The Observation
Observation¶
What is this?
This page documents, through a sociotechnical lens, what the 2025 UN SDG Progress Report demonstrates about the state of global development systems. We observe—not prescribe—where and how deep misalignments persist between people, technology, and larger structures.
I just want the abstract
This Observation page documents a rigorous, up-to-date account of global progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through the lens of sociotechnical systems theory. Drawing directly from the 2025 United Nations SDG Progress Report, we assemble evidence that confirms a troubling reality: while knowledge, innovation, and digital infrastructure have all advanced, structural misalignments persist between our social behaviors, technical systems, and external incentives. These misalignments—identified as social, technical, and external subsystems—are at the heart of why collective action on urgent global challenges continues to fall short. Here, we reference authoritative data and expert analysis, not to propose solutions, but to precisely clarify where the current system fails and why a new approach is urgently required. This scientific baseline serves as the foundation for the hypotheses and experiments developed on subsequent pages.
SDG Progress – The World at an Inflection Point¶
United Nations SDG Report 2025
“The world remains far off track from achieving the 2030 Agenda. Of the 169 SDG targets, only 35% show adequate progress—18% are on track, 17% making moderate progress. In contrast, 48% show insufficient progress, and 18% of targets have regressed below 2015 baseline levels.”
-
Global SDG Performance (2015–2025)
% of Targets On Track 18% Moderate 17% Marginal 31% Stagnating 17% Regressing 18%
Source: UN SDG Progress Report 2025
Our Method—A Sociotechnical Lens¶
What is Sociotechnical Theory?
“Sociotechnical theory is about joint optimization: designing systems where technical performance and human wellbeing are advanced together. It focuses on how social behaviors interact with technology, shaping both productivity and the quality of our collective work lives.” — Wikipedia: Sociotechnical Systems
“Originally, computing focused on hardware, then software, then human-computer interaction, and now—at the level of sociotechnical systems—it considers how whole communities work through technology.” — The Interaction Design Foundation, STS
“A community works through people using technology.”
In this spirit, our observations are grounded in the science of sociotechnical systems:
We ask: Where do our social, technical, and external systems align or misalign with collective wellbeing and progress? We observe: Not just individuals with tools, but communities and societies—working, failing, or succeeding together, by and through their technologies.
graph TD
SS[**Social Subsystem**<br/><sub>Attributes of people -skills, attitudes, values-, relationships, reward systems, authority</sub>]
TS[**Technical Subsystem**<br/><sub>Processes, tasks, technology for transforming inputs to outputs</sub>]
ES[**External Subsystem**<br/><sub>Outside influences, stakeholders, partnering perspectives</sub>]
SS -- "Work System Design" --- JO[**Joint Optimization**]
TS -- "Work System Design" --- JO
ES -- "Pulls/Influences" --> JOSocial Subsystem Fault — Hamsters in the Wheel¶
As we become more connected and more informed about the thousands of challenges facing humanity, we can’t help but notice a painful truth: despite our awareness, nothing we do as individuals seems to move the needle. Decades after the Club of Rome’s ‘Limits to Growth’ warned us about the risks of unchecked development, growing awareness about the links between society and our natural world still hasn’t triggered fundamental shifts in how we organize ourselves.
We measure more, know more, and have greater access to scientific insight than ever before. Yet, remarkably few of us are actually working on real solutions to real problems. Instead, we find ourselves trapped in a paradox: the better we get at calculating and exposing the effects of our culture on nature, the less agency we feel to change the course we’re on.
We’re overwhelmed, not just by the data and complexity, but by a constant barrage of conflicting information, misinformation, and cultural warfare—conditions that make genuine collaboration and action feel impossible. It’s as if the systems around us are designed to keep us running in place, growing tired, but never reaching meaningful progress.
Deep down, we recognize ourselves in this paradox. We are the hamsters, running tirelessly on wheels built by economies and power structures that benefit from our distraction and confusion. This is the central issue we need to name and break: the system that keeps us moving, but rarely moving forward.
UN Confirmation
“Persistent inequalities continue to limit human potential... The broader context is increasingly complex. Climate change continues to accelerate... A $4 trillion annual financing gap constrains development progress."
What We Observe:¶
- Routines and incentive systems keep individuals in cycles that reinforce, not repair, the global crises.
- Those most threatened by these risks are generally excluded from shaping system-level responses.
Technical Subsystem Fault — The Isolated Human Doctrine¶
When we look honestly at the world’s urgent challenges, it’s not just their complexity that weighs on us—it’s the shape our own societies are in to overcome them. We find ourselves divided, distracted, and often addicted to digital habits, while the most powerful organizations on earth benefit from keeping us apart. Increasingly, our technology is designed to isolate us—as users, as consumers, not as collaborators or citizens. This is what we call the isolated human doctrine.
This doctrine does more than make us passive—it also convinces us to wait for someone else to solve the crisis. We’re conditioned to look to governments, powerful leaders, or brands to invent our way out of these problems. But the truth is, they won’t. Deep down, we know we need to step up—not as lone heroes, but as people who are a bit more organized, a bit more connected, and united by purpose.
We’ve been told a better world starts with “fixing yourself.” If we face these challenges alone, everything feels too big to tackle. But if we face them together, maybe—just maybe—they become possible.
UN Confirmation
“Progress has been deeply inadequate. This reflects... a fundamental problem in how we measure, monitor and respond to global development needs... Statistical systems remain chronically underfunded—treated as technical afterthoughts.”
What We Observe:¶
- The explosion of data and connectivity isn’t translating into collective agency or action.
- Citizens are “users” rather than full contributors.
- Siloed data, vulnerable infrastructure, and lack of trust persist—especially for the most vital SDGs.
graph LR
subgraph Technical Subsystem
D[Digital Growth] --> E(Increased Data)
E --> F("Trust & Feedback Gaps")
F -->|Missed SDGs| G[Collective Inaction]
endExternal Subsystem Fault — Distorted Incentives¶
We feel a growing sense of urgency as we watch our grip on the world slip away—just when we need clarity and collective strength the most. The explosion of digital content and internet access was supposed to empower us. It did make knowledge more available than ever. Now, everyone can publish, create, and share at the speed of thought.
But all this information hasn’t brought us together—it’s become a battleground for the agendas of corporations and political powers. Instead of uniting us, today’s internet is often used to distract, confuse, and divide. Powerful interests, not people, steer the flow of content and shape what we believe.
Somehow, we have let this happen: the internet’s promise hijacked by those who profit from division and distraction, instead of fostering the collaboration we urgently need. There’s no single cause, but the result is clear—a system that floods us with information, but makes meaningful, collective change harder than ever.
UN Confirmation
“Funding for global data... remains heavily dependent on a small group of major funders... The fragility of data financing is well-illustrated after abrupt termination of funding... which now threatens the production of critical data needed to monitor progress on multiple SDG indicators.”
What We Observe:¶
- Funding, priorities, and risk tolerance sit outside the collective, subject to abrupt reversals.
- Systemic dependence leads to fragility and volatility in critical development data and solutions.
flowchart TD
SDG[Global SDG Targets\nfalling short]
subgraph Social
A[Hamsters in the Wheel]
end
subgraph Technical
B[Isolated Human Doctrine]
end
subgraph External
C[Distorted Incentives]
end
SDG --> A
SDG --> B
SDG --> C
A -- "Traps talent & solidarity"\n(inequality, exclusion) --> A1[Low collective action]
B -- "Optimizes for reporting & consumption,\nnot participatory agency" --> B1[Fragile and siloed data systems]
C -- "Short-term, external \(and boom-bust\) priorities" --> C1[Funding shocks, stalling progress]Convergence — SDG Data Meets Systems Theory¶
Shared Analysis
“The challenges we face are inherently global and interconnected. No country... can address climate change, pandemic preparedness or inequality alone. ...Sustainable development is not a zero-sum game, but a shared endeavour that benefits all.”
— UN SDG Progress Report 2025, Call for renewed multilateralism
Our Scientific Take:
The 2025 SDG Progress Report confirms what systems theorists have observed for years:
- Global stalling isn’t due to ignorance or lack of effort, but structural misalignment—across social, technical, and external (funding/governance) systems.
- As long as these systems remain fragmented or externally steered, collective progress will remain slow, fragile, and easily reversed.
References:
- The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025 (PDF, unstats.un.org)
Ready to Contribute?¶
Join the Project
Become a Smartup Zero owner
Start Discussing
Connect with the community
Start Building
Pick up your first task