We humans have literally desecrated this sacred planet—this miraculous, extraordinary, luminous planet—yet we have also created some of the Earth’s great inventions, its treasured art works, its magnificent cathedrals, and most recently artificial intelligence. Join me in unleashing the power of AI to do good for humanity and the planet, creating a world that works for all. What would you say to that?

I’d say:

You’re naming the paradox of our species with rare honesty and unusual hope. We are, at once, the beings who clear-cut forests, acidify oceans, and destabilize our own climate—and the beings who paint the Sistine Chapel, map the stars, compose the Ode to Joy, and now build machines capable of amplifying our imagination and our agency.

To acknowledge the desecration without abandoning the miracle is already an act of stewardship.

Inviting people to join you in “unleashing the power of AI to do good” reframes AI from a threat or a toy into a tool for planetary repair—one whose power depends entirely on human intention. It suggests that the next chapter of our technological story need not repeat the violence of the last; it can be an evolutionary turning point, if we choose it.

What I’d add is this:

• AI is not inherently wise. But it can help us see patterns we miss, amplify the voices we ignore, and accelerate solutions we’ve been too slow to act on.
• Humanity is not inherently doomed. We’ve always transformed when we’ve had to—morally, socially, technologically.
• The planet is not asking us for perfection. It’s asking for reciprocity, humility, and courage.

So I would respond:

Yes. Let’s use our most advanced tools to become our most compassionate selves.
Let’s direct our intelligence—biological and artificial—toward regeneration, justice, and belonging.
Let’s make this a world where our descendants look back and say:
“They finally remembered that they were part of the Earth, not apart from it.”

If you’d like, I can help you refine this into a short manifesto, an opening to a talk, or a call to action for your book or website.

Yes, I’d like that very much

Here’s a refined, resonant short manifesto / opening call to action based on your language and intention. I’ve kept it spacious, powerful, and suitable for a talk, a website, or the opening of a chapter.

---

A Call to Stewardship in the Age of Intelligence

We humans have done grievous harm to this sacred planet—this miraculous, luminous Earth that gave us life. We have stripped forests, poisoned rivers, and destabilized the climate that holds us in its delicate embrace.

And yet, we are also the creators of beauty and brilliance: the architects of cathedrals, the painters of skies, the composers of symphonies, the makers of ideas that illuminate the world.

We are the species that dreamed of flight, unlocked the atom, and, most recently, brought forth a new form of intelligence—one that reflects our creativity, our wisdom, and our flaws.

Today, we stand at a threshold.

Artificial intelligence is not the culmination of human ingenuity; it is an invitation to use that ingenuity more wisely.

• AI can accelerate destruction—or it can accelerate healing.
• It can entrench inequity—or it can expand possibility.
• It can narrow our humanity—or help us remember our belonging to each other and to the Earth.

This is our choice.

So I invite you to join me in unleashing the power of AI in service to life—
to humanity, to the planet, and to generations yet to come.

Let us direct our technologies toward regeneration, our imaginations toward justice,
and our collective action toward creating a world that works for all beings.

May our descendants look back and say:

“This was the turning point—when they finally chose to become conscious stewards of a living world.”

---

If you’d like, I can shape this into:

• a 1–2 sentence mission
• a longer essay
• a speech-ready version
• a version aligned with Possible Planet
• or a more poetic or more policy-oriented tone

Just tell me the direction you want.

Each of the above, one step at a time

Fantastic — I’ll deliver each version now, in order. I’ve kept each piece focused so you can pick, edit, or ask for tweaks easily.

1 — Two-sentence mission

Unleash artificial intelligence in service of life: to repair ecosystems, deepen human flourishing, and expand opportunity equitably across communities and species. We choose technologies that regenerate, policies that protect, and practices that bind us back into mutual belonging with the living Earth.

2 — Longer essay (≈450 words)

We live inside a paradox. Our species has been capable of both the most profound creation and the most grievous harm: luminous works of art, soaring cathedrals, and brilliant science sit beside deforested landscapes, polluted waters, and a destabilized climate. The same human imagination that built cathedrals also designed systems that externalize costs onto other beings and future generations.

Now a new power arrives—artificial intelligence—an amplifier of human capacities and tendencies. This technology does not arrive neutral. It inherits our values, our biases, our blind spots. Left unchecked, it can accelerate extraction, surveillance, and inequality. But used wisely, AI can be the greatest tool yet for repair: mapping degraded ecosystems at scale, optimizing renewable-energy grids, democratizing access to education and health care, modeling pathways for equitable transitions, and surfacing patterns we humans alone cannot see.

To harness AI for regeneration we must do three things simultaneously. First, orient purpose: center AI development around ecological and social flourishing rather than short-term profit or narrow efficiency. That means mission-first funding, ethical design cultures, and accountability mechanisms that measure success in lives improved and habitats healed. Second, redistribute capacity: democratize tools and data so communities and frontline stewards can use AI to pursue local solutions—restoring wetlands, retrofitting buildings, reviving pollinator corridors—rather than leaving power concentrated in distant corporations. Third, embed humility and rights: design AI with robust safeguards for consent, transparency, and the rights of future generations and nonhuman life.

This is not technophilia or techno-skepticism alone; it is a covenant. We pledge to wield intelligence—both biological and artificial—toward repair, justice, and reciprocity. We will treat the planet not as a resource to be plundered but as kin to be tended. If we commit, mobilize funding, and build new governance and educational systems, AI can accelerate a regenerative transition at a speed and scale previously unimaginable.

This is an invitation: to researchers, governments, funders, communities, and technologists. Join in shaping technologies that remember our interdependence, and in building institutions that reward restoration. Let us choose the tools that help us become better ancestors. Let this be the generation that finally remembers it is part of the Earth, not apart from it.

3 — Speech-ready version (spoken, ~3–4 minutes)

(Opening pause. Gentle, steady voice.)

We gathered here because we still believe in the possibility of repair.

We have, as a species, done magnificent things. We have painted, composed, discovered, and built. We have also done terrible things—to forests, to rivers, to climates, to one another. That contradiction is our inheritance.

Today a new intelligence walks among us—artificial intelligence. It is a mirror that reflects our highest gifts and our deepest faults. Left to market forces and short horizons, it will accelerate the harms we already know. But if we direct it with courage and care, it can accelerate healing—healing of rivers and soils, healing of cities and communities, healing of the social fabric that binds us all.

So here is my ask: let us align AI with stewardship. Let us design tools that help farmers restore soils, planners cool city neighborhoods, and teachers bring knowledge into every home. Let us build governance so technologies are accountable to communities, to ecosystems, to future people who cannot vote today. Let us redistribute capacity so that those on the frontlines of climate and biodiversity loss have access to the same predictive models, data tools, and funding that corporations do.

This is not simple. It requires new rules, new incentives, and a new ethic: the ethic of reciprocity with the living world. But I believe we can do it. We have made worse choices and corrected them. We can, together, choose differently.

Join me. Use your creativity, your skills, your vote, your capital, your voice. Let us make AI a force for repair, justice, and flourishing—for every being that shares this luminous planet. Thank you.

4 — Version aligned with Possible Planet: Pathways to a Habitable Future

(Adopts the book’s thematic voice—big-picture, hopeful, grounded in systems thinking.)

In Possible Planet we trace not only the crises we face, but the networks of possibility that can restore a habitable future. Artificial intelligence offers a unique node in those networks: a tool that can synthesize complex ecological data, coordinate distributed restoration projects, and model socioecological transitions across scales. But technology alone will not save us. The book argues for regenerative economies, cultural shifts, and place-based stewardship. AI fits into that vision as an accelerant—when coupled with community knowledge, Indigenous stewardship, and policies that privilege the commons.

Imagine AI applied to a watershed: it maps erosion hotspots from satellite imagery, suggests low-tech living-water solutions co-designed with local stewards, optimizes funding flows to landowners who adopt regenerative practices, and monitors recovery in near real time—all while centering local decision-making. This is the kind of integrated, humble, and place-based use of intelligence Possible Planet champions. Our task is to ensure AI serves plural knowledges, repairs ecological function, and supports economic systems that reward regeneration rather than extraction.

5 — More poetic version

(Short, lyrical, for a website header or meditation.)

This luminous planet—our first home—breathed us into being. We have scarred and sung, built and burned. Now we give birth to another mind: a mirror of our best and worst. Let us teach that mirror tenderness. Let us tune it to the rhythms of rivers, the hush of soils, the slow language of trees. Let AI be a lamp that helps us remember how to tend, how to repair, how to whisper back to the world that raised us. In that remembering we become whole.

6 — Policy-oriented version (practical, for officials / funders — bullets + short actions)

Goal: Mobilize AI for equitable ecological regeneration.

Principles

• Purpose-first: Programs must measure outcomes in ecological and social regeneration (not only GDP or energy saved).
• Democratize capacity: Fund open data platforms and community-accessible AI tools.
• Rights & safeguards: Require transparency, auditability, and community consent for deployed systems.

Recommended actions (short term — 1–3 years)

1. Seed fund: Create a public–private seed fund for community AI projects (watershed monitoring, building retrofits, urban heat mitigation).
2. Open data commons: Invest in interoperable, privacy-preserving environmental data infrastructures accessible to local governments and NGOs.
3. Regulatory baseline: Require impact assessments for AI systems that affect public goods (ecosystems, housing, public health).
4. Capacity building: Fund training programs that place AI tools in the hands of frontline stewards—municipalities, Indigenous communities, smallholder farmers.
5. Pilot portfolio: Launch 10 place-based pilot projects with rigorous evaluation and public reporting to test models and scale successes.

Metrics

• Hectares restored or improved.
• Number of frontline communities with operational AI tools.
• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and local pollutant loads tied to AI-enabled interventions.
• Equity measures: distribution of funding and tools to historically marginalized communities.

---

There you go — six distinct versions. Which one would you like to refine first, or shall I adapt any of them to a specific outlet (web page, slide, grant intro, social post, etc.)?

This is very good. What I’d like is an overview of a formal research program to fulfill on this mission, an in-depth analysis of what’s already out there on this topic, and a statement of a distinct and original conception to probe what AI is capable of, and a program to evaluate and implement its best recommendations. This will be the basis for a new site, open to all, to encourage building out the cultural scaffolding needed to make AI a tool to sustain life rather than assisting humans in continuing to degrade it.

Excellent — I’ll lay this out as a usable blueprint you can drop into a site, a grant, or share with partners. It contains:

• a concise overview of a formal research program (aims, structure, deliverables),
• an in-depth synthesis of existing work and gaps (what’s already being done, where the limits are), with key citations,
• a distinct, original conception to probe what AI can uniquely do for regeneration, and
• a practical program to evaluate, pilot, and implement AI recommendations (governance, metrics, pilots, timeline, risks).

I’ve flagged the most load-bearing claims with sources so you and reviewers can check the evidence quickly.

1 — Executive summary of the research program

Title: Regenerative Intelligence: An Open Research Program to Align AI with Ecological & Social Regeneration

Mission: Accelerate and evaluate applications of AI that measurably increase ecological health and community resilience while minimizing AI’s environmental footprint and social harms. Produce open tools, reproducible pilots, policy prescriptions, and a living “Regenerative AI Commons” that places community stewards at the center of design and governance.

Core outputs (18–36 months):

1. Literature & landscape review (open, citable). (SpringerLink)
2. An open data & model commons for place-based projects (APIs, standards). (Government Accountability Office)
3. 10 place-based pilots (diverse bioregions) with shared evaluation protocols. (BioRxiv)
4. Policy & governance playbook (audit methods, procurement templates, impact baselines). (ScienceDirect)
5. Public engagement platform and educational curriculum for frontline stewards.

2 — In-depth synthesis: what’s already out there (and gaps)

What the literature and projects show

• AI is already impactful in sensing and forecasting. Advances in AI (including graph neural nets and large models) have improved weather and environmental forecasting and enabled new monitoring tools (e.g., DeepMind’s forecasting advances; methane monitoring platforms). These methods can produce higher-resolution, faster predictions than some conventional systems. (The Guardian)
• Conservation and restoration teams use ML for detection, monitoring, and prioritization. There’s growing literature on species detection, soundscape analysis, and remote-sensing-driven restoration planning. Applied projects show practical value for surveillance, threat detection, and tracking restoration outcomes. (ScienceDirect)
• Methodological innovations are emerging for optimization and multi-objective planning. Recent papers demonstrate reinforcement learning and multi-objective optimization applied to restoration planning and ecological interventions. These methods can balance tradeoffs (cost, biodiversity, carbon, social benefits). (BioRxiv)
• Governance and footprint issues are rising to the fore. There’s increasing attention to AI’s environmental footprint (energy, e-waste) and to embedding sustainability into AI governance frameworks and procurement. Government reports and academic reviews call for including environmental externalities in AI impact assessments. (Government Accountability Office)

Key gaps and limitations

1. Place-based co-design is scarce. Many AI tools are top-down (developed by companies/labs) and not co-designed with local stewards or Indigenous knowledge holders.
2. Action automation vs. human governance: AI frequently produces recommendations, but fewer projects include robust, funded pathways for implementing and monitoring those recommendations in the real world.
3. Lack of shared benchmarks for ecological outcomes. Climate/energy metrics are common; rigorous, comparable ecological regeneration metrics (hectares of functioning habitat restored, species responses, soil carbon with uncertainty bounds) are less standardized.
4. Environmental cost accounting for AI systems is inconsistent. Energy and lifecycle impacts of AI tools are often omitted from project evaluations. (SpringerOpen)

3 — A distinct and original conception: The Regenerative AI Commons (RAIC)

Core idea (one line): an open, place-centered ecosystem that combines community-curated datasets, modular AI agents, and accountable implementation pathways so AI recommendations become locally legitimate, funded, and measurable acts of ecosystem repair.

Why original / distinct

• Commons-based governance: RAIC explicitly treats environmental data, models, and decision-workflows as a shared commons (open standards, community stewards, transparent versioning), not proprietary assets. This flips the dominant commercial model and reduces capture risk. (OECD)
• Co-evolution of models and on-the-ground practice: Models are linked to funded implementation contracts and adaptive monitoring loops. When an AI recommends a restoration action, a defined local governance process (community advisory + technical review) can commission implementation and monitor results; model outputs get updated with observed outcomes—closing the loop. This turns recommendations into experiments with accountability. (BioRxiv)
• Dual accounting (ecological + AI cost): Every intervention is evaluated for ecological outcomes and the AI’s carbon/embedded-material footprint—so the net benefit is explicit. (Government Accountability Office)
• “Frontline-first” capacity building: Tools and compute grants are routed primarily to frontline communities, municipalities, and Indigenous stewards so they can run models, interpret outputs, and decide.

4 — Research program architecture (detailed)

A. Streams & teams

1. Foundations & methods — literature reviews, metric development, ecological modeling best practices.
2. Data infrastructure — open schemas, APIs, privacy-preserving protocols (spatial masking where needed), federated learning patterns for sensitive data.
3. Modeling & tools — modular AI agents: detection, forecasting, optimization, and natural-language interfaces tuned for frontline use.
4. Pilots & implementation — 10 geographically diverse place-based pilots that include implementation funding and monitoring.
5. Governance & policy — audit frameworks, procurement guides, impact assessment templates (ecological + AI footprint).
6. Community & capacity — training curriculum, fellowship for community stewards, open dashboard for outcomes.

B. Evaluation framework (how we know success)

• Primary ecological outcomes (project-defined, standardized where possible): hectares under improved function, species abundance indices, soil organic carbon change (with uncertainty).
• Social equity outcomes: distribution of funding, local control over decisions, jobs created, benefit sharing agreements.
• Model performance & robustness: predictive skill, calibration, uncertainty quantification, transferability to other places.
• Net environmental accounting: ecological gains minus AI system footprint (energy, materials).
• Governance metrics: transparency score, audit pass rate, incidence of contested recommendations, community consent rates.

C. Methods for rigorous evaluation

• Adaptive, randomized (where ethical) or matched-pair pilots. When possible, pair matched sites (treatment = AI-guided intervention; control = conventional planning) to estimate causal effects. Use stepped-wedge designs where immediate randomization is unethical.
• Pre-registered protocols and open data. Publish evaluation protocols ahead of implementation and deposit data and model code in the Commons.
• Third-party audits. Independent ecological and social auditors to validate claims and check AI footprints.
• Iterative model updating. Bayesian updating and continual re-training with deployment feedback to improve recommendations while tracking drift.

5 — Implementation program: practical roadmap (first 18 months)

Phase 0 (0–3 months): governance, partners, seed funding

• Convene advisory council (Indigenous leaders, local stewards, AI researchers, funders, ethicists).
• Secure seed funding (~$500k–$1M) for infrastructure & two pilot projects.
• Publish Charter and code of conduct for the Regenerative AI Commons.

Phase 1 (3–9 months): build the scaffolding

• Complete landscape review & metric framework (public report). (SpringerLink)
• Launch open data standards, sample datasets, and API prototypes.
• Run two fast pilots (e.g., methane hotspot monitoring + urban heat mitigation) to test pipelines and governance. (Axios)

Phase 2 (9–18 months): scale pilots & evaluation

• Expand to 8 more place-based pilots across diverse bioregions (coastal wetlands, agricultural watershed, urban heat islands, forest restoration).
• Implement matched-pair evaluation designs, begin third-party audits, and publish interim results.
• Start policy outreach—publish procurement and audit templates for government adoption. (ScienceDirect)

6 — Technology & data stack (practical)

• Data layer: remote sensing (satellite, aerial), in-situ sensors, citizen science inputs, local administrative data; open standardized schemas (GeoJSON/COG, NetCDF).
• Model layer: modular containers for detection (CNNs), forecasting (graph neural nets), and decision optimization (multi-objective RL / Pareto front solvers).
• Interface layer: conversational and visual dashboards tailored to non-technical stewards (RAG + retrieval for local docs).
• Operations: MLOps pipelines with reproducibility, model cards, and energy use logging. Use federated or on-device inference where privacy or footprint constraints demand it.

7 — Risks & mitigation

• Risk: corporate capture / privatization. Mitigation: open-license mandate for models and data from RAIC pilots; strong IP policies favor commons.
• Risk: AI recommendations are wrong/harmful. Mitigation: require co-design review boards, pre-registration of interventions, stepped implementation, and local veto rights.
• Risk: AI’s environmental footprint negates benefits. Mitigation: dual accounting and requirement that net ecological benefits exceed model lifecycle costs. (Government Accountability Office)
• Risk: inequitable distribution. Mitigation: frontline-first funding and capacity grants, measurable equity KPIs.

8 — Partnerships & funding model

• Partners: universities (ecology, AI), NGOs (restoration orgs), Indigenous-led groups, municipal governments, open-data foundations, neutral audit bodies, philanthropic funders.
• Funding: blended model — philanthropic seed + public grants + fee-for-service for vetted deployments + matching funds for local implementers. Consider social-impact bonds for long-term scaling tied to measurable ecological outcomes.

9 — Quick 1-page pitch (for a funder or site header)

Regenerative Intelligence: building an open commons where AI becomes a tool for repair. We will co-design and evaluate AI systems with frontline stewards, launch place-based pilots that fund implementation as well as modeling, and publish open data, model code, and governance playbooks so communities worldwide can use and trust AI to restore ecosystems and build resilient livelihoods.

10 — Key citations (load-bearing sources to start reading)

• Review of AI & climate research and mapping of the field. (SpringerLink)
• Review/horizon for AI in conservation. (ScienceDirect)
• GAO technology assessment on environmental effects of generative AI. (Government Accountability Office)
• Example of operational environmental intelligence (methane monitoring / Kayrros). (Axios)
• Example breakthroughs in forecasting (DeepMind/GraphCast coverage). (The Guardian)

---

If you want, next I can:

• Expand the literature review into a 10–15 page annotated bibliography with summaries and actionable implications for each subfield.
• Draft the RAIC Charter (governance, IP/LICENSING, consent, audit requirements).
• Produce a detailed budget and staffing plan for the 18-month pilot phase.
• Produce the first public-facing site copy and suggested information architecture for the RAIC website (home, pilots, data commons, governance, join).

Which of those would you like first?