People who read our posts, attend our talks, or work with Coboom almost always tell us the same thing: what we say makes people uncomfortable. We know it, and we own it, because many of the ideas we defend are grounded in scientific evidence that still sits well outside the Overton window.
The Overton window describes the range of ideas a society considers acceptable at a given point in time. It reflects what we are collectively willing to hear without seriously challenging our beliefs, habits, interests, and comfort. It measures social acceptability, never scientific validity.
Today, advocating infinite growth on a finite planet remains perfectly acceptable across political, economic, and media circles. So does encouraging overconsumption, even when the material needs of a large share of the population are already more than satisfied and our use of natural resources exceeds what ecosystems can regenerate.
Techno-idolatry enjoys the same intellectual comfort. Every new constraint brings another miracle technology promising that we can keep following exactly the same path. Today, we are betting on AI and carbon capture. Yesterday, it was ERP, CRM, and a parade of three-letter solutions supposed to solve our problems. Tomorrow, another technology will arrive to save the previous model.
We keep stacking new false solutions on top of old ones instead of changing the logic that creates the problems in the first place. Meanwhile, seven of the nine planetary boundaries that support the stability of the Earth system have already been crossed. Physics keeps moving forward, even when public debate looks the other way.
Explaining that some economic sectors will have to slow down, transform radically, or disappear under the pressure of dozens of long-term trends already underway almost always triggers the same three reactions: Fight, Flight, or Freeze. The more a fact threatens a business model, an investment, a career, or a deeply held belief, the stronger the reaction becomes.
At Coboom, our responsibility is precisely to go where it gets uncomfortable. When we challenge a growth target, an investment, or a major project, we put the facts, long-term trends, and biophysical constraints on the table. Science demands that level of consistency: cherry-picking only the evidence that confirms our beliefs turns analysis into justification.
For more than 50 years, scientists have documented major risks that our societies keep pushing into the future. That inertia is exactly why we are willing to be the black sheep: to explain the metacrisis, challenge economic dogmas, and call out false solutions, including those financed with public money and enthusiastically promoted by mainstream media.
Our mission is to build a more robust world for the next seven generations. Moving the Overton window is part of that mission, because the transformations we need often begin exactly where comfort ends.
