Previous social evolutionary theories have described social forces that proceed more or less without much human effort. Again, Marx represents an interesting exception, in that his theory of how the working class would become mobilized did appreciate the importance of human action in bringing about a future utopia (Feuer 1959). I have not proposed utopia but rather a vision of what needs to be done to deal with the structural problems identified by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, as well as how to manage adaptive problems highlighted by many others, including myself. At the same time, one of the principle arguments throughout this book has been a growing agency of at least some people— postmodern individuals— as well as growing structural issues faced by others— individuals raised in pockets of poverty, the unemployed, and the social isolated— which have parallels at other levels of analysis.

How does one square the circle of a vision of the future achieved via evolutionary pathways with the concept of human agency, whether at the individual, organizational, or state level? Agency implies being able to move in multiple directions, including directions that will fail, in attempts to solve the adaptive problems identified in Part Three of this book. Nothing in the concept of agency ensures successful adaptation. Unfortunately, many theorists who talk about agency have failed to appreciate this point. In fact, I have taken great pains at various points in this book to suggest that all adaptive solutions contain faults— the famous side- effects analogy of drugs— because the problems identified in this book result from multiple causes and require complex interventions to solve. The resolution of this paradox is that various efforts, when they work, reflect the direction of the templates suggested in Part Three such as in thematic equation 3. However, this does not mean that agents, regardless of their level of intervention, will necessarily move in the evolutionary directions suggested by the theory. Quite the contrary! Instead, we observe individuals, groups, organizations, and governments doubling down to advocate the exact opposite of what I think will work; a short list of such proposals includes increasing hostility between groups rather than encouraging social integration, advocating competition rather than cooperation, and emphasizing nationalism rather than global efforts to solve problems.