence Era.” Synthese 206, no. 5 (2025): 257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05319-6.˄

48. Bender, Reed, Karina Kofman, Blaise Agüera y Arcas, and Michael Levin. “What Lives? A Meta-Analysis of Diverse Opinions on the Definition of Life.” Biological Theory, ahead of print, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-026-00544-9.˄

49. Kofman, Karina, Christoph Adami, František Baluška, Joshua Bongard, Douglas Brash, Paco Calvo, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, et al. “Defining Life: A Conversation.” Organisms. Journal of Biological Sciences 9, no. 1 (2026): 11–47. https://doi.org/10.13133/2532-5876/19492.˄

50. Giaccardi, Elisa, Stanislav Roudavski, and Martín Tironi. “Participation and the Troubles with Intelligence.” PDC ’26: Proceedings of the 19th Participatory Design Conference 2026 (New York) 1 (2026): 385–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3796624.3796632.˄

51. Mathews, Freya. “From Biodiversity-Based Conservation to an Ethic of Bio-Proportionality.” Biological Conservation 200 (2016): 140–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.037.˄

52. Mathews, Freya. “Bioproportionality: A Necessary Norm for Conservation?” The Journal of Population and Sustainability 4, no. 1 (2019): 43–53. https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2019.4.1.43.˄

53. Di Paolo, Ezequiel A. “Autopoiesis, Adaptivity, Teleology, Agency.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4, no. 4 (2005): 429–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y.˄

54. Barandiaran, Xabier E., and Matthew D. Egbert. “Norm-Establishing and Norm-Following in Autonomous Agency.” Artificial Life 20, no. 1 (2014): 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/ARTL_a_00094.˄

55. O’Donnell, Erin L., and Julia Talbot-Jones. “Creating Legal Rights for Rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India.” Ecology and Society 23, no. 1 (2018): art7. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09854-230107.˄

56. Chapron, Guillaume, Yaffa Epstein, and José Vicente López-Bao. “A Rights Revolution for Nature.” Science 363, no. 6434 (2019): 1392–93. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5601.˄

57. Youatt, Rafi. “Personhood and the Rights of Nature: The New Subjects of Contemporary Earth Politics.” International Political Sociology 11, no. 1 (2017): 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olw032.˄

58. Kauffman, Craig M., and Pamela Martin. The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2021.˄

59. RiverOfLife, Martuwarra, Anne Poelina, Donna Bagnall, and Michelle Lim. “Recognizing the Martuwarra’s First Law Right to Life as a Living Ancestral Being.” Transnational Environmental Law 9, no. 3 (2020): 541–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102520000163.˄

60. RiverOfLife, Martuwarra, Alessandro Pelizzon, Anne Poelina, Afshin Akhtar-Khavari, Cristy Clark, Sarah Laborde, Elizabeth Macpherson, Katie O’Bryan, Erin O’Donnell, and John Page. “Yoongoorrookoo: The Emergence of Ancestral Personhood.” Griffith Law Review 30, no. 3 (2021): 505–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1996882.˄

61. Tănăsescu, Mihnea. Understanding the Rights of Nature: A Critical Introduction. Bielefeld: transcript, 2022.˄

62. Celermajer, Danielle, Anthony Burke, Stefanie Fishel, Erin Fitz-Henry, Nicole Rogers, David Schlosberg, and Christine Winter. Institutionalising Multispecies Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025.˄

63. Aubin, Jean-Pierre, Alexandre M. Bayen, and Patrick Saint-Pierre. Viability Theory: New Directions. Berlin: Springer, 2011.˄

64. Oubraham, Aïchouche, and Georges Zaccour. “A Survey of Applications of Viability Theory to the Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable Resources.” Ecological Economics 145 (2018): 346–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.008.˄

65. Fuchs, Doris A., Marlyne Sahakian, Tobias Gumbert, Antonietta Di Giulio, Michael Maniates, Sylvia Lorek, and Antonia Graf. Consumption corridors: living a good life within sustainable limits. Oxford: Routledge, 2021.˄

66. Rose, Deborah Bird. Wild Dog Dreaming: Love and Extinction. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011.˄

67. van Velzen, Babette, and Andrew Littlejohn. “Moral Ecologies of Water Infrastructure: How Normative Assessments and Perceptions of Justice Shape and Respond to Infrastructure Development.” WIREs Water 13, no. 1 (2026): e70051. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.70051.˄

68. Scaramelli, Caterina. “The Delta Is Dead: Moral Ecologies of Infrastructure in Turkey.” Cultural Anthropology 34, no. 3 (2019): 388–416. https://doi.org/10/ghxxkx.˄

69. Roudavski, Stanislav, and Alexander Holland. “Are You Blocking Nonhuman Leadership? Five Questions to Find Out.” PDC ’26: Proceedings of the 19th Participatory Design Conference (New York) 2 (2026): 372–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/3789492.3796416.˄

70. Roudavski, Stanislav, and Douglas Brock. “From Dingoes to AI: Who Makes Decisions in More-than-Human Worlds?” TRACE ∴ Journal for Human-Animal Studies 11 (2025): 56–96. https://doi.org/10.23984/fjhas.145720.˄

71. Roudavski, Stanislav. “The Ladder of More-than-Human Participation: A Framework for Inclusive Design.” Cultural Science 14, no. 1 (2024): 110–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2024-0015.˄

72. Lade, Steven, Brian Walker, and L. Jamila Haider. “Resilience as Pathway Diversity: Linking Systems, Individual, and Temporal Perspectives on Resilience.” Ecology and Society 25, no. 3 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11760-250319.˄

73. Fry, Tony. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2009.˄

74. Fry, Tony. Defuturing: A New Design Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2020.˄

75. Pattanaik, Prasanta K., and Yongsheng Xu. “On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice.” Recherches Économiques de Louvain / Louvain Economic Review 56, no. 3–4 (1990): 383–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0770451800043955.˄

---

Backlinks

• Personhood
• Personas
• Resistance
• Transformation
• Agency
• Biomimicry
• Biosynergy
• Intelligence
• Justice
• Redundancy
• Thriving
• Econormativity
• Three Axis Framework of Ontology, Epistemology, and Praxiology
• Measuring Design-Pathway Transformation