If You Are a Funder

If you are in a position to direct capital and the book’s argument has changed how you think about where capital should go, the request is straightforward. The coherence infrastructure the book has described is systematically undercapitalized relative to the capability development happening at the same time. The capital flowing into AI capability development in any given year exceeds, by orders of magnitude, the total capital flowing into all of the coordination, contemplative, governance, and regenerative-economics work the book has been describing combined.

This is not natural. It is a consequence of decisions about where capital has been directed and what kinds of returns have been considered legitimate. It is changeable. The change requires funders who can hold longer time horizons than venture capital typically permits, who can accept that the returns on coherence infrastructure are largely non-financial, and who can resist the institutional pressures that direct most philanthropic and impact capital toward the kinds of projects that are easiest to measure and least likely to challenge the systems that produced the capital in the first place.

If this is your work, the request is to find the builders the previous section named and direct capital toward them on terms they can actually accept. This sometimes means accepting structures of accountability and return that conventional investment vehicles do not permit. It sometimes means funding projects whose specific outcomes you cannot predict. It sometimes means trusting builders whose judgment you have come to respect more than your own about how the capital should be deployed. The coordination infrastructure being built is the kind of infrastructure that needs patient, structurally aligned capital, and there is genuinely very little of it available to the builders who would otherwise do the work.