Entrelationalism: Carbon, Code, Capital, and Culture – An Ethic for an Interdependent Age - The Deeper Thin king Podcast

Entrelationalism: Carbon, Code, Capital, and Culture – An Ethic for an Interdependent Age

The Deeper Thinking Podcast is digitally narrated. 

For those drawn to climate ethics, AI governance, global justice, and the tangled threads of our shared future.

#Entrelationalism #ClimateEthics #AIGovernance #GlobalJustice #PoliticalPhilosophy

What ethic fits a world where carbon emissions in one country flood homes in another, where lines of code written in California disrupt elections in Kenya, and where capital flows faster than regulation can catch? In this episode, we introduce Entrelationalism—an ethic built for interdependence. It traces how climate change, AI, and global markets demand a moral map that matches the reach of our power.

We explore three clusters and seven principles: inclusive legitimacy, justice across time and space, and systemic stewardship. Drawing on thinkers like John Rawls, Hans Jonas, and Jürgen Habermas, we ask how law, design, and moral imagination can create conditions for autonomy and fairness in a tangled world.

This is not abstract idealism. It is an exploration of harm ledgers, citizen assemblies, algorithm audits, and other institutional designs that embed care into carbon, code, capital, and culture.

Reflections

This episode asks how to make ethics travel as far and fast as our technologies and emissions. Key reflections include:

• Freedom today depends on responsibilities across borders and generations.
• Institutions need legitimacy that includes those affected, even if they have no vote.
• Justice must preserve options for future people, not just repair past harms.
• AI and digital systems need audits and oversight that match their power.
• Our attention is a commons; it can be polluted or protected.
• Sovereignty has moral limits when harm crosses borders.
• Power yields only when pressed—ethics needs activism and enforcement.

Why Listen?

• Understand Entrelationalism and why it matters for climate, tech, and justice
• Explore how Hans Jonas and John Rawls help reimagine duties to the future
• Learn why attention integrity and harm ledgers may be as important as carbon accounting
• Engage with ideas from Habermas on legitimacy in an interconnected world

Listen On:

• YouTube
• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts

Support This Work

If this episode stayed with you and you’d like to support the ongoing work, you can do so here: Buy Me a Coffee

Bibliography

• Jonas, Hans. The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.

Bibliography Relevance

• Hans Jonas: Warned that technological power requires new ethics for future generations.
• John Rawls: Developed fairness principles extendable across time and borders.
• Jürgen Habermas: Explored legitimacy and discourse in democratic and global contexts.

Ethics must travel as far and fast as our power. Entrelationalism is an ethic for an interdependent age.

#Entrelationalism #CarbonCodeCapitalCulture #PoliticalPhilosophy #ClimateEthics #AIGovernance #GlobalJustice #MoralPhilosophy #Interdependence #PublicPhilosophy #TheDeeperThinkingPodcast

 

Definition: Entrelationalism

Entrelationalism is an ethical framework designed for an age of deep interdependence. It expands on relational and care ethics by recognizing that harms and benefits today are distributed through complex global networks — across borders, generations, and systems. It argues that ethics must travel as far and fast as our power: matching the reach of carbon emissions, algorithms, capital flows, and cultural narratives.

Entrelationalism holds that:

• Our actions and systems create webs of impact that connect distant people and future generations.
• Moral responsibility should track these webs of impact, not stop at borders or election cycles.
• Ethics must be embedded in design, governance, and institutional practice, not only in individual conscience.

The Four Anchors: Carbon, Code, Capital, and Culture

These four domains are emblematic of our interdependence:

1. Carbon: Greenhouse emissions and climate disruptions that cross borders and decades.
2. Code: Algorithms and AI shaping information, work, and social life globally.
3. Capital: Economic networks, trade, and finance producing uneven benefits and risks.
4. Culture: Narratives and attention economies shaping norms, legitimacy, and belonging.

Entrelationalism asks: How should we live and govern in this world of entanglement?

The Three Clusters and Seven Principles

Cluster 1: Legitimacy & Accountability

Networked Legitimacy – Decision-making must include those affected, regardless of geography or generation. If your policies or technologies predictably affect others, their voices matter.

Plural Proof & Accountability – Legitimacy is not just a claim; it must be evidenced. Multiple independent forms of verification (citizens’ assemblies, audits, impact reports) ensure inclusion and oversight.

Cluster 2: Justice Across Time & Space
3. Future Justice – Duties to preserve option value and basic capabilities for future generations. We already do this partially (pensions, infrastructure); Entrelationalism extends it systematically.
4. Cautious Process & Risk Ethics – When harms are delayed or diffuse (like climate or algorithmic bias), precaution and independent monitoring are morally required.
5. Just Reciprocity – Those who benefit most and are most shielded owe proportionally more to repair harm and build resilience. Wealthier nations, firms, and individuals bear greater duties.

Cluster 3: Systems Stewardship
6. Co-Agency Responsibility – When systems (AI, infrastructures) make high-stakes decisions, human oversight, transparency, and reversibility are mandatory.
7. Information & Attention Integrity – Collective attention is a commons. Platforms must protect against manipulative amplification and disinformation.
8. Bounded Sovereignty – Sovereignty ends where unconsented cross-border harm begins. Tools like harm ledgers and moral budgets track externalised impacts (carbon emissions, digital harms).

(Some iterations combine 6–8 as “the stewardship cluster,” but the core ideas are the same.)

Why These Clusters?

Legitimacy ensures those affected by power have voice and recourse.

Justice ensures fairness across time and unequal impact.

Stewardship ensures our systems and designs embed responsibility by default.

They interlock: precaution protects future justice; reciprocity makes legitimacy fair; stewardship prevents harm before it occurs.

How Does It Differ from Other Ethics?

Goes beyond classic liberal justice (Rawls) by adding temporal and systemic dimensions.

Builds on care ethics but extends it to institutional and technological design.

Integrates ecological, digital, and economic ethics into a single framework.

Entrelationalism in Practice

Future commissioners or ombudspeople for future generations.

Harm diffusion indices for carbon, code, or toxins.

Algorithm audits and independent media health scores.

Cross-border carbon tariffs and digital harm reporting.

Citizens’ assemblies that include those affected by decisions (local and global).