This is likely to keep theattention ready for “surprises”, thus avoiding a sense of monotony setting in.More generally, the flow paradigm lacks the notion of adventure (Dickey, 2006; Heylighen,2012a), which can be characterized by a sequence of unforeseen challenges (dangers, opportunities,surprises...)—as contrasted with the foreseen challenges that we call ‘goals’. It is theunpredictability or unexpectedness of these challenges that creates the excitement that we typicallyassociate with an adventure, and that forms the basis of full emotional involvement. Adventure isassociated with the notions of exploration, curiosity and mystery: mystery can be defined as a lackof prospect that incites the emotion of curiosity, which in turns incites exploratory action(Heylighen, 2012a). Mystery and adventure are common features of game design (Dickey, 2006).However, their role will need further analysis if we want to apply them systematically tomobilization, given that they imply a level of uncertainty that—if experienced too intensely—mayproduce the anxiety that mobilization systems are trying to avoid.

Our analysis suggests that it is possible toachieve many of the global biodiversity targetsand sustainability goals related to food, energy,climate, and water at local and global scales.The complexity of the challenges calls for anintegrative (nexus) approach (89) that simulta-neously examines interactions among multiplesectors along with synergies and tradeoffsamong goals. An example of a key nexus arethe simultaneous needs to mitigate climatechange, arrest biodiversity loss, and ensurethat all people have adequate nutrition onone hand, and the potentially negative con-sequences of large-scale land-based climatechange mitigation on the other. Even moder-ate warming will likely be detrimental forbiodiversity (90) and associated benefits topeople (91). However, most scenarios projectedto limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C by the end ofthe 21st century rely on large-scale mitigationmeasures on land, in the form of bioenergycrops, reforestation, and/or afforestation, neg-atively affecting biodiversity and also foodproduction and water demand (19, 92). At thesame time, expanding the amount of landdevoted to agriculture to ensure that all peoplehave adequate nutrition would negatively af-fect biodiversity as well (93) and would furtherexacerbate climate change (19, 92). Both land-based climate change mitigation and agricul-tural expansion, when deployed at the largescale, can undermine local livelihoods, createaccess problems, and intensify social conflict(94). A suite of possible actions could be ef-fective in navigating these tradeoffs (19, 95)—for example, focusing on regeneration andrestoration of high-carbon ecosystems (aswell as reducing waste and overconsump-tion) rather than massive bioenergy mono-culture plantations—to achieve climate changemitigation (19, 96, 97).