Beyond the Pyramid: Why Everything You Know About Social Needs Is Wrong (And How an Underground Forest Network Taught Me the Truth)

Introduction: The Loneliness of a Flawed Blueprint

For more than a decade, I’ve called myself a community architect. It’s a title I chose with intention, believing that strong communities, like strong buildings, could be designed and constructed. My passion was rooted in a simple, powerful conviction: that connection is fundamental to human life. I devoured the literature, from psychology to sociology, and built my professional toolkit around what I considered the bedrock of the field—the elegant, intuitive pyramid of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.¹ It was my blueprint. I believed that if I could ensure people’s basic physiological and safety needs were met, I could then construct the next level: a space for love and belonging. My job, as I saw it, was to build the third floor of the human experience.³

I designed programs, facilitated events, and launched initiatives all aimed at bringing people together. I created the conditions for belonging, checked the boxes, and followed the standard advice. Yet, a quiet frustration grew with each project that fizzled out, each new group that failed to cohere. The blueprints were sound, but the structures were fragile, prone to collapse under the slightest pressure.

My breaking point came with a project I poured my heart into: the “Common Ground” Community Garden. On paper, it was perfect. We secured a neglected urban lot in a diverse, low-income neighborhood. We provided the tools, the soil, the seeds, and a secure fence. It was a textbook application of the pyramid model. It addressed physiological needs with fresh food, safety needs with a protected, well-lit space, and was explicitly designed to foster the social needs of connection and belonging.⁵ I envisioned neighbors working side-by-side, sharing harvests, and forming the very bonds I was paid to create.

Instead, it became a monument to my ignorance. The project was a slow-motion disaster. It wasn’t a single dramatic event, but a death by a thousand cuts. Disputes erupted over plot boundaries. Tools went missing. A few committed residents became resentful of those who showed up less frequently, leading to accusations and mistrust.⁶ The initial enthusiasm curdled into apathy. Within a year, the garden was overgrown with weeds, a testament to a profound and painful failure.

For months, I analyzed what went wrong, falling back on the usual shallow explanations: a lack of engagement, poor communication, insufficient leadership. But those were symptoms, not the cause. The real problem wasn’t a flaw in the project’s execution; it was a fundamental flaw in the blueprint itself.⁷ I had meticulously tried to build the third floor of a pyramid on a foundation that, despite looking solid, was psychologically unstable. The model I had trusted, the one that had guided my entire career, had led me to create not a community, but a battlefield of quiet desperation and unmet expectations. The garden’s failure wasn’t just a professional setback; it was a personal crisis that forced me to question everything I thought I knew about what we truly need from one another.

Part I: The Epiphany – From a Static Pyramid to a Living Ecosystem

In the wake of the Common Ground collapse, I stepped back. My confidence was shattered, and the neat frameworks I had relied on felt like hollow platitudes. I began reading voraciously, casting a wide net beyond my own field. I explored systems thinking, organizational psychology, and eventually, I stumbled into the world of ecology. It was there, in a paper on Social-Ecological Systems (SES), that the epiphany struck. The SES framework doesn’t see human society and the natural world as separate entities to be managed; it sees them as a single, complex, and adaptive system where each part is inextricably linked and co-evolving with the others.⁹

A question ignited in my mind, one that would change the course of my work and my life: What if a human community isn’t a pyramid to be built, but an ecosystem to be cultivated?

This single question dismantled my entire worldview. The goal was no longer a linear, mechanical process of “fulfilling needs” one by one, like a contractor working up a building. The new goal was a holistic, organic process of “nurturing systemic health.” A community wasn’t a static structure; it was a living, breathing entity. With this new lens, I could finally see why the old pyramid model had failed me so spectacularly.

The pop-psychology version of Maslow’s hierarchy that dominates our culture is a caricature of his own, more nuanced thinking. But even in its more academic form, the theory has significant limitations that my real-world failure had painfully exposed. Critics have long pointed out that the hierarchy is too rigid and linear. Research has shown that human needs are not always pursued in a fixed order; people can experience a profound sense of love and belonging even while living in poverty, struggling to meet their basic needs for food and safety.¹¹ The model is also criticized for its cultural bias, reflecting a distinctly Western, individualistic emphasis on “self-actualization” as a solitary peak achievement, which doesn’t align with more collectivist cultures where community and social contribution are prioritized above all else.¹³

Furthermore, the very idea that needs are satisfied in discrete stages is a gross oversimplification. Human motivation is dynamic, constantly shaped by an interplay between our inner drives and our external environment.¹³ My garden project failed because I treated the community members like cogs in a machine, assuming that if I provided Inputs A (soil) and B (safety), I would get Output C (belonging). I had ignored the complex, dynamic, and deeply human system that was already there.

To clarify my own thinking, I drew up a table to contrast the old, failed blueprint with my new, living model. It became my compass.

Table 1: The Paradigm Shift – From Pyramid to Ecosystem

Feature	The Old “Pyramid” Model (The Flawed Blueprint)	The New “Ecosystem” Model (The Living System)
Structure	Hierarchical, Linear, Static 2	Interconnected, Dynamic, Systemic 9
Focus	Fulfilling discrete needs in a fixed order 4	Nurturing the health and resilience of the whole system 15
Metaphor	A man-made structure to be climbed	A living, self-regulating natural world (forest, reef)
Role of Individual	An individual achiever on a personal quest 13	An interdependent part of a complex network 16
Outcome	“Self-Actualization” (often seen as a solitary peak) 17	Systemic Resilience and Collective Thriving 9

This shift from pyramid to ecosystem wasn’t just a change in terminology; it was a fundamental reorientation. It meant that my job was not to be an architect drawing blueprints, but a gardener tending to the soil, understanding the hidden networks beneath the surface, and nurturing the conditions for life to flourish on its own terms.

Part II: The Foundational Soil – Deconstructing the Three Core Psychological Nutrients

With my new ecosystem model in hand, I revisited the foundational theories of social needs. I no longer saw them as competing frameworks, but as different scientific descriptions of the essential “nutrients” that make up the soil of a healthy human ecosystem. When this soil is rich, communities thrive. When it’s depleted, they wither and die, just as my garden did. I found that the vast landscape of research could be synthesized into three core psychological nutrients.

1. Relatedness (The Need to Belong)

This is the most fundamental nutrient, the very bedrock of the soil. It is the universal, pervasive drive to form and maintain a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships.18 Maslow called it “love and belonging” and placed it on the third tier of his pyramid, defining it as the need for friendship, family, intimacy, and a sense of connection to avoid loneliness and depression.1

However, the work of psychologists Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary frames this need with far greater urgency. Their “need to belong” hypothesis posits that this drive is not just a preference but a fundamental human motivation, as critical to our psychological well-being as food is to our physical survival.¹⁹ A lack of belonging isn’t just unpleasant; it’s damaging, leading to a host of negative mental and physical health outcomes.¹⁹ This need is so powerful that our strongest emotions, both positive (joy, satisfaction) and negative (anxiety, depression, jealousy), are directly tied to the formation, maintenance, or dissolution of our social bonds.¹⁹

2. Competence (The Need for Efficacy & Contribution)

The second critical nutrient is competence. It’s not enough to simply be in a group; we have an innate need to feel effective, to master tasks, and to contribute meaningfully to that group.23 This is a cornerstone of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a powerful framework for understanding motivation developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan.25 When people feel they have the skills needed for success and can see the tangible results of their efforts, their motivation becomes intrinsic and self-sustaining.24

This aligns perfectly with a more sociological definition of social needs, which emphasizes that true fulfillment comes from a perceived sense of personal significance, achieved through both social belonging and social contribution.²⁷ We need to feel that we matter, and that what we do matters to others. This sense of making a contribution to the world is also a key component of Maslow’s “Esteem” needs, the level just above belonging.²⁰

3. Autonomy (The Need for Agency & Voice)

The third nutrient, also from SDT, is autonomy. This is the need to feel that we are the causal agents of our own lives, that we have choice and volition in our actions.23 Autonomy is not about being independent or isolated from others; it’s about feeling a sense of psychological liberty and internal freedom, even when working within a group.23 When our need for autonomy is supported, we willingly endorse our behaviors, and our motivation is authentic. When it’s thwarted by control or pressure, our motivation becomes fragile and our well-being suffers.25

Looking back at the Common Ground garden through this new lens, the diagnosis became painfully clear. The failure wasn’t a simple lack of “relatedness.” It was a catastrophic failure of the entire soil composition. The three nutrients are not independent; they are synergistic. You cannot have one without the others.

The garden project was a classic top-down initiative. We, the “experts,” came in with a plan and gave it to the community. In doing so, we stripped the residents of Autonomy. It was our project, not theirs. They had no real voice in its design or governance, which is a common reason for the failure of community initiatives.⁸ Because they had no sense of ownership, they couldn’t develop a sense of

Competence. Their work felt like fulfilling a task for an external authority, not making a meaningful contribution to something that was their own.²⁸ And because the foundational nutrients of autonomy and competence were missing, genuine

Relatedness never had a chance to grow. The interactions that did occur were shallow and transactional, prone to conflict because there was no shared purpose, no collective efficacy, no “we” to bind them together.

I had tried to plant flowers in barren sand. I learned the hard way that you cannot simply provide “belonging” as a service. You can only cultivate the soil—a rich mix of autonomy, competence, and relatedness—and create the conditions where belonging can emerge organically.

Part III: The Mycorrhizal Network – The Hidden Architecture of Connection

My biggest mistake with the garden was seeing the community as a collection of individuals. I thought if I put them in the same place, connection would magically happen. The ecosystem paradigm taught me to look deeper, beneath the surface. My epiphany truly crystallized when I learned about mycorrhizal networks.

In a forest, trees that appear to be solitary competitors are, in fact, connected by a vast, subterranean network of fungi. These microscopic fungal threads, called mycelium, fuse with tree roots, creating a shared infrastructure that has been dubbed the “wood-wide web”.²⁹ This network is not passive; it is a dynamic, living marketplace that transports water, carbon, nitrogen, and other vital nutrients between trees. It connects ancient giants to struggling saplings, allowing the forest to behave like a single, intelligent, cooperative organism.²⁹

This stunning biological reality provided the perfect metaphor for the hidden architecture of a human community. The concepts I was discovering in social network theory mapped flawlessly onto this natural model, giving me a powerful new language to describe the invisible structures of connection.¹⁶

• Nodes as Individuals: In this model, each person in a community is a “tree,” a unique individual with their own needs and resources.¹⁶
• Ties as Fungal Hyphae: The relationships and interactions between people—the phone calls, the shared coffees, the favors exchanged—are the “mycelium” that form the network, the conduits through which support and information flow.¹⁶
• Strong Ties (Taproots & Major Fungal Strands): Sociologists distinguish between strong and weak ties. Strong ties are our deep, close relationships—family, intimate partners, best friends. They are like the thick taproots and major fungal arteries, providing core emotional support, trust, and substantial resources. They are essential for our stability and well-being.¹⁶
• Weak Ties (Fine Mycelial Threads): Weak ties are our more casual acquaintances—the neighbor we chat with, the person from another department at work, the friend-of-a-friend. In his groundbreaking work, Mark Granovetter showed that these seemingly insignificant connections are incredibly powerful.³³ They are the fine mycelial threads that stretch across the forest floor, bridging different clusters of trees. These weak ties are our primary source of novel information, new ideas, and opportunities (like a job lead) because they connect us to worlds outside our immediate circle.¹⁶
• Network Density & Clusters: Just like a forest, a human social network has areas of high density, where individuals are tightly interconnected (these are often called cliques or clusters), and more sparsely connected regions. Understanding this topology is crucial for seeing how influence, ideas, and even emotions will spread.³³
• Brokers (Hubs in the Network): Some individuals occupy a special position in the network. They act as “brokers,” connecting two or more clusters that would otherwise be separate. These people are the crucial hubs of the wood-wide web, facilitating the flow of resources and information across the entire ecosystem. They are vital for innovation, social cohesion, and system-wide resilience.³³

This fusion of ecology and network theory led me to a profound realization: the health of a social ecosystem is a direct function of its network architecture. A community’s ability to thrive, innovate, and support its members depends on having a diverse portfolio of connections. An ecosystem that relies only on strong ties becomes insular, resistant to new ideas, and prone to “groupthink.” An ecosystem that lacks weak ties becomes fragmented and stagnant, with individuals and clusters isolated from one another. An ecosystem without brokers will lack cohesion and the ability to mobilize for collective goals.

My old approach had been like planting trees in individual, isolated pots and expecting them to flourish. My new mission was to become a forest steward, to understand and cultivate the complex, hidden, and life-giving network that connects us all.

Part IV: Keystone Species & Symbiosis – The Quality of Relationships

Understanding the architecture of the network was a massive leap forward, but it was still incomplete. A network diagram can show you that a connection exists, but it can’t tell you about the quality of that connection. Is it a relationship of mutual support, or one of exploitation? To understand this, I had to add two more ecological concepts to my toolkit: keystone species and symbiosis.

Keystone Species as Social Anchors

In ecology, a keystone species is a plant or animal that has a disproportionately large effect on its ecosystem relative to its abundance.³⁶ They are the critical architects of their environment. For example, sea otters are a keystone species because they prey on sea urchins, which would otherwise decimate kelp forests. Removing the otter causes the entire ecosystem to collapse.³⁷

This concept translates powerfully to human social ecosystems. “Social keystones” are the people, places, or even ideas that provide a critical structuring role, holding the community together. They are not always the formal leaders or the most popular individuals. A social keystone could be:

• An Individual: A natural convener who loves hosting parties, a trusted elder whose wisdom is sought by many, or a “broker” who makes it their business to connect people from different walks of life.³³
• A Shared Value or Purpose: For the outdoor apparel company Patagonia, a shared commitment to environmental activism acts as a powerful keystone, uniting their customers into a passionate community that is about much more than just clothing.³⁸
• A Ritual or Place: A weekly neighborhood potluck, a specific coffee shop where local artists gather, or a public park like New York’s High Line can serve as a physical keystone, a neutral ground that facilitates spontaneous interaction and connection.³⁹

In my failed garden project, I had completely overlooked this. There was no keystone. There was no central, organizing person, ritual, or deeply held value that could anchor the community and give it a coherent identity. It was just a collection of individuals with no gravitational center to hold them in orbit.

Symbiosis as a Relational Diagnostic Tool

Finally, I needed a way to diagnose the health of the individual connections—the mycelial threads themselves. For this, I turned to the biological framework of symbiosis, which describes the different ways species “live together”.⁴⁰ These relationships fall into three main categories, which serve as a startlingly accurate diagnostic tool for human interactions.⁴¹

• Mutualism (+/+): This is a relationship where both parties benefit. In nature, this is the clownfish protecting the anemone from predators, while the anemone’s tentacles protect the clownfish.⁴² In human terms, this is a healthy, reciprocal friendship where both individuals offer and receive emotional support, help, and validation. These are the life-giving connections that strengthen the entire network.⁴¹
• Commensalism (+/0): In this relationship, one party benefits, while the other is largely unaffected. A barnacle on a whale gets a free ride and access to plankton-rich waters, but the whale is neither helped nor harmed.⁴⁰ In social terms, this could be a junior employee benefiting from a casual mentor who doesn’t require anything in return, or a fan who derives joy from following a celebrity they’ll never meet. These relationships are common and not inherently bad, but they lack the resilience of mutualism and can become unstable.⁴¹
• Parasitism (+/-): This is an exploitative relationship where one party (the parasite) benefits at the expense of the other (the host).⁴⁰ A tick feeding on a deer is a classic example. Socially, this is the friend who only calls when they need a favor, the partner who drains your emotional and financial resources without giving anything back, or the colleague who takes credit for your work. These relationships are toxic, draining resources from the network and poisoning the social soil.⁴¹

This framework gave me a language to assess the health of a community at the most granular level. A thriving ecosystem is one rich in mutualistic relationships. An ecosystem dominated by parasitic ties is one on the verge of collapse.

Table 2: The Three Types of Social Symbiosis

Type of Symbiosis	Biological Definition	Social Relationship Analogy	Ecosystem Impact
Mutualism (+/+)	Both species benefit from the interaction. 43	A friendship where both individuals offer and receive emotional support, help, and validation. A collaborative work partnership. 41	Strengthens the network, increases resource flow, builds resilience.
Commensalism (+/0)	One species benefits, the other is unaffected. 40	A junior employee benefiting from a mentor who doesn’t require anything in return. A fan following a celebrity on social media. 41	Neutral, but can become parasitic if the beneficiary’s demands grow without reciprocation.
Parasitism (+/-)	One species (the parasite) benefits at the expense of the other (the host). 40	An emotionally draining relationship where one person consistently takes without giving back. Exploiting a friend for their connections or resources. 41	Drains resources, creates toxicity, weakens the network, and can lead to node (individual) burnout or isolation.

Part V: System Dynamics – Contagion, Quorum Sensing, and Collective Action

With a map of the ecosystem’s structure (the network) and a way to diagnose the health of its connections (symbiosis), the final piece of the puzzle was understanding how the ecosystem behaves. How does a collection of individuals start to act like a cohesive whole? How does a community develop a mood, a norm, a collective will? Again, the answers came from biology.

Social Contagion as Spore Dispersal

The first dynamic is social contagion, the theory that behaviors, attitudes, and emotions can spread through a social network much like a virus or fungal spores.⁴⁴ This isn’t just a metaphor; studies have shown that emotional states like happiness and depression can ripple through social connections.⁴⁷ A massive experiment on Facebook, for instance, demonstrated that manipulating the emotional content of users’ news feeds directly influenced the emotional content of their own posts. Exposure to more positivity led to more positive expressions, and vice-versa.⁴⁸

In our ecosystem model, social contagion is the mechanism by which the forest’s “atmosphere” is set. An act of kindness, a shared laugh, or a sense of optimism can spread through the mycorrhizal network, raising the well-being of the entire system. Conversely, fear, outrage, and anxiety can also be highly contagious, spreading like a blight and lowering the collective mood.⁵⁰ The architecture of the network we explored earlier dictates the speed and pattern of this spread. Densely connected clusters can quickly amplify an emotion, for better or for worse.⁵¹

Quorum Sensing as Collective Activation

The second dynamic is even more fascinating. It’s a process from microbiology called quorum sensing. Individual bacteria communicate with each other by releasing small signal molecules into their environment. When the bacterial population is low, these molecules simply diffuse away. But as the population grows denser, the concentration of these signal molecules increases until it reaches a critical threshold—a “quorum.” Once this quorum is reached, it triggers a system-wide change, activating genes that allow the bacteria to act in unison, coordinating collective behaviors like forming a protective biofilm or launching a virulent attack on a host.⁵²

This is a perfect metaphor for how a human community moves from individual sentiment to collective action. A few people grumbling about a local issue is just noise. But as more and more people start talking, as the “signal molecules” of shared concern build up within the social network, a tipping point is reached. Suddenly, a neighborhood watch is formed, a protest is organized, or a new social norm takes hold. The group has reached a quorum.

This explained the inertia of my garden project. We never reached a quorum of genuine, autonomous buy-in. The “signals” of ownership and shared purpose were too weak and too diffuse. The community never activated its collective power because the underlying conditions for it were never met.

These two dynamics, contagion and quorum sensing, reveal the most profound implication of the ecosystem model: a healthy social ecosystem is a complex adaptive system capable of self-regulation and self-organization. It doesn’t need a master architect constantly directing its every move. A leader’s role is not to be a puppeteer, pulling strings from above. Their role is to be a steward of the ecosystem, a gardener who understands the system’s natural dynamics and works to create the conditions for health, knowing that a thriving ecosystem will, to a large extent, take care of itself.

Part VI: The Modern Blight – Threats to Our Social Ecosystems

Armed with this powerful new model, I began to see the social challenges of the 21st century in a new light. They weren’t just disparate problems; they were ecological threats, blights on our collective human ecosystems.

Digital Deforestation & Monocultures (Social Media)

Social media platforms often present themselves as tools for connection, but through the ecosystem lens, they can look more like agents of ecological devastation.

• Shallow Root Systems: The design of many platforms encourages the accumulation of vast networks of weak ties (followers, superficial connections) at the expense of nurturing deep, resilient strong ties. This creates a social landscape of trees with vast but shallow root systems, highly vulnerable to the slightest drought of emotional support or social stress.⁵⁶
• Promotion of Parasitism: The influencer-follower dynamic is often a model of commensalism or outright parasitism. A small number of individuals benefit from the attention and data of millions, who in return receive a curated performance of a life. True mutualism—reciprocal, authentic connection—is often the exception, not the rule.⁵⁸
• Algorithmic Monocultures: The algorithms that curate our feeds are designed for engagement, which often means showing us more of what we already like and agree with. This creates vast “monocultures” of thought—echo chambers and filter bubbles—that are fragile and lack the diversity needed for a resilient ecosystem. This structure also makes the network hyper-efficient at spreading negative social contagion, as outrage and fear are powerful drivers of engagement.⁵⁸
• Identity Fragmentation: The pressure to maintain a perfect, curated online persona can create a painful split between our digital self and our authentic self. This “imposter syndrome” can corrode our sense of competence and make genuine relatedness feel impossible, as we fear being “found out” for who we really are.⁵⁶

Habitat Fragmentation (Remote Work & Modern Lifestyles)

The seismic shift toward remote and hybrid work, while offering flexibility, has also led to a form of social habitat fragmentation. The office, for all its flaws, was a dense ecosystem where spontaneous interactions occurred constantly. It was a primary habitat for the formation of the crucial weak ties that bridge different departments and spark new ideas.⁶⁰ The loss of this shared space—the proverbial “water cooler”—has fragmented our networks, isolating individuals and teams in their own digital silos. Research confirms this, with a majority of remote and hybrid employees reporting increased feelings of loneliness.⁶⁰ This social isolation is not a trivial matter; its negative health effects have been compared to those of smoking 15 cigarettes a day or chronic alcoholism.²⁷

Invasive Species (Poorly Designed Interventions)

Finally, I had to confront my own role in causing ecological damage. My failed garden project was a perfect example of introducing an “invasive species.” A top-down program, designed with good intentions but without a deep understanding of the existing social ecology, can be profoundly disruptive. It can choke out existing, informal networks, create resentment, and ultimately fail because it is not adapted to the local environment. It cannot integrate into the native ecosystem because it was never designed to.⁷

Conclusion: A Guide to Social Permaculture – Cultivating Our Human Ecosystems

My journey of failure and discovery led me to a new way of working. Armed with the ecosystem model, I took on a new project in a different neighborhood. This time, I left my blueprints at home. I arrived not as an architect, but as a student of the local ecology, a sort of social permaculturist.

My first month was spent simply observing and listening. I didn’t organize a single meeting. Instead, I mapped the ecosystem. I identified the informal “keystone” individuals—the grandmother everyone trusted, the young artist who organized pickup soccer games. I looked for existing “mutualistic” bonds and the places that served as natural gathering spots.

My team’s role shifted entirely. We didn’t propose a grand project. Instead, we focused on enriching the soil. We offered small grants that residents could apply for to fund their own ideas, fostering autonomy. We provided workshops on skills they asked for—grant writing, conflict resolution, basic carpentry—building their competence. We then simply created excuses for them to connect and share their successes, nurturing relatedness. A small group wanted to start a tool-lending library; we helped them find a space. Another wanted to paint a mural; we helped them get the permits and paint.

Slowly, organically, something incredible happened. The tool library became a hub. The mural project brought out dozens of volunteers. These small, successful clusters began to connect, weaving themselves into a larger, more resilient network. The community began to self-organize, reaching a “quorum” on its own terms. The project thrived because it wasn’t my project; it was theirs. It was a living, breathing social ecosystem.

This journey taught me that our deepest social needs cannot be met by climbing a pyramid. They are met by rooting ourselves in a thriving, living world. For anyone looking to build stronger connections in their own life, their family, their workplace, or their neighborhood, the principles of this “social permaculture” can serve as a guide.

Actionable Principles of “Social Permaculture”:

1. Observe and Interact: Before you try to “fix” or “build” anything, take the time to map the existing ecosystem. Who are the people? What are the existing relationships (strong and weak)? Who are the natural conveners and trusted “keystone” figures? Where do people already gather?
2. Enrich the Soil (The 3 Nutrients): Shift your focus from “providing programs” to “cultivating conditions.” In everything you do, ask: Does this foster autonomy by giving people real choice and a voice? Does this build competence by creating opportunities for meaningful contribution and skill-building? Does this nurture relatedness by facilitating positive, stable, and authentic interactions?
3. Cultivate a Diverse Network: Be intentional about creating opportunities for both strong ties (deep connection, trust) and weak ties (novelty, new information) to form. Don’t just host events for existing friends; create scenarios where different clusters can mix and interact.
4. Weed Out Parasitism: Healthy ecosystems have boundaries. Establish and model clear norms of reciprocity, respect, and accountability. Protect the community from individuals or dynamics that consistently drain energy and resources without giving back.
5. Leverage Positive Contagion: Be a carrier of positive energy. Identify and amplify stories of success, cooperation, and kindness. Create opportunities for the community to see its own collective strength, helping it reach a “quorum” around shared, positive goals.
6. Start Small and Build Resilience: Don’t try to build the entire forest at once. Focus on nurturing small, dense, healthy clusters first. A few thriving mutualistic relationships are a stronger foundation than a hundred superficial connections. These healthy clusters can then be woven together over time into a larger, more resilient, and more beautiful ecosystem.

The quest for connection is not a sign of deficiency, but the most vital expression of our nature. We are not isolated individuals striving for a lonely peak of self-actualization. We are social creatures, wired for connection, destined to live as part of a vast and intricate web of life.⁶¹ Our most profound need, and our greatest joy, is not just to belong, but to take our place within that living world and help it thrive.

Works cited

1. steverosephd.com, accessed August 8, 2025, https://steverosephd.com/a-theory-of-social-needs/#:~:text=As%20described%20in%20Abraham%20Maslow’s,intimacy%2C%20trust%2C%20and%20friendship.
2. Maslow and Mental Health Recovery: A Comparative Study of Homeless Programs for Adults with Serious Mental Illness – PubMed Central, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4130906/
3. www.nrvcs.org, accessed August 8, 2025, http://www.nrvcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Maslows-Heirarchy-of-Needs.pdf
4. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs | SWTP – Social Work Test Prep, accessed August 8, 2025, https://socialworktestprep.com/blog/2023/august/10/maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs/
5. Meeting Learners’ Needs | Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – National Highway Institute, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/LearnersFirst/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.htm
6. Top 10 challenges in community engagement – Commonplace, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.commonplace.is/blog/top-10-challenges-in-community-engagement
7. The theory of community based health and safety programs: a critical examination – PMC, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2563514/
8. Why Community Initiatives Fail – YourCommonwealth, accessed August 8, 2025, https://yourcommonwealth.org/social-development/why-community-initiatives-fail/
9. Socio-ecological system – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-ecological_system
10. The evolution of social-ecological systems (SES) research: a co-authorship and co-citation network analysis, accessed August 8, 2025, https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol29/iss1/art33/
11. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Explained – ThoughtCo, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571
12. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Simply Psychology, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
13. Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings – Positive Psychology, accessed August 8, 2025, https://positivepsychology.com/hierarchy-of-needs/
14. Towards A Dynamic Model of Human Needs: A Critical Analysis of Maslow’s Hierarchy – Riset Press International, accessed August 8, 2025, https://risetpress.com/index.php/ijmars/article/download/674/594/3821
15. Nature exposure can enhance social connections – Research Library, accessed August 8, 2025, https://research.childrenandnature.org/research/nature-exposure-can-enhance-social-connections/
16. NETWORK THEORY AND SMALL GROUPS, accessed August 8, 2025, https://davidlazer.com/sites/default/files/21%20Lazer_Katz_Small_Group.pdf
17. What are some criticisms of Maslow’s Hierarchy? : r/AskSocialScience – Reddit, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/2hthxw/what_are_some_criticisms_of_maslows_hierarchy/
18. The need to belong and its association with fully satisfying relationships: A tale of two measures, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4848456/
19. Belongingness – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness
20. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Verywell Mind, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4136760
21. en.wikipedia.org, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness#:~:text=Roy%20Baumeister%20and%20Mark%20Leary,not%20have%20such%20dire%20consequences.
22. Research on Belongingness Theory by Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary – ValuesDAO Blog, accessed August 8, 2025, https://blog.valuesdao.io/research-on-belongingness-theory-by-roy-baumeister-and-mark-leary/
23. Self-determination theory – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory
24. Self-Determination Theory: How It Explains Motivation – Verywell Mind, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-self-determination-theory-2795387
25. Becoming who you are: An integrative review of self‐determination theory and personality systems interactions theory – PubMed Central, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6378399/
26. Self-Determination Theory of Motivation – Center for Community Health & Prevention, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/community-health/patient-care/self-determination-theory
27. What Are Our Social Needs? | Steve Rose, PhD, accessed August 8, 2025, https://steverosephd.com/a-theory-of-social-needs/
28. How A Lack of Coordination Between Social Services Results in Community Isolation, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.julota.com/news/how-a-lack-of-coordination-between-social-services-results-in-poor-coordination/
29. Underground Networking: The Amazing Connections Beneath Your …, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
30. Opinion: Response to questions about common mycorrhizal networks – Frontiers, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2024.1512518/full
31. Common mycorrhizal network: the predominant socialist and capitalist responses of possible plant–plant and plant–microbe interactions for sustainable agriculture, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11020090/
32. What Do Trees Say to the World? Plant Communication Through Underground Mycorrhizal Networks, accessed August 8, 2025, https://one-more-tree.org/blog/2025/04/04/what-do-trees-say-to-the-world-plant-communication-through-underground-mycorrhizal-networks/
33. Networks in Social Theory: Key Concepts – Number Analytics, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/networks-in-social-theory-key-concepts
34. What Is Social Structure? (Chapter 2) – Network Analysis – Cambridge University Press, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/network-analysis/what-is-social-structure/CC637B51CC4E0CC91A2826EB44A38630
35. Network theory | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/physics/network-theory
36. A method for identifying keystone species in food web models. Ecological Modelling, 195(3-4): 153-171 | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673886_A_method_for_identifying_keystone_species_in_food_web_models_Ecological_Modelling_1953-4_153-171
37. Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for … – Ecology and Society, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/
38. Brands That Build Community: 6 Case Studies – Insight7 – AI Tool For Interview Analysis & Market Research, accessed August 8, 2025, https://insight7.io/brands-that-build-community-6-case-studies/
39. Initiatives:Case studies: Successful – FasterCapital, accessed August 8, 2025, https://fastercapital.com/startup-topic/Initiatives-Case-studies–Successful.html
40. Host–Symbiont Relationships: Understanding the Change from Guest to Pest – PMC, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7123458/
41. Symbiosis in Relationships: Understanding the Three Types of …, accessed August 8, 2025, https://mentalzon.com/en/post/2032/symbiosis-in-relationships-understanding-the-three-types-of-interaction
42. Creating Human Symbiotic Relationships | Psychology Today, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/explorations-in-positive-psychology/202309/creating-human-symbiotic-relationships
43. Mutualism: Eight examples of species that work together to get ahead, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/mutualism-examples-of-species-that-work-together.html
44. Social contagion, violence, and suicide among adolescents – PMC, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10090320/
45. Social Contagion – The Decision Lab, accessed August 8, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/sociology/social-contagion
46. Social Contagion Theory – TheoryHub – Academic theories reviews for research and T&L, accessed August 8, 2025, https://open.ncl.ac.uk/academic-theories/31/social-contagion-theory/
47. SOCIAL CONTAGION OF MENTAL HEALTH: EVIDENCE FROM COLLEGE ROOMMATES – The Cornell Research Program on Self-Injury and Recovery, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.selfinjury.bctr.cornell.edu/perch/resources/social-contagion-1.pdf
48. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
49. Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Media | PLOS One, accessed August 8, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142390
50. Emotional contagion | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/emotional-contagion
51. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior – PMC, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3830455/
52. Quorum Sensing and Bacterial Social Interactions in Biofilms – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3376616/
53. Quorum Sensing: Bacteria Talk Sense | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic, accessed August 8, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/47/8/1070/345306
54. Bacterial Quorum Sensing: Its Role in Virulence and Possibilities for Its Control – PMC, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3543102/
55. Quorum sensing – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing
56. How Using Social Media Affects Teenagers – Child Mind Institute, accessed August 8, 2025, https://childmind.org/article/how-using-social-media-affects-teenagers/
57. Pros and Cons of Social Media | Brown University Health, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.brownhealth.org/be-well/social-media-good-bad-and-ugly
58. Social media’s impact on our mental health and tips to use it safely – UC Davis Health, accessed August 8, 2025, https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/cultivating-health/social-medias-impact-our-mental-health-and-tips-to-use-it-safely/2024/05
59. Misinformation lends itself to social contagion; here’s how to recognize and combat it, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cspi.org/cspi-news/misinformation-lends-itself-social-contagion-heres-how-recognize-and-combat-it
60. Maintaining social connection in the new world of work – Positive Group, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.positivegroup.org/loop/articles/maintaining-social-connection-in-the-new-world-of-work
61. The Connection Prescription: Using the Power of Social Interactions and the Deep Desire for Connectedness to Empower Health and Wellness – PMC, accessed August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6125010/