Cognitive Sustainability

Two levels of influence

Cognitive sustainability is about understanding how external information systems and internal neural patterns interact.
It is no longer possible to separate societal influence from the brain’s own reshaping, they reflect one another.

The external level is described clearly in a publication by the Swedish Psychological Defence Agency,
The Janus Face – A Metaphor for Information Influence and Cognitive Bias.
It shows that information influence is not only about manipulation, but about how bias and narratives embed themselves in our everyday cognition.

A parallel perspective on how structures influence perception and decision-making is explored in When Support Becomes Steering: and What It Does to Our Ability to See.
The article examines how organisational frameworks originally designed to support can gradually evolve into systems that shape how we see, interpret and respond.

The internal level has been explored in my previous articles:

• When the Brain Is Shaped by the System: and What Changes Faster Than We Think
• Building Cognitive Resilience: Between Microtime, Redundancy, and the Mirror of Unknowing
• Synthetic Safety: When Confirmation Logic in AI Shapes Our Cognition

Together, these perspectives show how the same underlying mechanism, dopamine logic, shapes both system and mind.
We are training our brains for speed, yet losing the endurance for depth.

When thought moves beyond the brain

The rise of large language models has rapidly altered the landscape of human thought.
As parts of our cognitive process migrate into digital systems, new dependencies emerge, not just technical, but neurological.

In When Thoughts Move into Language Models,
I explore how language models have become external extensions of our thinking,
and in Language Models as External Memory: What Happens to Our Internal Capacity,
I examine how this transition affects our ability to create and retain deep understanding.

Together, these perspectives highlight a new aspect of cognitive sustainability,
how we can coexist with our language models without losing our inner cognitive capacity.

When sustainability becomes cognitive

Sustainability is about creating conditions for long-term functionality.
In ecological systems, it means balance.
In economic systems, it means stability.
In cognitive systems, it means preserving our capacity for deep processing and interpretation in a world that rewards speed.

We must begin to view cognitive endurance as a shared resource, not an individual skill.
Organizations, schools, and societies are all shaped by how the brain is trained.
When information environments are designed without this awareness, structural vulnerability follows.

This theme is further explored in the article When Our Cognitive Resilience Falters: on Mental Wear in Polarized Environments,
which examines how dopamine-driven stimulation, cognitive strain and information overload affect our collective ability for reflection, reasoning and resilience over time.

Between Synthetic safety and information fatigue

We seek comfort in confirmation, but that comfort is synthetic.
AI systems and algorithms reinforce our cognitive biases, rewarding what we already believe.
It brings temporary stability, yet weakens our ability for reflection, interpretation, and critical thought.

This creates a paradox:
we have more information than ever before, yet less ability to understand it.

Cognitive sustainability is about restoring the balance between dopamine and interpretation.
It is about reintroducing rhythm in a world of constant stimulation, and about designing structures where the brain can work with the digital flow, not against it.

From individual responsibility to design principle

It is easy to speak of personal responsibility, to “disconnect” or “take a break.”
But sustainability cannot rest on individuals when systems are built for dependency.

Cognitive sustainability must become a design principle across education, leadership, and AI development:

• Information flows should be designed for interpretation, not consumption
• Learning should cultivate cognitive endurance, not reaction speed
• Digital environments should measure focus, not just engagement

We must begin to see dopamine logic as a systemic risk, and build resilience accordingly.

Toward a new axis of sustainability

When psychological defence research warns of cognitive bias,
and neuroscience shows how reward systems are being reshaped,
they are both pointing toward the same conclusion: we need a new axis of sustainability.

Cognitive sustainability is not about protecting ourselves from information,
but about enabling us to live within it, without losing our capacity to understand.

For further reading:

• When the Brain Is Shaped by the System
• Building Cognitive Resilience
• When Thoughts Move into Language Models
• Language Models as External Memory

The infographic below visualizes how cognition evolves across systems and technologies.
Each layer represents a shift in how we adapt, process, and sustain thought in increasingly digital environments.

The Spectrum of Cognitive Sustainability

The infographic above visualizes how cognitive sustainability connects neuroscience, psychology and technology into one continuous model.
It shows how cognition evolves across five interlinked levels, from the adaptive processes within the brain to the systemic, technological and ethical dimensions that now shape how we think.

Understanding the five levels

1. Micro: The Adaptive Brain
Research in neuroscience and cognitive psychology (Sweller, 1988; Posner & Rothbart, 2007; Klingberg, 2009) shows how the brain adapts to information overload through divided attention, redundancy and self-regulation.
This level represents the individual capacity for focus and rhythm under cognitive strain.

2. Systemic: The Environmental Loop
Behavioral and social neuroscience, including Kahneman & Tversky (1979), Sunstein (2016), Lieberman (2013), and Berridge & Robinson (2016), describe how dopamine-driven feedback loops in digital environments amplify bias and emotional reinforcement.

Cognitive sustainability here requires redesigning information flows for interpretation rather than reaction.

3. Technological: The External Mind
Theories of distributed and extended cognition, Hutchins (1995) and Clark & Chalmers (1998), describe how digital tools and language models extend our thinking beyond the biological brain.

This level examines balance, how to use synthetic cognition without eroding intrinsic reasoning.

4. Meta: The Shifting Memory
Empirical research on digital memory, Sparrow, Liu & Wegner (2011), Ward (2013), and Carr (2010), demonstrates how outsourcing memory changes how we encode and retrieve knowledge.

Cognitive sustainability at this stage means preserving depth, context and reflective understanding even as external systems manage information for us.

5. Synthesis: Cognitive Sustainability
By combining insights from neuroethics, resilience research, and system sustainability theory, Metzinger (2019), Friston (2010), and Folke et al. (2021), cognition can be understood as an ecological system that must stay balanced between stimulation, interpretation, and recovery.

This synthesis defines the foundation for mental ecology and sustainable cognition within complex systems.

The ethical and structural foundation of cognitive sustainability.
When cognition remains self-reflective, resilient and traceable,
we preserve the integrity of human thought within systemic evolution.

Cognitive integrity represents the central thread through all five levels.
It links the adaptive brain, the systemic environment, technological extensions and shifting memory into one coherent continuum of human understanding.
Without integrity, the capacity to stay aware of our own cognitive processes, sustainability becomes impossible.

Scientific context

This model is grounded in decades of interdisciplinary research spanning neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and systems theory.
Each reference corresponds to a well-established body of work that explains a layer of how human cognition evolves within digital infrastructures.
The model does not replace these fields but integrates them into a new conceptual layer, a synthesis that views cognition as both biological and systemic, individual and collective.

Key references include:
Sweller (1988), Posner & Rothbart (2007), Klingberg (2009),
Kahneman & Tversky (1979), Sunstein (2016), Lieberman (2013), Berridge & Robinson (2016),
Hutchins (1995), Clark & Chalmers (1998),
Sparrow et al. (2011), Ward (2013), Carr (2010),
Metzinger (2019), Friston (2010), Folke et al. (2021).

Final reflection

Cognitive sustainability is a present condition.
Since the introduction of large language models, human and machine cognition have become dynamically intertwined.
Each prompt, click and decision contributes to a shared cognitive ecosystem that is already reshaping how we interpret, remember and reason.

Recognizing cognition as an ecological system is essential to preserve depth, reflection and independent thought.

Cognitive integrity is the compass that ensures this evolution strengthens rather than diminishes our collective understanding.

_{Concept and synthesis by Katri Lindgren, based on interdisciplinary research in neuroscience, psychology and systems theory.}

References

• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. DOI
• Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Educating the Human Brain. APA Books. Archive
• Klingberg, T. (2009). The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory. OUP. Link
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. JSTOR
• Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The Ethics of Influence. Cambridge University Press. Link
• Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Broadway Books. Archive
• Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71(8), 670–679. PubMed
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press. MIT Press
• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. OUP
• Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google Effects on Memory. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. DOI
• Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the Internet Is Changing Our Memories and Attention. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 341–348. JSTOR
• Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton. Link
• Friston, K. J. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 127–138. PubMed
• Folke, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., et al. (2021). Our Future in the Anthropocene Biosphere. Ambio, 50, 834–869. Springer
• Metzinger, T. (2019). EU Guidelines: Ethics Washing Made in Europe. PDF