The article certainly has a point.

However, I feel like the message it tries to convey can be simplified.

• some qualities of a society determine if it can exist without extracting, expanding or fragmenting
• some of these could be equality, freedom, solidarity and sustainability
• if so, we must admit that our societies fall short
• we can observe how certain traits are counterproductive (agression, domination, egoism, greed)
• we can observe our living environments often reward such traits

Now that a problem is visible, it has to be solved.

If the context is narrow and timescale is small, solutions are intuitive: if a person is agressive, egoist or greedy, we know how to avoid dealing with them and how to warn others, and how to oppose them in a confrontation (hopefully while limiting the intensity of the confrontation).

If the context is wide and the timescale is long, we need to find solutions. If the offending subsystem is a certain type of business, or business itself, we have to dowregulate that.

If the offending subsystem is a particular type of state, or state itself, we have to downregulate certain types of state, or state itself.

To accomplish such large-scale goals, one has to create formats of action and organization that lack the offending features but can still accomplish the goal. Preferably in sufficient time for individual people to see results and analyze if the action taken went well or needs improvement.