Towards the end of this article, I present a list of my fundamental loyalties, defined as the intellectual commitments guiding my participation, writing and speech in the public sphere.

Why am I doing that? To model transparency. To be clear, both with myself and with others, about what I intend to do, before I start doing it.

What follows next is background, a much more detailed answer to the question of why. Feel free to skip to the end if you are mostly interested in knowing what I (generally) think, and where I (generally) stand.

Background: An urgent need for better public conversation

These are times that call for the engagement of citizens in a number of critical questions, debates and conversations affecting the overall direction of human development, and indeed the future of Earth’s biosphere. These issues involve fundamental questions of war and peace, trade and economic development, citizenship and human rights, and the health of global ecosystems, to name just a few pressing topics. These are topics of perennial interest, of course, but they are usually presented as categories. They have heightened currency just now because these topics are often being called into question at a general level, not just tied to specific points within them.

Examples abound. Instead of reflecting on certain specific armed conflicts, we are called to stake out our positions on armed conflict in general. Are we prepared to go to war? Are we willing to struggle for peace? Tariffs and migration are specific (and difficult) issues. But when push comes to shove, as it has recently, do we believe generally in free trade and the mobility of people and capital, or not? The rights of certain specific groups and peoples have always been under threat. But what should we do, especially as citizens of free democracies, when we see the general concepts of human rights and democracy under open attack? Environmental policy choices have always been contested. But how do we turn the tide of backlash when even the fundamental scientific facts undergirding our concerns about climate change and biodiversity are the target of concerted campaigns to defund and delegitimize science itself?

Because of the heightened attention given to these topics in both the traditional and social media, the conversations around them can genuinely be called global. And it must be acknowledged that those global conversations are not going well.

It is a truism that conversations around such questions, both public and private, are of the utmost importance. And yet even the genuineness of that importance is being systematically eroded by the ruling climate of irony, sarcasm, hardened outrage, and deep cynicism regarding the value of honesty and respectful dialogue. Thoughts and words lead to decisions and actions, both individually and collectively. Bad conversations can lead to disastrous decisions.

For some years, during a period of government and intergovernmental service, I have been relatively inactive in the public sphere as an independent commentator. Now I am free to speak for myself again. But before wading back into these often overheated and deeply troubling conversations – even on a micro scale, with my individual voice – I discovered that I had a powerful need to reflect more deeply on what I actually wanted to say, and why.

This has led me to the concept of “loyalties”, which I describe in more detail below. But first I also need to explain why I think this kind of openness and clarity is so important. At least, to me.

Seeking a responsible way to participate in the global conversation

The opportunity to share one’s thoughts and feelings with anyone, anywhere, using both words and imagery, began growing exponentially with the emergence of the Internet in the 1990s. This explosive growth in human connection and communication was soon amplified several times over by an expanding computer-based ecosystem of websites, search tools, knowledge bases, and social media applications. The arrival and near-universal adoption of simple-to-operate handheld computers (aka “smartphones”) supercharged this growth still further.

This enormously complex ecosystem of communication is once again being transformed and augmented by the arrival of generative artificial intelligence programs (“AI” for short). All of these tools, resources, “apps” and AIs have come to dominate not only people’s daily experience of the Internet, but sometimes even their experience of life itself.

This transformative, global technical advance, sometimes referred to as the “digitalisation” of our world, has brought with it enormous advantages. But its impacts have not been uniformly positive, especially in the public sphere. The systems fueling this advance include automated mechanisms for diffusing and prioritising information (“algorithms”) that are designed to attract and maintain attention. These in turn tend to amplify negatively charged messaging. One result is that what passes for public debate today has become, all too often, shrill, mean-spirited, and destructive of the grounds for respectful argument, as well as for the ability to cooperate across differences.

In addition to the usual advantage afforded to those with enormous financial resources, today’s algorithms also contribute to a vicious cycle where emotionally charged and/or highly provocative contributions to the public space get amplified, while reasoned and nuanced debate gets downgraded. A deeply worrying side effect of this process is that public figures of any stature, from local government officials to global celebrities, at all positions on the political spectrum, are more often subjected to anonymous hate, personal insults, public shaming, threats of violence, or actual violence. Some of the most thoughtful and well-intentioned voices simply leave the room voluntarily, or feel forced out.

This is the public sphere as I perceive it today. Substantive, balanced reflection and respectful dialogue faces an enormous challenge in this arena, which has come to resemble a never-ending battle for attention, influence, and dominance, a battle where “anything goes”. For a book-writer, this is an especially unpleasant environment. If one is not interested in constantly boiling down one’s views into a provocative catch-phrase that is steeped in irony, ridicule, or raw anger, it seems almost pointless to air those views at all.

Nonetheless, it is substantive, balanced reflection and respectful dialogue that we clearly need more of. When, after a period of temporary disability and withdrawal, I decided to re-engage with the public sphere, I determined to do so on my own terms. I have felt a growing sense of civic duty to engage in questions that impact the basic well-being (sometimes even the survival) of future generations of human beings as well as the other species on this planet. But I want to contribute to movement in a better direction. I want to engage from a position of calmness, clarity, courtesy, and compassion.

Calmness, clarity, courtesy, and compassion: the Four C’s

These are the “Four C’s” that I believe should generally characterize the culture of global debate on difficult issues. Fortunately those Four C’s still characterize discussion in many contexts, such as in live conference settings as well as in most of the diplomatic consultations in which I have been privileged to participate during my working career. But in the fast and frothy environment of the dominant digital apps, such an approach runs the high-probability risk of being perceived as boring, and therefore being completely ignored by the controlling algorithms, as well as by users now used to frothier fare.

In making the transition from public official to private individual, which brings with it the freedom to speak out on personal views, I have determined that I must nonetheless take that risk: the risk of being boring. I will speak out, but as I do, I will attempt to carry this “4C”-ethic with me. In making public comments on major issues, formally (in published writing) or informally (speaking, social media, etc.), I will endeavor to do so in balanced, substantive, reflective way, and practice the Four C’s to the best of my ability.

In the spirit of the third “C”, clarity, I will occasionally publish essays or short statements about where I stand on a number of critical global, international, or national issues, and why. I think of these texts as individual position statements. Publishing them is, for me, an act of engaged citizenship.

As a prelude to making statements on matters of contemporary concern, and indeed before beginning to comment more systematically on what I see happening in the world and in the media (both traditional and social), I felt it necessary to first identify my fundamental loyalties.

Defining the concept of “loyalties”

“Loyalties”, as I am using the term here (i.e. in the context of discourse and action in the public sphere), are solid intellectual commitments. Loyalties shape how people think, speak, write, and direct their actions, including acts of public communication. Loyalties are often strengthened by an emotional element as well: we often love what we are loyal to.

In my view, everyone has a list of loyalties, whether or not they choose to write them down and publish them. I am describing and publishing my own loyalties here for sake of transparency: if anyone wonders why I stand where I stand, this list will help explain it. The list also serves as a reminder to myself about starting points, before I decide to take a public stand on any general or specific issue, say something about current events, or comment on published media.

Of course, public loyalties are often superseded by private ones, such as a commitment to the health and fundamental wellbeing of one’s family and close friends. Most people find it natural not to say things that may hurt the people they love, and that is certainly true for me. Of course, conflicts between public and private loyalties are not uncommon, and indeed, they often provide for compelling news stories or dramas. This point underscores why declaring one’s loyalties is key to sustaining a constructive and transparent public discourse.

I also want to acknowledge that loyalties, although defined as solid commitments, can nonetheless be flexible, or even changeable. New knowledge or new circumstances can cause, and at times should cause, a re-evaluation of one’s loyalties, or at least a variance from them. Loyalties are not to be changed or set aside lightly, but neither should they be treated as unbreakable shackles. Unwillingness to reconsider one’s loyalties would be inconsistent with my own loyalties, which include a commitment to the value of empirical knowledge, and the freedom to change one’s mind.

My public loyalties: a first-draft list

My loyalties today include:

• Personal liberty in the formation of values, opinions, and beliefs, about oneself and about the world around us, including freedom to express those values, opinions and beliefs (in ways that do not cause harm to others), and to change them. In this respect, I am a devoted liberal, even though some of my views on specific issues would probably be categorised as conservative.

• A commitment to empirical knowledge, verifiable fact, and the scientific method as a principal source of information supporting the formation of those values, opinions, and beliefs. This is a very strong loyalty, because the value and validity of science has been well established by the tools of science itself: skepticism, experimentation, replicability and verifiability. Many of my other loyalties flow from this one.

• I feel a sense of loyalty to the planetary perspective, recognizing the uniqueness of our home, planet Earth. This loyalty includes a recognition of the extraordinary value of life on Earth, a love of its beauty, and a strong desire to protect the integrity of the planet’s ecosystems and core geophysical processes, on which all life depends. The ability to develop this sense of “planetary loyalty”, based on scientific knowledge, is a new phenomenon on Earth. It is unique to humans, and it is a direct product of advances in science, technology, knowledge management, liberal freedom of thought, and universal education during the past few centuries. I cherish humanity’s achievement of this perspective, and I seek to promote its embrace at every reasonable opportunity.

• I am loyal to the vision of long-lasting, robust, international peace and cooperation, especially through international and multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, and especially for the achievement of sustainable development, human rights, human security, and elimination of the threat of war. Certain global agreements achieved at the United Nations, such as the 2030 Agenda or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, have a special place in my heart. I am not blind to the flaws in these international systems, but I am committed to strengthening their ability to improve the foundations for a sustainable way of life on planet Earth.

• I recognize deep national loyalties based on birth, culture, personal history, and citizenship. In my case I have two such loyalties: to the United States, the land of my birth and my home for the first half of my life, and to Sweden, my home for many years now. By extension, I have a sense of loyalty to the European Union and to the NATO countries in their cooperation for mutual defense. I embrace these national loyalties partly because both my countries, Sweden and the US, have traditionally been beacons of democracy, which is the next point on this list.

• Linked to these national loyalties, I am loyal to democracy as a form of government and as a political culture where all voices can be hard, participation and debate are valued and protected, and every adult person has a meaningful vote in free and fair elections, as well as the protected right to use that vote.

• I feel a strong sense of personal loyalty to the concept of equality, and especially gender equality. No one should experience discrimination or oppression on account of how they look or where they come from, and especially not on account of their gender or sexual identity.

• While I personally have no loyalty to any religion or religious organisations, I support the right and freedom of others to have, or to change, such loyalties, in alignment with my first point on personal liberty.

• Neither do I have specific loyalties to any political party, US or Swedish, but I once again affirm the right and freedom of others to have, or to change, such loyalties. For transparency: I acknowledge a long-term tendency to vote for Democratic candidates and issues in the United States (though I started my adult life as a Republican), and to vote for parties in the center / left of center in the constellation of Swedish political parties – though I have not exclusively supported candidates or causes connected with any specific party in either country, and have at times in my life supported so-called “independents”. On some specific issues, e.g. related to defense and certain fiscal policies, I find my political views more aligned with traditionally conservative values.

• I have a sense of loyalty to the large group of people globally who identify with the “sustainability movement”, in both their professional and the personal capacities, and to that movement itself. This loyalty involves acknowledging a very fuzzy and inclusive boundary, as there are many different aspects to sustainability and sustainable development (as I have written about in my books and other writing). This sense of loyalty does not imply that I support all actions taken in the name of sustainability, but that I generally look favorably on people and organisations who are trying, in good faith, to understand sustainability-related issues and trends from a science- and systems-based perspective, or to make changes that promote sound policy and technology solutions for a more sustainable future.

• Although I am no longer in public service, I retain a strong loyalty to the values of professionalism and integrity in the public sphere. I strove to uphold these values myself when in service (though I surely failed on occasion), and I will stand up for them publicly now. I expect public servants, officials in public-facing organisations, business executives and others to do their jobs and enact their duties to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth as they know it, and to follow the ethical codes that are relevant to their professions and positions.

How I plan to use this list

This first-draft list of my publicly declared loyalties is not comprehensive, nor is it presented as some kind of hierarchy of values. It will no doubt evolve over time.

My thoughts on specific issues will find their most meaningful foundation and starting point in one or more of my loyalties, depending on the context. This list is not an algorithm, however: my positions are not mechanistically predictable based on my published loyalties, since many issues involve complex trade-offs and nuances. But in general, when I consider the issues that are currently dominating public conversation, I find that most of what I would like to say in that conversation is linked to one or more of these loyalties.

Loyalties are not the same as biases, and I further acknowledge that I have many other biases, conscious and unconscious, owing to my gender, social identity, and level of social and economic privilege, as well as my personal history. In my public writing, I try (and will keep trying) to be aware of these biases and their impact on my views. 

I welcome reflections on the above statement.

Alan AtKisson

7 October 2025