  Unstoppable feedback loops and tipping points in socio-ecological systems are the main threats to sustainability. These behaviors have been extensively studied, notably to predict, and arguably deviate, dead-end trajectories. Behind the apparent complexity of such interaction networks, systems analysts have identified a small group of repeated patterns in all systems, called archetypes. For instance, the archetype of escalation is made of two positive feedback loops fueling one another and is prevalent when competition arises, as in arms race for instance. Interestingly, none of the known archetypes provide sustainability: they all trigger endless amplification. In parallel, in systems biology, there has been considerable advances on incoherent loops in molecular networks in the past 20 years. Such patterns in biological networks produce stability and a form on intrinsic autonomy for all functions, from circadian rhythm to immunity. Incoherence is the fuel of homeostasis of living systems. Here, I bridge both conclusions and propose that incoherence should be considered as a new operational archetype buffering socio-ecological fluctuations. This proposition is supported by the well-known trade-off between robustness and efficiency: adaptability requires some degree of incoherence. This applies to both technical and social systems: incoherent strategies recognize and fuel the diversity of solutions; they are the essential, yet often ignored, components of cooperation. Building on these theoretical considerations and real-life examples, incoherence might offer a counterintuitive, but transformative, way out of the great acceleration, and possibly, an actionable lever for decision makers. 
Is incoherence required for sustainability?