I haven't read the linked article yet but the part that you pulled out reminds me of the distinction between change and transformation and how change so often is used, mostly ineffectively.

Here is how I shall define the two terms:

Change is past-based because it takes an existing system and modifies it. Thus it often brings many of the consequences of the old system with it.

Transformation is future-based because it is created from what the future contains — which is nothing. With transformation, something wholly new is created.

It is common to hear people calling for change. A politician often finds the message of change a useful one to win an election. But even when the politician is successfully elected, embarks on change and change occurs, why does the system always become something that looks remarkably like what was there before?

I assert that's because the politician used the wrong tool for the job. When transformation was called for, they used change instead.

To be fair, it's not entirely the politician's fault. Ask them what transformation is and they are unlikely to give you a meaningful response because it is not a concept the West is familiar with. It certainly isn't embedded in our culture like it is in some others. When it does come up, most times it will sound like change done to the extreme. Even asking experts in transformation will bring forth several different concepts. In the paper here, the author says:

Buddhahood is not a goal which is attained through the acquisition of a special conceptual understanding. Rather it is the end product of a fundamental internal transformation of all mental activity.

That is all well and good, but what does he mean by a "fundamental internal transformation of all mental activity?" To what? From what? Isn't that scary?

This is an involved topic but starts to point at, I believe, what will be required to achieve what Hardin wrote. The difficulty is that in my view we largely have run out of time to disseminate the concept of transformation before collapse occurs.

Of course, inside of transformation, there is nothing wrong with collapse. It is just the universe doing its universe thing.

If you see that as callous because of the untold numbers of people who will likely suffer and die, you will also see the difficulty the teachers of transformation have. But they will not see it as difficult because that is not an empowering context in which to operate. It is just as it is and is not any other way. It is neither good nor bad. It just is.

-Andre'