↗️ 11. Leverage Points & Strategy

Having analyzed the degrading Foundational Factors (Chapter 2), their systemic interactions (Chapter 3), and the formidable Barriers hindering progress (Chapter 10), this chapter identifies potential leverage points – areas where targeted interventions could yield disproportionately positive effects. These leverage points emerge consistently across the analyses of individual primary X-Risks, highlighting their universal importance precisely because they target the root causes of our systemic fragility and offer pathways to overcome the identified barriers. Effective targeting of these foundational factors will shift negative feedback loops (Chapter 3.2) into positive ones and build systemic resilience.

Acting upon these points is crucial for navigating the current “Getting Worse Rapidly” trajectory and steering towards a safer future. This section outlines strategic considerations linked to FFs for prioritizing action, explicitly considering the role of initiatives like the Steward Scouts.

↗️ 11.1 Review of Key Leverage Points Linked to FFs 🧬

Effective action requires a shared sense of reality. The following leverage points strengthen the informational commons (📀), counter misinformation, and rebuild the trust (🤝) and governance (🏛️) capacities that depend on it.  

The table below provides a strategic crosswalk between the core leverage points, the Foundational Factors (FFs) they strengthen, the major barriers they help overcome, and the types of systemic effects they enable. This is not a static checklist, but a diagnostic tool: a way to coordinate interventions, identify synergies, and guide action across complex systems. It serves as both an overview and a practical reference for aligning efforts at multiple levels.

Strategic Theme	Leverage Points Included
🧠 Psychological and Social Capacity	• Foster Mental Wellbeing • Empower Local Action and Collective Efficacy
🤝 Trust and Radical Collaboration	• CCC Training at Scale • Cultivate Trusted Intermediaries
📀 Restoring Shared Reality	• Build the Epistemic Commons • Open Source Intelligence for Accountability
🔎 Systems Thinking and Adaptation	• Promote Strategic Literacy • Pilot Feedback-Responsive Models
🏛️ Repairing Institutional Function	• Strategic Foresight Mandates • Strengthen Coordination Networks

Reliable, trustworthy information is essential for all other efforts to succeed. The leverage points in this cluster focus on restoring mental wellbeing (🧠), epistemic integrity (📀), repairing trust (🤝), and ensuring that decision-makers and the public have access to timely, actionable knowledge (🏛️,🔎).

↗️ Prioritize Mental & Collective Wellbeing (🧠): 

Directly addresses the Erosion of Collective Coping Capacity (2.3) and Psychological Stress/Maladaptation barriers (10.3), recognizing that cognitive function and emotional resilience are prerequisites for effective action.

• What it involves: Destigmatizing mental health challenges; massively scaling investment (=) in accessible preventative and supportive mental health services; integrating wellbeing practices into all resilience efforts; fostering communities of mutual support (🤝).
• Steward Scout Role: Significant. Builds personal resilience skills (Pillar 1a/3), creates supportive peer networks (Pillar 2), and fosters agency through action (Pillar 4), all contributing to 🧠.

↗️ Build the Epistemic Commons and Institutional Trust (📀, 🤝, 🏛️):

Directly counters the Pervasive Misinformation & Epistemic Pollution (10.3) and Erosion of Social Trust & Cohesion (10.3), which fuel Governance Paralysis (10.1). This is arguably the most fundamental leverage point, as a shared understanding of reality and baseline trust are prerequisites for nearly all other collective actions.¹

• What it involves: Systemic efforts to combat mis/disinformation (crucial for 🔥, 🌍, ☣️, ☢️); investing in independent, high-quality journalism and science communication;² promoting Strategic Literacy (🔎) and critical thinking; mandating radical transparency (Principle 4.4 📀) in governance and corporate actions; protecting scientific independence.³
• Steward Scout Role: Foundational. The Scouts’ Learn activities (Chapter 9) directly build media/critical literacy. Local groups reporting on information quality or engaging in constructive dialogues (❤️💬) actively builds this commons from the ground up.

↗️ Open Source Intelligence for Transparency and Accountability (📀, 🤝, 🔎, 🏛️):

OSINT Counters Opacity (a dimension of 10.3, 10.4) and weak Governance (🏛️) enforcement/accountability (10.1, 10.4). Provides an independent verification layer against state secrecy or corporate greenwashing.⁴

• What it involves: Systematically monitoring publicly available data (satellite imagery, public records, social media, etc.) to track activities relevant to X-Risks (e.g., deforestation 🌍, military buildups ☢️);⁵ independently verifying official claims (e.g., emissions reductions 🔥, AI capability claims 🤖).⁶
• Steward Scout Role: Significant potential role through Build activities (Chapter 9) like citizen science monitoring projects (📀, 🤝), data gathering (📀), and potentially feeding verified information into the Network’s Information Integrity Unit. Requires robust training and ethical guidelines.⁷

↗️ Cultivate Strategic Literacy & Systems Thinking (🔎): 

Recognize that understanding complexity is itself a foundational capacity. This counters the pervasive deficits in Strategic Literacy (🔎) and the cognitive biases (Barrier 10.3) that lead to short-termism and reactive policy.

• What it involves: Investing heavily in public education on systems thinking, probability, and foresight; integrating these concepts into policymaker training and institutional processes; supporting accessible communication of complex risks.
• Steward Scout Role: Central via ‘Learn’ activities (Pillar 1b, Pillar 3), fostering systems understanding and foresight skills from a young age.

↗️ Enhance Global Cooperation & Adaptive Governance (🤝, 🔎, 🏛️):

Directly targets Geopolitical Rivalry/Lack of Trust (10.1), Weakness of International Institutions (10.1), Pace Mismatch/Lack of Adaptability (10.4), and Fragmentation/Silos (10.4).

• What it involves: Revitalizing/reinventing international institutions (🏛️) with stronger verification and enforcement; establishing platforms for systemic X-Risk analysis (like the proposed Steward Network); embedding Foresight (🔎) and adaptive principles in governance;⁸ fostering Track 1.5/II dialogues.⁹
• Steward Scout Role: Indirect but crucial. By fostering cross-cultural understanding through global connections (Connect pillar) and promoting Radical Collaboration (🤝 Principle 4.3), Scouts build the underlying social capital needed for effective global governance.¹⁰

↗️ Integrate Equity and Justice into All Responses (Leveraging =, 🤝, 🏛️):

Counters the destabilizing effects of Inequality Concentrating Vulnerability (10.2), barriers to collective action arising from perceived unfairness (10.3), and the tendency for solutions to neglect marginalized groups (violating Fundamental Equity (=)).

• What it involves: Systematically embedding environmental/climate justice principles;¹¹ ensuring equitable distribution of resources (=) and protection; empowering marginalized voices in decision-making (🤝); building robust social safety nets (=); addressing historical grievances to build Trust (🤝).¹²
• Steward Scout Role: Central. Local Scout groups can identify and address local inequities through Build projects.  The Network structure itself must model inclusivity. Training materials should explicitly incorporate equity lenses (=).

↗️ Mandate Proactive Resilience and Foresight (Leveraging 🔎, 🏛️, 🤝, =):

Directly counters Institutional Short-Termism (linked to 🏛️, 10.4), Underfunding of Public Goods (10.2), and deficits in Strategic Literacy (🔎).

• What it involves: Mandating long-term X-Risk assessment (🔎) in planning; massively scaling investment (=) in resilient Infrastructure (🔌);¹³ developing robust early warning systems; investing in foundational R&D for safety/resilience; strengthening psychological resilience (🧠) through Mental Wellbeing (🧠) support.¹⁴
• Steward Scout Role: Significant. Scouts build personal and community resilience (🧠) through Learn and Build activities. Advocacy campaigns (Build pillar) can push for necessary public investment (=). Foresight exercises (Learn pillar) directly build 🔎 capacity.

↗️ Foster Systemic Understanding & Responsible Innovation (Leveraging 🔎, 🏛️, =):

Addresses deficits in Strategic Literacy (🔎) and Cognitive Biases (10.3), and the Misaligned Incentives (=) driving risky innovation (10.2).

• What it involves: Investing in public education on systems thinking;¹⁵ developing robust governance for powerful technologies (🤖, ☣️);¹⁶ realigning Economic (=) incentives towards safety and long-term wellbeing; cultivating Constructive Communication (❤️💬) for navigating trade-offs.¹⁷
• Steward Scout Role: Core function. The Learn pillar (systems thinking, 🔎 development) is central. Local groups discussing technology ethics or promoting sustainable economic models (=) contribute directly.

↗️ Leverage Points at a Glance: Systemic Focus and Strategic Function

The table below summarizes each core leverage point, mapping it to the key Foundational Factors (FFs) it strengthens and the systemic barriers (from Chapter 10) it helps disrupt. This overview supports clearer navigation, coordination across domains, and targeted prioritization.

Leverage Point	Disrupts These Barrier Types	Strategic Function
Foster Mental Wellbeing & Psychological Safety (🧠 🤝)	Apathy/Despair Cycles, Cultural/Emotional Exhaustion	Restores agency and decision-making capacity
Build the Epistemic Commons (📀 🤝 🏛️)	Information Pollution, Social Polarization	Rebuilds shared understanding and trust
Promote Strategic Literacy at Scale (🔎 🧠 📀)	Short-termism, Institutional Myopia	Enhances foresight and systems understanding
Empower Local Action & Collective Efficacy (🤝 🧠 =)	Institutional Inertia, Community Disengagement	Sparks distributed resilience and trust-building
Deploy OSINT for Transparency & Accountability (📀 🏛️ 🔎)	Corruption, Legitimacy Erosion, Geopolitical Distrust	Exposes hidden risks and strengthens accountability
Establish Foresight Mandates (🔎 🏛️)	Strategic Blindness, Planning Failures	Embeds long-term risk analysis in decision cycles
Strengthen Coordination Networks (🏛️ 🤝 🔌)	Fragmented Governance, Operational Breakdown	Supports coherence across actors and scales
Pilot Feedback-Responsive Institutional Models (🏛️ 🔄 📀)	Static Bureaucracy, Trust Deficits, Fragile Legitimacy	Demonstrates adaptive capacity in real-world settings

These leverage points reinforce each other and often generate positive feedback loops—such as improved transparency (📀) increasing trust (🤝), which strengthens coordination (🏛️) and enables deeper adaptation (🔎, 🔄). Mapping them this way supports integrative, cross-silo action planning.

🌍 Global Equity and Contextual Variation

While the leverage points outlined here offer systemic potential across contexts, their feasibility, cost, and risk profiles differ significantly between regions. Many Global South nations face added constraints: limited fiscal space, colonial legacies that shape institutional design, dependence on external technologies, or geopolitical marginalization in global norm-setting bodies. 

For these regions, externally defined solutions may be perceived as extractive or misaligned with local priorities. Therefore, effective implementation demands adaptation rooted in local knowledge and agency, alongside global support structures that prioritize equity (=), knowledge transfer (📀), and respectful partnership (🤝). Steward Scouts and allied networks must actively recognize and address these asymmetries, ensuring leverage strategies are globally inclusive, context-sensitive, and justice-centered.

↗️ 11.2 Strategic Considerations for Prioritization

Given the vast scope and daunting barriers (Chapter 10), prioritizing efforts is essential. Strategic considerations, guided by the Steward Network Principles (Chapter 4), include:

• Foundational Enablers First: Strengthening the Epistemic Commons (📀) and rebuilding Social Trust (🤝) appear critical prerequisites for almost all other complex collective actions. Without a shared reality and minimal trust, coordinating on climate 🔥, AI safety 🤖, or pandemic response ☣️ becomes nearly impossible. ¹⁸ Steward Scout focus on local trust-building (🤝) and media literacy (📀) aligns with prioritizing these foundations.
• Urgency vs. Feasibility: Some risks demand immediate attention due to acceleration or irreversibility (AI safety 🤖, climate tipping points 🔥).¹⁹ However, political/technical feasibility (barriers from Ch 10) may be low. Pragmatism suggests focusing initially on more feasible actions that build capacity and momentum (e.g., Steward Scout local resilience projects building skills and community cohesion 🤝), while pursuing long-term advocacy on urgent but currently intractable issues. Recent political events (US reversals) severely impact feasibility for global cooperation.²⁰
• Systemic Interventions vs. Domain-Specific Fixes: Prioritizing interventions that strengthen multiple FFs (e.g., enhancing global Governance (🏛️)) or address cross-cutting vulnerabilities (e.g., integrating Equity (=)) likely offers greater leverage than purely technical fixes within a single X-Risk domain, reflecting the Systemic Focus principle.²¹
• Addressing Root Causes vs. Managing Symptoms: Tackling deep drivers (unsustainable Economic (=) models, geopolitical rivalry 🤝) is essential long-term, but requires addressing immediate symptoms (disaster response, conflict de-escalation) to create space for deeper change. A balanced approach is needed. Steward Scouts can work at both levels – local resilience (symptom management) and advocating for systemic change.
• Identifying and Catalyzing Positive Tipping Points: Actively seek interventions that could trigger positive feedback loops (Section 3.5) and push the system across critical Tipping Points towards resilience,308 like demonstrating the Economic (=) benefits of resilient Infrastructure (🔌) to spur investment,²² or using successful Steward Scout local collaborations (🤝) to rebuild broader Trust (🤝).
• Leveraging Synergies: Prioritize actions offering co-benefits across domains (e.g., sustainable agriculture aiding 🌍, 🤝, 🏛️, =).²³ Recognize FF interdependencies – strengthening one often supports others.
• Building Capacity Where It’s Weakest: Focusing resources (=, 🔌) on enhancing foundational resilience in the most vulnerable regions aligns with the Equity & Justice (=) principle and reduces global systemic risk. This could be a strategic focus for partnerships involving Steward Scouts.²⁴

↗️ Real-World Tipping Points 

These examples illustrate how targeted action can cascade into broader transformation:

• In Rwanda, post-genocide investments in community-based health systems triggered a decade of improvements in public health, trust in governance, and economic recovery—demonstrating how restoring one Foundational Factor (🧠) can reinforce others (🤝, =, 🏛️).²⁵
• In Kerala, India, decades of investment in female literacy and participatory local governance yielded resilience dividends in disaster response, pandemic preparedness, and ecological planning—illustrating how literacy (🔎), governance (🏛️), and wellbeing (🧠) can reinforce each other.²⁶
• In parts of Africa, the global “green energy tipping point” is approaching.  Distributed solar microgrids are leapfrogging fossil fuel infrastructure (🔌) and enabling local economic resilience (=) with minimal governance burden (🏛️).²⁷

↗️ 11.3 Strategic Considerations for Evaluation

When considering potential actions or interventions aimed at enhancing foundational resilience and mitigating existential risk (whether within the Steward Network or by other actors), the following questions, reflecting the strategic considerations discussed, can help guide prioritization:

• Leverage & Systemic Impact: Does this intervention target a high-leverage point? Does it address a key Foundational Factor (FF) shown to be particularly degraded (Chapter 2) or a critical nexus between FFs (e.g., Trust-Info-Gov 🤝/📀/🏛️)? Is it likely to trigger positive feedback loops or move the system towards a resilience tipping point (Section 3.3)?
• Foundational Enablers: Does it directly strengthen the critical prerequisites of a functional Epistemic Commons (e.g., countering misinformation 📀) or building institutional and Social Trust (🤝)?
• Urgency & Irreversibility: Does the intervention address a rapidly accelerating risk (e.g., AI safety 🤖 capabilities outpacing governance) or a potentially irreversible threshold (e.g., climate tipping points 🔥, critical biodiversity loss 🌍)? Is the window for effective action closing?
• Feasibility & Context: Considering the barriers outlined in Chapter 10, what is the realistic feasibility (political 🏛️, economic =, social/cultural 🧠/🤝, institutional 🏛️) of implementing this intervention in the intended context(s)? What capacities are required, and can they be built? Is the intervention adaptable to local needs and conditions?
• Co-Benefits & Equity (=): Does the action offer significant co-benefits (e.g., sustainable practices aiding 🌍, =, 🧠)? Does it align with principles of Foundational Equity and Justice (=), ensuring burdens and benefits are fairly distributed and vulnerable populations are protected?
• Root Causes vs. Symptoms: Does the intervention primarily address underlying drivers of systemic fragility (e.g., misaligned incentives =), or does it mainly manage immediate symptoms (e.g., disaster response)? Is a balanced approach needed?
• Capacity Building Where Weakest: Does the intervention strategically build foundational resilience (🔌, 🧠, 🤝, etc.) in regions most vulnerable to systemic risks, thereby enhancing overall global resilience and equity (=)?

Systematically considering these questions can help focus efforts and resources on interventions most likely to yield disproportionately positive effects in navigating towards a safer future.

↗️ Conclusion for Chapter 11:

These leverage points are not a static blueprint or prescriptive checklist. Rather, they represent a dynamic framework for coordinated, context-sensitive action. They offer a map of where small, strategic interventions can ripple outward through systems—disrupting barriers, reinforcing Foundational Factors, and creating positive feedback loops. Their power lies in their adaptability: they are meant to be iterated, combined, and localized. 

Just as no single actor can solve a systemic crisis, no single strategy will suffice. Instead, progress depends on distributed experimentation, learning-by-doing, and principled coordination across diverse actors and environments. By engaging these leverage points as shared strategic scaffolding—rather than rigid instructions—we can catalyze resilience from the ground up and across the global system. The following chapter outlines how this framework can evolve into a legitimate, living network capable of stewarding our shared future.

Next: 🏗️ Formation and Legitimacy

Previous: 🚧 Obstacles

1. Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: Free Press, 1995); Edelman, 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report(Edelman, January 2025) [Use latest version]. These sources emphasize the foundational role of trust for societal function and collective action. ↩︎
2. See, for example, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017), which discusses the importance of effective science communication. ↩︎
3. Heather Douglas, Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009) ↩︎
4. Eliot Higgins, We Are Bellingcat: Global Crime, Online Sleuths, and the Bold Future of News (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021). [Provides examples of OSINT for accountability]. ↩︎
5. See Global Forest Watch, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.globalforestwatch.org/ [Example of OSINT for deforestation]; Federation of American Scientists (FAS), various reports on nuclear forces and military buildups based on satellite imagery analysis, accessed April 23, 2025, https://fas.org/. ↩︎
6. See Climate Action Tracker, accessed April 23, 2025, https://climateactiontracker.org/ [Uses various data sources, including publicly available data, to track emissions]; Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), “AI Capability Claims Tracker,” [Hypothetical example, CSET or similar orgs track AI progress], accessed April 23, 2025, https://cset.georgetown.edu/. ↩︎
7. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), OSINT: Risks and Opportunities (Heraklion: ENISA, 2022). [Discusses risks and ethical considerations]. ↩︎
8. Andrew Zolli and Ann Marie Healy, Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back (New York: Free Press, 2012). [Discusses adaptive principles]. ↩︎
9. See examples of Track 1.5/II dialogues at institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations or Chatham House. ↩︎
10. Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). [Classic text on social capital]. ↩︎
11. Robert D. Bullard, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers, C.3 (Equity) (Geneva: IPCC, 2022). ↩︎
12. See Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (London: Allen Lane, 2009) [Links equity and trust]; World Bank, Social Safety Net Primer (Washington, DC: World Bank, n.d.), accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/safetynets/brief/social-safety-net-primer. ↩︎
13. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (Reston, VA: ASCE, 2021); World Economic Forum (WEF), Global Risks Report 2025 (Geneva: WEF, January 2025) [Use latest edition – these reports typically highlight infrastructure deficits]. ↩︎
14. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Mental Health and Well-Being in the United States: Findings from the 2021 National Academies Survey(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2024) [Or latest equivalent report]; World Health Organization (WHO), “Mental health,” Fact Sheet, September 20, 2024, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response. ↩︎
15. Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer, ed. Diana Wright (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008). ↩︎
16. Stuart Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (New York: Viking, 2019); Kevin M. Esvelt, “Inoculating science against potential pandemics and information hazards,” PLoS Pathogens 14, no. 10 (2018): e1007286. [Examples addressing governance for AI and biotech]. ↩︎
17. Cross-reference Principle 4.2 “Constructive Compassionate Communication (❤️🗨️)” (page 17). See also Marshall B. Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, 3rd ed. (Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press, 2015). ↩︎
18. Edelman, 2025 Trust Barometer. See also examples discussed in Chapter 10, Section 10.1 regarding failures in climate, pandemic, and arms control cooperation linked to mistrust. ↩︎
19. Center for AI Safety, “Understanding AI Risks,” accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.safe.ai/problem; IPCC, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, SPM.B (Geneva: IPCC, 2023). ↩︎
20. Simmone Shah, “Trump Is Bringing Project 2025’s Anti-Climate Action Goals to Life,” TIME, March 25, 2025; CNN, “Trump announces US withdrawal from World Health Organization,” March 10, 2025. [Use current dates reflecting latest available info on policy reversals]. ↩︎
21. Meadows, Thinking in Systems. ↩︎
22. Judith Rodin, The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong (New York: PublicAffairs, 2014). ↩︎
23. See, e.g., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems (Rome: FAO, 2023). [Example discussing co-benefits of sustainable agriculture]. ↩︎
24. See, e.g., reports from organizations like the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) or the World Resources Institute (WRI) discussing the focus of climate finance or development aid on vulnerable regions. ↩︎
25. Paul Farmer et al., Reimagining Global Health: An Introduction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 244–260.
    [Farmer and colleagues describe Rwanda’s dramatic post-1994 public health gains, attributing success to community-based health systems, strong governance, and international partnerships. Health system reform catalyzed broader societal recovery and trust in institutions.] ↩︎
26. Amartya Sen, “Human Development and the Kerala Model,” in Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor Books, 1999), 147–159;
    Patrick Heller, “Democratic Deepening in India and South Africa,” Journal of Asian and African Studies 38, no. 4–5 (2003): 342–360.
    [Kerala’s long-term investment in public education, especially female literacy, and participatory governance significantly improved social indicators and enabled rapid, effective disaster and pandemic response.] ↩︎
27. International Energy Agency (IEA), Africa Energy Outlook 2022, https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022(accessed April 29, 2025);
    Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), Mini Grids for Half a Billion People: Market Outlook and Handbook for Decision Makers (World Bank, 2023), https://www.esmap.org/publications/mini-grids-half-billion-people(accessed April 29, 2025).
    [These reports detail the rapid expansion of off-grid solar solutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Local microgrid deployment enables energy access while building community resilience and economic independence—without relying on legacy fossil fuel infrastructure.] ↩︎