Taoist-Inspired Principles for Sustainability Transitions: Beyond Anthropocentric Fixes and Rethinking Our Relationship with Nature

Abstract

The magnitude and scale of the challenges ahead require fundamental sustainability transitions towards sustainable societies on an unprecedented level in human history. This paper argues that reflecting on the philosophical underpinnings of sustainability transitions and complementing the human–nature relationship with a more holistic and ecological perspective is necessary for the transition to a sustainable “humble world”. Using Taoist philosophy as an enabler, this paper explores the three principles of “interconnectedness and symbiosis”, “equality, balance and justice of all things” and “follow the Tzu-Jan and WuWei” to enrich sustainability transition studies and guide the construction for transition trajectories. By exploring the instrumental potential of Taoist-inspired principles in sustainability transitions, this paper provides a pre-paradigm complementary rationale for the “why” behind the “how” of achieving a sustainable future. The paper’s conclusions establish common ground for a transdisciplinary dialogue between Taoist philosophy and sustainability science (especially on sustainability transitions), strengthen the rationale for sustainability transitions, reveal transition commonalities compatible with Taoist philosophy, and add depth, richness, and inclusiveness to the cross-cultural knowledge base of sustainability transitions.

1. Introduction

The desire for a sustainable future in contemporary society is a defining issue of our time, as human activity has significantly impacted and altered the natural world in unprecedented ways. In his influential work, The End of Nature [1], Bill McKibben acknowledged the profound effects of human activities on natural systems, depicting Earth as a “sweet and wild garden” now encased in a human-made “greenhouse”. In response to the planetary crisis, sustainability science, coined in 1999 [2], emerged to address persistent problems confronting modern societies [3,4]. This field focuses on understanding human–environment interactions and linking knowledge to action through multi-scale, site-specific, and transdisciplinary methodologies [5,6]. One significant theme (Appendix A Note 1) within sustainability science is “sustainability transitions” [5], describing a radical transformative shift towards a sustainable society [7,8,9]. These transitions are complex and multifaceted journeys involving fundamental changes in multiple systems, such as socio-technical systems [10,11], across multiple levels (local, national, etc.), across different scales (territorial, jurisdictional, organizational, cultural) [12], and involving the shifts of multiple actors and sectors. They are goal-oriented [13,14], characterized by non-linearity or (co-) evolution [15] and long-term structural changes [16], with dynamic shifts and unforeseen challenges, impacting technologies, policies, institutions, cultural values, and behaviors [13,16,17].

Despite widespread societal concern and the rapid expansion of the relevant research which spans the multi-fields and has provided many socio-technical approaches for understanding and facilitating sustainability transitions, current efforts at the global scale are insufficient to ensure that the required changes are achieved, as the severity and magnitude of the challenges ahead necessitate sweeping transitions on a scale unprecedented in human history [18]. Dominant sustainable solutions often emphasize technological solutions or technical fixes and market-based instruments [19,20], which align with the first path outlined by McKibben [1]—managing through technological advancements and improved governance. Well-intentioned efforts can, sometimes, create unanticipated side effects, as John Sterman [20] noted, “We are not only failing to solve the persistent problems we face, but are in fact causing them …. Our decisions provoke reactions we did not foresee. Today’s solutions become tomorrow’s problems”. On this path, practical solutions and implementations resting on vast bodies of submerged ideology [21,22] are often prioritized, while fundamental discussions of the core claims of the paradigm can sometimes be overlooked [6]. For instance, although interdisciplinary practice has been proposed, solutions mainly remain rooted in traditional, disciplinary perspectives [23]; interventions often target easily accessible leverage points with limited transformational potential, rather than addressing the root causes of unsustainability [11,24,25,26]; transition efforts have mainly focused on selected challenges, such as energy issues [9]; furthermore, certain landscape and regime-level initiatives may inadvertently reinforce unsustainable systems [17,27,28].

While questioning the reliance on technology to solve the current predicament, McKibben [1] proposes an alternative path—a “humbler world”, arguing that “technology is not a substitute for the profound shift in consciousness that is required to live sustainably on this planet. It is not a substitute for the recognition that we must live within the limits of what the planet can provide” [1] (p. 177) and highlights that “We need to learn to live within the bounds of nature, to recognize the limits of our knowledge and the limits of our power. This means a humbler world, one in which we place the integrity of the planet above our own desires” [1] (p. 179). This alternative path points to the need for a transformative shift towards a more respectful and ecologically conscious human–nature relationship from technological fixes. The integrity of the planet points to the intrinsic value and interconnectedness of the Earth’s ecosystems, and a “humbler world” inspires inquiry into the place of humans in the natural order and the deep philosophical and ethical dimensions of humanity’s relationship with nature. Sustainability problems are driven by systemic and unpredictable dynamics, which have their roots in human behavior and institutional structures [29]. Theoretically, every human intervention influences the future of humanity and the planet, explicitly or implicitly, either exacerbating unsustainable states or supporting a shift away from unsustainable trajectories. Awareness of how human well-being is closely linked to the health of the Earth’s ecosystems and the interconnectedness of all life forms from a whole-systems perspective is essential to moving towards a sustainable future.

Embracing a more sustainable and humble way of life involves rejecting the implicit assumption of unsustainability and making an ethical commitment to stewardship, seeing ourselves as custodians of the planet rather than its conquerors, which promotes inclusive and comprehensive cooperation beyond technological fixes and anthropocentric focus. Modern societies often resemble complex systems, characterized by Mumford [30] as a “mega-machine”. These systems can become entrenched due to self-reinforcing regimes within lock-in mechanisms [8]. Sustainability transitions in such contexts inevitably face challenges from existing dominant paradigms, including socio-technical, economic, and political structures, as well as ingrained behavioral patterns, established mental models, and macroethics [31] at the collective scale. While these dominant paradigms have been widely criticized, they continue to shape societal responses to challenges. For example, the deeply ingrained “mechanical worldview” has been described as creating our unsustainable and oppressive systems [32]. Other limiting perspectives include reductionist and decontextualized approaches [33,34,35,36]. Gonzáles-Márquez and Toledo [6] suggest that a critical review of underlying assumptions in sustainability science is necessary to avoid perpetuating unsustainable patterns and inertia. Hence, there is a need to rethink and explore the core claims of the paradigm of sustainability transitions and to enrich their philosophical foundations by finding complementarities from a more holistic perspective of the human–nature relationship, which is essential for embarking on a “humble world” for sustainability transitions. This requires not only evidence-based research paradigms from academia, disciplinary approaches, established institutions, traditional exploration, and reliance on Western science but also openness to other regions where academic evidence has not yet been discovered, as knowledge is co-produced by all kinds of actors and it remains provisional and constantly developing at most points in time [37,38,39,40].

In light of this, this paper introduces the philosophy of the Dào (following pinyin (Appendix A Note 2)) into sustainability transition studies. Taoist philosophy (Appendix A Note 3) emphasizes the flow of the Dào (Appendix A Note 4)) and builds human society on the basis of a harmonious symbiotic relationship between human beings and nature. Its fundamental premises during the pre-paradigm state are more holistic and ecological, which, in the view of this paper, resonate with themes of sustainability transitions. Specifically, the cosmological and ontological perspective of Taoist philosophy, which sees humanity as part of a larger web of life, emphasizes the interconnectedness and the intrinsic value for all living beings, and human responsibility for the future of the planet is consistent with the sustainable future, in which human societies thrive in balance with nature. While Taoist philosophy’s origins predate modern societies by millennia, its potential contribution to sustainability transitions deserves exploration. Exploring their integration could potentially foster collaboration between different knowledge systems, ultimately enhancing our ability to achieve a sustainable future that embraces diverse values and beliefs. However, existing research on the dialogue between Taoist philosophy and sustainability transitions is limited due to ideological and cultural differences as well as inherent constraints and barriers in practice. Further investigation is needed to identify specific Taoist principles that could enrich sustainability transition practices, considering the practical challenges of bridging these two knowledge systems.

This paper therefore does not aim to provide a comprehensive review of the philosophical underpinnings of sustainability transitions or a complete comparison between Taoist philosophy and sustainability transitions in terms of their fundamental claims and philosophical underpinnings. Instead, it attempts to initiate a dialogue on the potential value of the integration, to explore (1) the Taoist-inspired principles within the basic claims and philosophical underpinnings of Taoist philosophy that are complementary to sustainability transitions; and (2) the potential commonalities and connections between Taoist-inspired principles and the implicit values, goals, and features of sustainability transitions, as well as explore the instrumental potential of these commonalities and linkages to inform the design and implementation of real-world sustainability transitions, provide a basis for developing pluralistic, cross-culturally inclusive strategies and policies that promote sustainability transitions in a holistic and integrated manner. The paper firstly reviews the dialogue possibilities and prerequisites between Taoist philosophical knowledge and sustainability transitions (Section 2) and then outlines three Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions (Section 3) that are conducive to sustainability transitions towards a “humble world”. The article concludes with a discussion (Section 4) and conclusions (Section 5), pointing out potential challenges and the need for further research.

2. Review of the Literature for the Dialogue

2.1. The Possibility of the Multi-Ontological Views of Sustainability Transitions for the Dialogue

The research on sustainability transitions has become a collective, productive, and highly cumulative endeavor [9]. According to Kuhn [41], the preconceptions of paradigms embody both hidden assumptions and elements that Kuhn describes as quasi-metaphysical, and each scientific field starts out as a “pre-paradigm science”, and scientific progress is not only achieved by a steady accumulation of knowledge but also by episodes of crises that precede radical qualitative leaps in which basic premises are modified [6,41]. According to Davelaar [42], “Sustainability Science” has largely been operating under an anthropocentric, non-scientific sustainability paradigm, while the sustainability crisis is challenging the scientific enterprise and methodology in a fashion that is being increasingly recognized as a scientific revolution [23,43,44]. Revolutionary periods face questioning of the order and rules and are followed by a reconstruction process [41,45]; therefore, the challenge of unsustainability and the transition to a sustainable future requires not only advances in environmental science, policy, law, economics, technology, etc., to recognize the damage caused, but also necessary reflection on existing paradigms and pre-paradigms to supplement them with other cultural, ethical, and spiritual resources to jointly enrich its basic assumptions. Research in Sustainability Science, particularly sustainability transitions, calls for synthesis, transcends disciplinary boundaries [43,44,46,47], recognizes the value of different knowledge cultures, and integrates non-scientific knowledge or lay knowledge [48,49,50]. More importantly, they reflect on the hidden paradigms/fundamental assumptions and narratives that have led to unsustainable and oppressive systems, fostering collaborations to develop comprehensive and effective solutions [51], which opens up the possibility of dialogue with non-scientific knowledge or lay knowledge.

Gonzáles-Márquez and Toledo [6] in particular point to the importance of a shift in worldviews in this synthesis, where we need a change that reaches the ontological and cosmological foundations of our thought systems. Sustainability transitions are seen as necessary journeys toward achieving sustainability by transforming existing socio-technical systems toward more sustainable alternatives [9,11]. The ontological and cosmological foundations of sustainability transitions can be understood through many key concepts and theoretical insights from systems theory, innovation studies, and environmental science, which are broadly theoretically and empirically grounded [11,52]. However, its basic claims and assumptions, and the relationship between nature systems, human systems, and derived systems generated by humanity, are not uniform. The transdisciplinary nature of sustainability transitions strength lies in its ability to draw on diverse ontological perspectives, which allows multiple angles and a richer and more nuanced understanding of the complex processes involved in achieving sustainability. For instance, sustainable transition studies offer a variety of societal transition strategies and tools (e.g., [16]), each with potentially different underlying ontological perspectives, and have implications for both disciplinary scientific fields and (policy) practice. Such as, “Relationism”, which emphasizes the interconnectedness and co-dependence of entities, can be employed to emphasize the interconnectedness and co-dependence of entities within sustainability transitions; “Social Constructivism”, which highlights the social construction of knowledge and technology, can be used to critically examine how societal norms, values, and power dynamics shape technological innovations and environmental policies; “Practice Theory”, which focuses on the social practices that shape our world, can be employed to analyze and influence everyday practices and behaviors that contribute to sustainability challenges; “Structuration Theory”, which sees structures and practices as mutually constitutive, can be applied to examine how existing social and institutional structures influence sustainable practices, and conversely, how these practices can reshape structures; other perspectives like “Complexity theory (can be used to understand the dynamic and nonlinear nature of sustainability transitions)”, “Evolutionary theory (can be employed to examine how sustainable practices and technologies evolve over time)”, or “Critical realism (can be used to identify and address the root causes of sustainability challenges, rather than merely treating symptoms)” might also be employed. Therefore, sustainable transitions do not favor a well-defined single unified grand narrative about the cosmos or an ontological perspective in the traditional sense but rather draw on a variety of ontological perspectives to understand, conceptualize, and explain the mechanisms that drive the transition and the complex dynamics of societal change in our existing universe (e.g., [7,9]). This openness and plurality increase the challenges for the general review of claims and assumptions of the ontological and cosmological foundations of the thought systems in sustainability transitions; on the one hand, in turn, opens up the opportunity for transdisciplinary cooperation between different knowledge systems, ultimately enhancing our ability to achieve a common sustainable future resonating with different values and beliefs.

2.2. The Conceptual Distinction of Taoist Philosophical Perspective as the Prerequisites for Dialogue

Regarding humanity’s unprecedented impact on the Earth, Bateson [53] offers a compelling perspective. He suggests that the history of evolutionary theory can be seen as a meta-dialogue between humans and nature, where the creation and interaction of ideas exemplify the evolutionary process. Bateson [53] argues that major problems in the world are the result of the disparity between the holistic, ecological way in which the world functions and the way people think. This view is supported by Davelaar [42], who posits that an insufficient, incongruent, reductionist separation thinking and clockwork conception of the world contributes significantly to current sustainability issues. This section introduces the perspective and elements of Taoist philosophical culture, and through this lens distinguishes “the holistic, ecological way in which the world functions” and “the way people think of how the world functions”, providing a premise of dialogue for the common confrontation that addresses the multi-dimensional nature of sustainability challenges in the contemporary era.

Taoist philosophy refers to the study of this “Dào”, a philosophical thought that originated in China during the Spring and Autumn Period (Appendix A Note 5) (770 BC—403 BC) [54] (p. 142); and its two foundational texts are “Tao Te Ching (Appendix A Note 6)” and “Zhuangzi (Appendix A Note 7)”. The character “Dào” appears many times in classical Chinese literature with a variety of interpretations and applications, and its philosophical category is considered to be the highest category of Taoist philosophy. Data from several studies suggest that contemporary scholars consider “Dào” as the way the universe works, the self-existent source of all things, and the undivided unity, representing the unity underlying the multiplicity of the manifest world [55,56,57,58,59] ([57] (pp. 153–154), [58] (pp. 49–50), [59] (p. 43)). The meaning of “Dào” is partly echoed by several ideas in modern theories, such as the animism of anthropologists or philosophers [60,61], and also involves understandings similar to “an ineffable ‘universal law/Laws of Nature’ that transcends the scales of human-recognized limits of time and space [62,63,64]”, or the “Logos” of the ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus [65,66] who is known for the central ideas on the unity of opposites and the concept of change, or “the perception of totality and infinity” in a macroscopic view of psychology [67], or the “axiom” in modern scientific theories [68,69], or the integrity and indescribability of “quantum mechanics” [70], but the implications of this ancient transdimensional category “Dào” go deeper and wider in Eastern cultures.

In the author’s understanding, this philosophical term “Dào” is used to describe the origin of and the most essential universal and spontaneous natural laws/cosmic order of the living universe that are both transcendent and immanent in all things in the heavens and Earth. In other words, “Dào” describes not only the universal of all of the metaphysical essence regularity of microcosm and macroscopic symbiotic relationship but also the order and operating mechanism of the change of Yin-Yang ch’i (continuous, dynamic, and holistic current of energies), under which the world was created and co-evolved. This philosophical category will be referred to in this paper as “(Dà) Dào” and it includes “the holistic, ecological way in which the world functions”. This category “(Dà) Dào” can be understood on three layers: (1) the innate Dào, (2) the Dào of universe (Chinese: 天之道 the Cosmic Dào), and (3) the Dào of the Earth (Chinese: 地之道), which exists in the form of nature law/spirituality on the Earth, also called the Dào of all things and all beings (Chinese: 万物众生道), including the Dào of human beings (Chinese: 人之道) (refers to the principles of human action that human beings are supposed to follow and implement). As pointed out by many scholars, as a mysterious and deep principle that is the source and substance of the entire universe [19,71], and the flow of the universe, “(Dà) Dào” shows an essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered [72].

This paper acknowledges the limitations of language and human cognition in fully comprehending the true essence of the Dào. The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching (4th century BC) highlights the ineffable and un-conceptualizable nature of this eternal “(Dà) Dào”, emphasizing that words and names cannot fully capture the essence of existence, and the eternal “(Dà) Dào” cannot be physically objectified. Language, as a human construct, relies on words and concepts shaped by perception, memory, experiences, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds. While these tools provide valuable insights, they also come with inherent biases and limitations, offering only partial perspectives on the vastness and inarticulability of the Dào. This underscores the importance of recognizing the limitations of human understanding and the mysteries of the natural world. As Witter [73] argued, terms may be used, but are none of them absolute. Much of contemporary literature is aware of this. For instance, Václav Havel (Appendix A Note 8) [74] reminds us that “We must honor with the humility of the wise the limits of that natural world and the mystery which lies beyond them, admitting that there is something in the order of being which evidently exceeds all our competence. We must relate to the absolute horizon of our existence which, if we but will, we shall constantly rediscover and experience”. Ames [75] states that “Fixed rules and principles governing every foreseeable problem are an anthropocentric illusion” and cites Lynn White, Jr., on the practicality of the present scientific course: “More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion or rethink our old one [75] (p. 141)”. No paradigm can be considered “true”, as each one, including the one that shapes an individual’s worldview, is a limited understanding of an immense and complex universe that is beyond human comprehension [26]. Hulme [76] also argues the limitations of scientific knowledge and believes that scientific knowledge production can be influenced by social and political factors, and it does not encompass all forms of valuable knowledge. Knowledge and civilization, science and technology may become self-destructive in the prison of one’s concepts and become a victim of his own desires [77]. Therefore, this paper refers to the human understanding, knowledge, and perception of the eternal “(Dà) Dào” as the evolvable “Dào (essence) domain”, which includes “the way people think of how the world functions”.

As mentioned earlier, data from a number of studies indicate that contemporary scholars consider the (Dà) Dào as the way the universe works. Paraphrasing Bateson‘s statement [53] into this perspective, it would be that “the major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the eternal (Dà) Dào—’the holistic, ecological way in which the world functions’ (e.g., the Dào of universe, the Dào of the Earth) and the evolvable Dào (essence) domain—’the way people think of how the world functions’, for instance, an insufficient, incongruent reductionist separation thinking and clockwork conception of the world (e.g., technocentrism, anthropocentrism)”. Recognizing the difference between the categories eternal “(Dà) Dào” and the evolvable “Dào (essence) domain”, and acknowledging the limitations and evolvability of the latter, humanity will reflect with humility on whether the current hidden paradigms/fundamental assumptions and narratives are compatible with the (Dà) Dào (the holistic, ecological way in which the world functions). It opens up the possibility of better embracing the principles of the eternal “(Dà) Dào” and expanding a more systematic pre-paradigmatic perspective from these principles for the evolvable “Dào” (essence) domain (the way people think of how the world functions) towards a more sustainable and humble world. This is a prerequisite for integrating and engaging in transdisciplinary dialogue with Taoist philosophy in sustainability transition studies.

3. Taoist-Inspired Principles

Recognizing the diverse and evolving nature of the sustainability transitions is important in order to collectively contribute to a sustainable future by exploiting corresponding complementarities and synergies. As outlined above (see the Introduction section), the literature demonstrates that sustainability transitions, as a diversified actual transition journey towards sustainability, reveal a complex, non-linear, long-term, dynamic, continuous, and goal-oriented transition process. In particular, Köhler et al. [9] outline seven features that indicate the transdisciplinary nature of the research on sustainability transitions, including (1) multi-dimensionality and co-evolution; (2) multi-actor process; (3) stability and change; (4) long-term process; (5) open-endedness and uncertainty; (6) values, contestation, and disagreement; and (7) normative directionality. From the vast macro-ecological blueprints of Taoist principles, the present paper summarizes and excerpts three principles: “interconnectedness and symbiosis”, “equality, balance and justice of all things”, and “follow the Tzu-Jan and WuWei”, which are relevant to addressing the evolving challenges of unsustainability facing the Anthropocene [78,79,80,81] and are particularly relevant for supporting and complementing the seven features of the research on sustainability transitions. With the premise of dialogue in place, this section will further explore the potential commonalities and connections between these Taoist-inspired principles and the implicit values, goals, and features of sustainability transitions, and how these principles can inform the design and implementation of sustainability transitions.

Table 1. The three Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions.

Philosophical Term	Taoist-Inspired Principles	The Mechanisms or Nature	Characteristics	Resources	Enlightenments for Sustainability Transitions	The Potential Complementarity to Sustainability Transitions	Corresponding Characteristics or Principles of Sustainability Transitions
(Dà) Dào describe the universality of all of the metaphysical essence, regularity of microcosm and macroscopic symbiotic relationship, and the order and operating mechanism of the change of Yin-Yang ch’i, under which the world was created and co-evolved.	Interconnectedness and Symbiosis	Law of Unity of Opposites, where opposites are interdependent, coordinate, harmonious symbiosis, cyclically transforming with each other	(1). Symbiosis, interconnectedness and interdependence of all things (2). Transformation and cyclic movements in harmony.	Chapters 2, 16, 25, 28, 40, and 42 of the Tao Te Ching	(1). Recognize the interconnectedness and symbiosis of life, fostering holistic approaches and holistic thinking, recognizing the cascading effects of human actions on the entire Earth system (2). Stewardship and responsibility: respect the vibrant wildness and inherent power of Earth, acknowledge our role as stewards, not absolute rulers, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the planet and all its inhabitants	(1). Challenge the prevailing anthropocentric focus and paradigm, and highly socialized dualistic thinking, promoting a more holistic perspective. (2). Encourage dynamic equilibrium, advocate for evolving and long-term thinking to address unsustainability challenges (3). Enrich philosophical foundations. Enhance understanding of the ‘why’ behind transformative features and sustainability principles.	Complexity, non-linearity, continuous improvement, global responsibility, system thinking, multi-dimensionality and co-evolution, long-term processes, stability and change, precautionary principle
	Equality, Balance and Justice of all things	Basic interactive principle and the behavioural criteria of all creatures in the web of life on earth	(1). XuanTong (mysterious sameness) that emphasizes the equality and intrinsic value of nature (2). Balance in harmony that emphasizes the overall balance and lasting harmony (3). XuanTe (mysterious virtue) that emphasize justice and inclusiveness	Tao Te Ching Chapters 5 and 56, ‘The Identity of Contraries’ of Zhuangzi; Tao Te Ching Chapters 5, 7, 9, 28, 36 and 77; Chapters 10, 16, 22, 23, 51 and 65	(1). Learning from nature: human beings and all human-built systems are subsystems of the Earth’s complex adaptive system, and are supposed to be in accordance with the equal, balanced and just operational principles of the Earth’s complex adaptive system. (2). Promote cooperation and diversity: Embrace diversity, acknowledge the intrinsic value and ecological limits of all living things, and encourage cooperation and mutual benefit. (3). Ensure equitable distribution of benefits. Distribute the benefits of sustainability transitions equitably across all society members and inhabitants of the planet.	(1). Transform the unsustainable views and perceptions of dominant value ideologies into those that are in line with the principle of “equality, balance and justice of all things” (2). Recognize the importance of restoring balance and harmony in interrelationships and interactions, and integrating fairness and inclusiveness into the philosophical underpinnings, principles and modalities of sustainability transitions (3). Strengthen the rationale for sustainability transitions, develop more inclusive and culturally sensitive strategies that foster multicultural acceptance and participation.	Multi-actor process, values, contestation, and disagreement, normative directionality, intergenerational equity, intergenerational equity, intra-generational equity, conservation of biodiversity, resource efficiency, diversity, public participation and co-creation, long-term orientation
	Follow the Tzu-Jan and WuWei	Action guidance in the practice of human subjectivity to flow, cooperation and symbiosis in living systems	(1). Acknowledgement and Surrender, (2) Soft symbiotic regulating power—a gentle approach of Rou (gentleness) and Ruo (softness); (3) Jian (Frugality) and Pu (simplicity)	Tao Te Ching Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 22, 28 and 37; Chapters 8, 9, 36, 43, 52, 55, 76 and 78; Chapters 19, 28, 29, 32, 37, 45, 57 and 67	(1). Foster a sense of awe and humility, maintain reverence and humility towards nature, reflecting on and dissolving inherent and externalized violence and antagonism against the natural course. (2). Advocate for the soft symbiotic regulating power mechanisms, learning and emulating the flexible and resilient mechanisms inspired by nature (e.g., flexibility and resilience in nature’s dynamic and cooperative systems); (3). Maintain simplicity, frugality and moderation (e.g., promote practices that minimize resource depletion and negative impacts on ecosystems, encouraging responsible consumption, and shift focus from short-term gain to long-term well-being).	(1). Embrace nature’s potential, learn from and apply nature’s symbiotic regulating mechanisms in a changing world through human initiative, use them in sustainability transitions to ensure the Earth’s long-term health. (2). Counterbalance growth obsession, provide a beneficial counterpoint to the technology-driven, growth-obsessed mindset, addressing the consumerist mentality behind unsustainable issues. (3). Emphasize human agency, foster frugality, simplicity, creativity, and innovation inspired by nature’s efficient processes, finding solutions in harmony with ecosystems.	Stability and change, long-term processes, openness and uncertainty, resilience, flexibility, adaptability, sustainable consumption and production, resource efficiency

, provides an overview of the three Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions, including the mechanisms or nature, the features, and the resource of the three principles, and their enlightenments for sustainability transitions, their potential complementarity to sustainability transitions, and the corresponding characteristics or principles of sustainability transitions.

3.1. Principle One: Interconnectedness and Symbiosis

In the worldview of Taoist philosophy, the evolution, reaction, and interaction of (Dà) Dào form the functional operation of the phenomenal universe and reality, and human beings and their surroundings are originally in fundamental unity. In the course of the evolution of all things in heaven and Earth, “Being (existent, and named, Chinese: 有, pinyin: Yǒu)” that is born from the (Dà) Dào can be regarded as the fundamental metaphysical ground on which everything in the world comes into being, exists, develops, and dies and substantive content, and the properties. “Not being (not being, non-existent and not named, Chinese: 无, pinyin: Wú)” of (Dà) Dào becomes the ultimate metaphysical ground on which “Being” exists, hence “Not being”—(Dà) Dào becomes the metaphysical basis on which existence sprang from, with the essential characteristic of negativity (describe this essence of existence by grasping the ontology of existence from the height of abstract thinking of infinity, transcendence, and universality), as well as unlimited inclusiveness, unlimited energy, and unlimited vitality. As Houston Smith [82] (p. 74) stated, the view (of Taoist philosophy) led to the fundamental unity of all things in their essential aspects, with the blended unity and complementary interpenetration in Dào, highlighting the indivisible fusion of particulars and integrity of the planet, including humankind, when following Dào. Based on the properties of (Dà) Dào and the basic rationale of (Dà) Dào as the source and foundation of all things (e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 1 and 42), the core of the “interconnectedness and symbiosis” principle of Taoist philosophy lies in recognizing the unity of opposites (Yin-Yang) and the interconnectedness and symbiosis of all things in the (Dà) Dào.

This fundamental basis of the highest category of Taoist philosophy describes the laws of existence, change, and movement in the world—the Law of Contradiction or Law of Unity of Opposites, where opposites are interdependent, coordinate, harmonious symbiosis, cyclically transforming with each other, which lays the groundwork for exploring the essential relationship between all of nature, human society, and the Earth’s living systems (e.g., Chapters 2, 16, 25, 28, 40, and 42 of the Tao Te Ching). This principle has characteristics of symbiosis, interconnectedness and interdependence of all things, transformation, and cyclic movements in harmony. Humanity is understood to be part of nature, the relationship between humanity and nature is marked by respect and benevolence, bordering on love and a rejection of acting against nature [83,84,85]. In Taoist philosophy, everything is interconnected, and human society is an integral component of the co-evolving spontaneous living system, where each contains elements that define and balance the other within a continuous polarity. The principle of “Interconnectedness and Symbiosis” has inherited this fundamental unity and indivisible fusion of the planet, acknowledging this web of life and our shared existence within the natural world (therefore promoting holistic approaches and holistic thinking, and recognizing the cascading effects of human actions on the entire Earth system), learn to respect and acknowledge the vibrant wildness and inherent power of Earth and our role as stewards, not absolute rulers (therefore fostering a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the planet and all its inhabitants).

No life process or creative effort can be achieved without taking into consideration the interpenetrating relationships of things [77] (p. 368). Ontologically, sustainability transitions are grounded in the understanding of complex adaptive systems, which view social, economic, and ecological systems as interconnected and evolving dynamically. This perspective emphasizes the interdependence and co-evolution of human and natural systems and resonates highly with the current principle (e.g., complex adaptive systems, which are characterized by nonlinear interactions, emergent properties, and adaptive capacity [86,87,88]; socio-technical systems, which emphasize the interrelationships between society and technology and how they co-evolve and influence sustainability outcomes [10,13,89,90]; and planetary boundaries, which underline the importance of maintaining ecological integrity for long-term sustainability [91,92,93]). The “Interconnectedness and Symbiosis” principle, on the one hand, challenges the prevailing anthropocentric focus and paradigm, and highly socialized dualistic thinking in sustainability science, and can serve to enhance, enrich, and complement Western concepts of nature and value concepts in sustainability transitions as many contemporary scholars acknowledge that humanity and nature are part of the same ontological totality and recognizing the relationship with nature is vital (e.g., [94,95,96,97]). On the other hand, the characteristics (symbiosis, interconnectedness and interdependence of all things, transformation and cyclic movements in harmony) of this principle encourage dynamic equilibrium, constantly evolving and long-term thinking in the face of unsustainability challenges, correspond to the sustainability transition’s characteristics of the interdependent “Multi-dimensionality and co-evolution”, cyclical transformation (e.g., feedback loops with ecological consequences) in the “Long-term processes”, the dialectic relationship between “Stability and change”, as well as other features like “complexity”, “non-linearity”, “continuous improvement”, “global responsibility”, “system thinking”, and “precautionary principle” of sustainability, and can serve as a complement to its philosophical underpinnings, enriching the “Why” behind these transformative features and sustainability principles.

3.2. Principle Two: Equality, Balance, and Justice of All Things

Equality, balance, and justice are the properties of (Dà) Dào that are revealed in the process of evolving all things in heaven and Earth and the basic interactive principle of (Dà) Dào with them. Taoist philosophy points to the way leading to a “harmonious and fulfilling world”—learning and emulating these properties, i.e., following the “equality, balance, and justice of all things” principle. Teachings on this principle frequently appear in both classical texts of Taoist philosophy, Tao Te Ching and Chuang-Tzu. There are three characteristics that describe the inherent qualities or attributes of this principle: (1) XuanTong (Chinese: 玄同, mysterious sameness, e.g., Tao Te Ching 5, 56, “The Identity of Contraries” of Zhuangzi) that emphasizes the equality and intrinsic value of nature beyond its utility to humans; (2) balance in harmony that emphasizes the overall balance and lasting harmony (e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 5, 7, 9, 28, 36, and 77); and (3) XuanTe (Chinese: 玄德, mysterious virtue, e.g., Tao Te Ching 10, 16, 22, 23, 51, and 65) that emphasizes justice and inclusiveness. These characteristics acting on life form the code of conduct, a way of life, and a worldly approach for human beings, as well as a principle of interaction and the behavioral criteria of all creatures in the web of life on Earth. For instance, Chapter 77 of Tao Te Ching contrasts the “(Dà) Dào (of universe)” with the “Dào of human beings”. While the “(Dà) Dào (of universe)” is constant equity and justice that maintains a constant balance to “diminish superabundance, and to supplement deficiency”, the “Dào of human beings” is not and tends to “take away from the less-than-enough to swell the more-than-enough”, which reminds human beings to follow the lead of “(Dà) Dào (of universe)”, transforming imbalances and irrationalities in order to achieve equilibrium.

Tao Te Ching Chapter 25 says that “the ways of human beings are conditioned by those of Earth; the ways of Earth, by those of Universe; the ways of Universe, by those of Dào; the ways of Dào by the self-so (Tzu-Jan)”. As part of the integrity of the planet, human beings and all human-built systems are subsystems of the Earth’s complex adaptive system and are supposed to respect the (Dà) Dào (of the Earth), following the lead of (Dà) Dào’s Tzu-Jan, understand, respect, and connect to the (Dà) Dào, thereby living in harmony with it that maintains balance and order in the universe. The diversity and inherent complexity of societies in terms of perspectives, norms, and values, and the resulting diversity of economic, social, cultural, and institutional status quo have increased social uncertainty, interdependence, and the complexity of unprecedented global challenges. However, regardless of the civilizational/ethical/philosophical perspectives, norms, and values that human beings hold, these understandings belong to the “derived systems” arising from the Earth’s subsystems—”human beings”, which is supposed to be in accordance with the (Dà) Dào (of the Earth)—the equal, balanced, and just operational principles of the Earth’s complex adaptive system. In current scientific terminology, humanity is embedded in the biosphere, and all life on Earth is part of the biosphere, shaped by it, dependent on it, and co-evolving with it; the biosphere includes not only all living beings and their relationships (humans and human actions, communities, economies, societies, cultures included) but also their dynamic interplay with the atmosphere, water cycle, biogeochemical cycles, and the dynamics of the Earth system as a whole; and it is clear that ignorance of, and disconnection from, the biosphere and its stewardship are not conducive to long-term sustainability for people on Earth [47,79,98,99,100,101,102].

In the context of sustainability transition, learning the principles of “equality, balance, and justice of all things” means respecting the fairness and justice of the planet, the human society, and all the derived human-built systems (including environmental justice [103], social justice, economic justice, and cultural justice, e.g., scientific knowledge production is mainstreamed in knowledge system, but the local knowledge systems based on experience and tradition are equally valuable and potentially supportive to sustainability transitions), encouraging cooperation and mutual benefit, embracing diversity and acknowledging the intrinsic value and ecological limits of all living things (e.g., respecting and conserving biodiversity, recognizing the important role that all species play in the intricate web of life, even those that do not directly benefit humans, and fostering a sense of humility in the face of nature’s complexity), thereby restoring balance and harmony in interrelationships and interactions. Such principle helps to transform the unsustainable views and perceptions of dominant value ideologies into those that are in line with the principle of “equality, balance, and justice of all things” (e.g., a shift from a human-centric worldview, such as “technocentrism or anthropocentrism”, to a more holistic perspective such as “Ecocentrism” [104,105]). The characteristics of this principle correspond to the sustainability transition’s characteristics of “Multi-actor process”, “Values, contestation, and disagreement”, “Normative directionality”, as well as the “Intergenerational Equity”, “Intergenerational Equity and Intra-generational Equity”, “Conservation of Biodiversity”, “Resource Efficiency”, “diversity”, “Public Participation and Co-creation”, and “Long-term Orientation” principles of sustainability, strengthen the rationale for sustainability transitions, and help design more inclusive and culturally sensitive transition strategies that foster greater multicultural acceptance and participation. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the benefits of sustainability transitions are distributed equitably across the whole of society, as well as all members of the planet, not only ensures fairness and inclusivity in decision-making processes and outcomes guided by empathy, compassion, and ethics but also embedding fairness and inclusivity in philosophical underpinnings, principles, and ways of sustainability transitions, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable groups.

3.3. Principle Three: Follow the Tzu-Jan and WuWei

Taoist Philosophy is a philosophy of action [106] that emphasizes the inquiry, appreciation, awareness, and guardianship of the “(Dà) Dào” in life practice through the subjectivity of human beings while respecting the laws of nature. Tzu-Jan (Chinese: 自然, ZiRan, nature, naturalness, the self-so) is a spontaneous property and law of (Dà) Dào, manifested in how “Nature” functions and advocates following the Natural Course and learning about the fluid, cooperation, and symbiosis of the dynamic living systems of “Nature”, e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 23, 25, 51, and 64. The study of each human dimension (the social, economic, political, historical, and cultural dimensions, among others) cannot be separated from the study of nature [107]. Watts [59] said that “realizing that oneself and nature are one and the same process, which is the Dào”. Nature as a substantive content of (Dà) Dào is part of a gigantic dynamic living system. All things and beings embedded in Nature, abide by their inner spontaneous Dào (an essence, spontaneous, metaphysical nature and fundamental principles/patterns and the operation order presented and possessed within), form their own complex systems in various fields within the substantive earth system (or the Nature), cooperate, and co-evolve intersystems according to the (Dà) Dào of the Earth. “WuWe” (Chinese: 无为) advocates a non-compulsive natural state and method of intelligence and spontaneity of letting all things be its Tzu-Jan to achieve harmony with nature [108], e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 37, 38, 43, 48, 63, 64, 66, and 81. Following the Tzu-Jan and WuWei requires a sense of humility and a willingness to learn from (Dà) Dào that recognizes the finite nature of planetary resources and the need for harmony between human activities and the Earth’s ecological boundaries, fostering a deeper connection with the natural world and human society itself, and human-derived systems.

There are three characteristics that describe the inherent qualities/attributes of this principle: (1) Acknowledgement and Surrender, which is related to a sense of awe and love for nature, accepts and respects the Law of Nature, letting everything nurture itself, generate itself, and transform itself, reflecting on and dissolving inherent and externalized violence and antagonism which against the natural course, e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 22, 28, and 37; (2) Soft symbiotic regulating power—a gentle approach of Rou (Chinese: 柔, gentleness) and Ruo (Chinese: 弱, softness)—advocates the non-objective and non-physical mechanisms of flexibility and resilience in nature’s dynamic and cooperative systems, which derived from the properties of the “Nature” manifested in the “Dào of the Earth” (e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 8, 9, 36, 43, 52, 55, 76, and 78); and (3) Jian (Chinese: 俭)—Frugality and Pu (Chinese: 朴)—simplicity, esteems compassion, pristine innocence, simplicity, proportionality, purity and stillness, and living authentically (e.g., Tao Te Ching Chapters 19, 28, 29, 32, 37, 45, 57, and 67).

“Follow the Tzu-Jan and WuWei” is the principled way and provides application models for exercising the subjectivity of human beings in order to realize the sustainable future vision—”living in Harmony with the (Dà) Dào”. As Cheng [77] argues “whatever produces maximum effect by minimum effort in human activity manifests natural spontaneity”(tzu-jan). This moderate principle offers a much-needed counterbalance to our technology-driven, growth-obsessed society, counteracting the age’s relentless pursuit of newness and growth, as well as the consumerist mentality that has led to so many unsustainable problems. Consistency with this principle implies the full utilization of the subjectivity of human beings in learning from Nature, especially in interactions and practices with nature, human systems, human social systems, and their derived systems. The instrumental potential of this principle is to remind and guide the transition process of the importance of respect for nature (recognizing the (Dà) Dào of the Earth and staying in reverence and humility) and the soft symbiotic regulating power and maintain simplicity, frugality, and moderation (e.g., promoting practices that minimize resource depletion and negative impacts on ecosystems, striving for sustainable resource management, and encouraging responsible consumption), to promote a shift from short-term gain to long-term well-being (e.g., learning to appreciate the inherent beauty and abundance in the simple, pristine innocence and essentials that lead to greater fulfillment, fostering a culture of contentment and a more mindful approach to life, and allowing the inherent beauty of nature to shine through).

Fortunately, the literature has recognized this and over time has proposed methods that are consistent with this principle. For instance, Point 3 of the deep ecology platform criticizes humanity for interfering with the non-human world by means of its advanced technology. Naess [109] (p. 69) has claimed that there has been an increase in the “nature and extent” of society’s modifications beyond environmentally tolerable parameters. In “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”, the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions criticized the use of dominance over nature, arguing that human interference should be minimal if not nil [110]. Benyus [111] called for “letting nature lead us to our landing”. Davelaar [42] similarly calls for a paradigm shift in the frame of reference from human to nature so that the natural, organic world becomes a source of understanding and a model for human design and culture, emphasizing the need for a perceptual, moral, and cognitive shift that reaffirms the fundamental attitude of human beings to identify with life and the desire to act accordingly. Benessia et al. [112] also call for a profound redefinition of our identities as scientists, artists, members of global civil society, and human beings while recognizing a common desire to live in harmony with nature. They argue the importance of valuing the diversity of cultural expressions and hybrid knowledge and practice, as each hybrid opens up a range of new possibilities for radical changes toward sustainability. This principle, in the context of the sustainability transition, on the one hand, encourages embracing the fluid and untouched potential of nature, learning from and recognizing the soft symbiotic regulating mechanisms of nature in a changing world through human initiative and using them in sustainability transitions to ensure the long-term health of the Earth. On the other hand, it emphasizes human subjectivity and human agency for change, fostering frugality and simplicity, creativity, and innovation inspired by nature’s efficient and sustainable processes, and finding solutions in harmony with the ecosystems, which are essential for a transition to sustainability, instead of imposing rigid controls, destructive interventions, and anthropogenic factors that deviate from the inherent order/rhythm of the planet, creating human-dominated systems that undermine the delicate balance of the planet. The characteristics (Acknowledgement and Surrender, Soft symbiotic regulating power, and frugality—Jian and simplicity—Pu) of this principle correspond to the sustainability transition’s characteristics of “Stability and change”, ‘Long-term processes’, ‘Openness and uncertainty (due to unpredictable changes)’, as well as other features like “resilience”, “flexibility”, “adaptability”, “sustainable consumption and production”, and “resource efficiency” of sustainability. Sustainability transitions emerge organically when consistently connected to this principle, the transition practice becomes an organic part that integrates into our lives, an ongoing effortless conversation with the Earth system through cooperation and respect, not impositions upon it, nor a rigid pursuit of a fixed goal.

4. Discussion

The central aim of sustainability transitions should not be restricted to comprehending, conceptualizing, and explaining the occurrence and multifaceted processes of transition, including its mechanisms and driving forces. It is equally crucial to examine the fundamental assumptions and philosophical underpinnings that will guide sustainability transitions, as it is from these premises that the paradigms and tools of transition are derived and established. Therefore, despite the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability transitions in its ability to draw on different ontological perspectives and its pluralistic approach and transition trajectories [113] with no uniform basic assumptions of cosmology, the reflection on the fundamental premises on which the sustainability transition was constructed in the pre-paradigm state and the development of a broader macro-ecological philosophy that draws on deep cultural, ethical, and spiritual resources to complement it in order to rediscover a harmonious balance are indispensable. This is where goal-orientated sustainable transitions, in particular, differ from transition studies (the central aim is to conceptualize and explain how radical changes can occur in the way societal functions are fulfilled [9]) in general, although there may be some overlap between the two. Achieving a sustainable future from our current state depends on (1) how we perceive our relationship with the Earth system, the human system, and the derived systems established by humans in the pre-paradigm state; (2) the responses taken on the basis of this perception (the multidimensional radical changes in human society, including responses at all levels of political systems, economic structures, technological innovations, cultural norms, and social and environmental systems). Importantly, the sustainability of this cognitive foundation itself in the pre-paradigm state directly determines the sustainability of the coping actions taken on this cognitive foundation.

This again goes back to and responds to McKibben’s alternative path [1]—prioritizing the “integrity of the planet” over human desires and fundamentally shifting our relationship with nature. The three Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions outlined in this paper are timely and potent supplements to the modern socio-technical imaginaries driven by human-centered rationalist thinking in sustainability transition studies during the pre-paradigm state; they reflect the fundamental beliefs and values of the Tao philosophy, which is seen as a strong complement to emerging scientific and non-scientific disciplines [114]. For instance, the Taoist-inspired principles and sustainability transitions, both emphasize the interconnectedness of societal and natural systems with the co-evolution of their environments, highlight the role of humans (societal actors) in shaping the transition. Furthermore, many scholars have considered that Taoist philosophy reflects a holistic cosmology and systems thinking and ecological awareness [57,77,115,116,117]. With its ontology, cosmology, and principles, Taoist philosophy represents a specific set of “living in Harmony with the (Dà) Dào” macro-ecological blueprints for what a sustainable future might look like and what would be instrumental in realizing it. The three Taoist-inspired principles in this blueprint demonstrate the relationship between nature (the Earth system), human beings and human society, and the laws of their interaction. Learning and practicing these Taoist-inspired principles in the context of sustainability transitions through the understanding, perception, and exploration of the “(Dà) Dào of Universe and Earth” will bring permanent harmony to the Earth, which has a very positive and realistic significance.

In terms of sustainability transitions, while the transition itself does not dictate a specific unified blueprint for a common sustainable future, understanding potential blueprints and basic assumptions in Taoist philosophy beneficial to construct the field helps humanity navigate philosophical underpinnings, principles, and paradigms compatible with the sustainable future and facilitate the current transition process more effectively with humility to approach the process moving beyond technical solutions or anthropocentric fixes. In terms of Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions, while they are not concrete actions or tangible approaches for the transition process, they can still serve as broad, abstract, normative, and potential compasses to enrich sustainability transition research, design, and implementation, supporting alignment with the Earth’s Dào in this process of transitioning to more sustainable systems. As humans, we certainly cannot entirely exclude the human perspective, but we can utilize these Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions, to shift from a human-centric perspective to a more sustainable and systemic and beyond anthropocentric fixes. In the context of the Anthropocene, embracing these Taoist-inspired principles and integrating them into transition practices can provide the basis for the design and implementation of real-world sustainability transitions, as well as sustainable decision-making and interventions, and for the development of pluralistic, cross-culturally inclusive strategies and policies that promote sustainability transitions in a holistic and integrated manner.

5. Conclusions

This paper explored the instrumental potential of “Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions” that fundamentally transform the human–nature relationship, serve as a potential compass for sustainability transitions, and funded supplementary ground to the “why” behind the “how” of achieving a sustainable future during the pre-paradigm state. Distinguishing between the (Dà) Dào (the holistic, ecological way the world functions) and the Dào domain (the way people think about how the world functions) in the context of sustainability transitions is one of the key messages of this paper, so as to reflect on the current holding Dào domain (of sustainability transitions) in the light of (Dà) Dào (of the Earth), which can ultimately be aligned through the application of Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions. These principles, including “interconnectedness and symbiosis”, “equality, balance and justice of all things”, and “follow the Tzu-Jan and WuWei”, are meaningfully complemented by the modern sociotechnical imaginaries driven by human-centered rationalist thinking in sustainability sciences, and, in particular, add depth, richness, and inclusiveness to the dialogue on sustainability transitions. By exploring the commonalities between the “Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions” and sustainability transitions, this paper strengthens the rationale for sustainability transitions and creates a common ground for transdisciplinary dialogue. The hyperdimensional holographic wisdom aiming to transcend anthropocentricity embedded in these principles and the spiritual connection of this wisdom to nature and natural law can energize a fundamental philosophical shift in the way we relate to nature in the pre-paradigm state, showing the potential for a more comprehensive, complex, macro, and systematic view of the contemporary situation.

The paper acknowledges that the Taoist-inspired principle for sustainability transitions may encounter challenges, particularly epistemological tensions and implementation difficulties. Western science, which dominates the mainstream, relies on objective data, repeatable experiments, and rigorous testing to build knowledge, often focusing on controlling, modeling, and predicting natural systems to achieve specific transition goals. In contrast, Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions can be challenging to quantify or measure using traditional scientific methods, potentially creating tensions over what constitutes valid knowledge for decision-making in the transition process. Challenges also include the potential for difficulties in translating these principles into concrete sustainability transition actions and interventions in actual projects. Therefore, reconciling these principles with the strengths of Western science in analysis and problem-solving is essential. At the same time, the paper recognizes that it should certainly not be regarded as the sole navigational principle, but as an intercultural addition, it still is instrumental in bridging the shortcomings of transformative practices rooted in person-centered perspectives and enriching sustainability future scenarios. More specifically, the wisdom it contains is instrumental in reshaping the relationship between humans and nature beyond technological fixes, encouraging critical thinking on the implicit underlying assumptions about the nature of reality embedded in sustainability transitions, promoting holistic long-term thinking and development vital towards a more humble world that is essential for a fundamental philosophical shift toward sustainability of our modern world. The paper encourages future research to engage in the co-construction of transition processes for pluralism by embracing multicultural diversity at the pre-paradigm state (e.g., following Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions) towards a sustainable future. Additionally, considering that many terms of Taoist philosophy have specific semantic fields under specific cultural and historical conditions, the authors try to avoid directly applying existing Western philosophical concepts and translated terminology as much as possible, resulting in part of original descriptive interpretations by the authors, and where necessary, using Chinese pinyin as terms or auxiliary words in an attempt to more accurately interpret the thoughts of Taoist philosophy in the author’s understanding. These are subject to peer review and open discussion. Furthermore, this work could benefit from additional empirical evidence. This requires further transdisciplinary collaboration between transition scientists, philosophers, and practitioners to validate the effectiveness of the proposed principles when integrated into transformational action and practice, or how it works with and informs different sustainability transition approaches, both in design and implementation, which may require an applicable framework that bridges objective analysis with an appreciation of subjective experience in navigating transition complexities. Further case-based practice would also be beneficial, for example, on how to apply Taoist-inspired principles for sustainability transitions to real-world cases in different cultural contexts.