From Human-Centered to Natural Order

In the 21st century, human civilization on Earth faces unprecedented deep-seated crises. From climate change and ecological degradation to resource depletion, and from accumulating technological risks to complex systemic vulnerabilities in social and political systems, the fragility of modern civilization has become increasingly apparent. Although technological progress has greatly enhanced human productivity and living standards, the human-centered paradigm—driven by limitless growth and expansion of desires—has severely disrupted the balance between civilization and natural systems. A synthesis of historical, philosophical, scientific, and systems-thinking perspectives indicates that if the old civilization model persists, human civilization will inevitably trigger systemic collapse. At the core of human-centered civilization lies the assumption that civilization can expand indefinitely, that natural resources are unconditionally available, and that ecosystems can bear unlimited stress. Since the Industrial Revolution, technological and institutional developments have reinforced these assumptions, enabling rapid short-term growth. However, contemporary scientific research clearly demonstrates that Earth’s systems have finite carrying capacities. Ecosystems and physical systems maintain stability through feedback mechanisms, and expansion beyond these boundaries inevitably triggers nonlinear risks, leading to irreversible collapse. Human civilization is thus positioned at a critical juncture where historical trajectories intersect with scientific realities. Traditional theories of civilization have proposed multiple ways to interpret world order. Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History emphasizes the universality of institutions; Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations explains international relations through culture and values; Zhao Tingyang’s Tianxia System presents a global governance framework from a political-holistic perspective. Yet all three share a fundamental limitation: none adequately accounts for the constraints imposed by natural systems, nor do they address the ecological and physical conditions underlying the development of civilization. In these theories, natural systems are treated either as mere background or as resources, rather than as the fundamental constraints of civilization, leading to misinterpretation of civilizational crises and limitations in proposed solutions. Faced with these challenges, a new theoretical paradigm must be proposed: the Natural Civilization Theory. This framework embeds civilization within natural systems, emphasizing low-entropy development, ecological primacy, technology subordinated to nature, and systemic governance. It constitutes a fourth path for civilization. This theory is grounded not only in scientific and philosophical reasoning but also resonates deeply with Eastern natural philosophical wisdom, particularly the principles articulated in Laozi’s Dao De Jing: “humans follow the Earth, the Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows Dao, Dao follows nature.” The core idea of Natural Civilization is that civilization is not an autonomous entity independent of nature but a subsystem within the larger natural system; human societal development must adhere to natural laws, or the long-term stability of civilization will be unattainable. The paradigm shift proposed by Natural Civilization encompasses a comprehensive transition: from growth-centered to steady-state civilization, from desire-driven to restrained civilization, and from power-centric politics to systemic governance. This transformation is not merely institutional or technological but represents a fundamental restructuring of civilizational values, social behavior, and governance logic. By embedding civilization within natural systems, human activity can operate within the boundaries of material, energy, and ecological cycles,