CHAPTER 6

Emerging a Life-Centered Worldview

Thinking about system transformation is complicated—doing it even more so. System change can occur abruptly when some tipping point is reached and, like natural systems, the system suddenly undergoes a state change—or transformation. Anthropologist Jared Diamond calls such sudden changes in human systems collapse in a book by that title,¹ while author Malcolm Gladwell calls them tipping points, suggesting that small changes in systems can make a big difference.² Both of these ideas draw from chaos theory³ in noting that when systems are at what chaos theorists call the edge of chaos change can happen suddenly. The global response to the Covid-19 pandemic certainly demonstrated that type of state change.

As noted, Donella Meadows has pointed towards a number of key leverage points of which mindset change and the ability to transcend mindsets are the most powerful for bringing about system transformation.⁴ Five important dimensions of systems provide a potential framework for action: purposes, perspectives, performance metrics, powers, and practices⁵ that can be combined with the kind of living systems framework that Raworth provides with her “doughnut.” This chapter begins articulating purposes, perspectives, and their supporting core memes that could potential provide a needed foundation for transformation—shifting power relations and operating practices. The discussion starts with memes of dignity, well-being, flourishing, fulfillment, and connection, recognizing that others may well have different memes they would wish to offer—and in ensuing chapters, I will discuss core ideas about what gives life to systems and the ways in which Indigenous principles of relationship, reciprocity, responsibility, and redistribution might apply to a transformed world. None of us, of course, have all the answers. Gathering and reconciling many different perspectives, through public discourse and dialogue among different communities, institutions, and even nations, and media, artist, and policy engagement, will also be needed.

The task the world faces now and with some urgency is to move away from today’s troubled dynamics with its predominantly economic narrative towards a world where humanity lives in harmony with nature, where all living beings receive the dignity that they inherently deserve, and where life flourishes in all respects. To bring this world about, we need a new narrative and a new set of supporting memes (core ideas) that support a positive relationship between humanity and the world around us. The task is nothing less than system change on a massive scale.

In my view, the first step towards this new world is redefining the core purposes of key institutions—including businesses, governments, and schools, among others, to put the well-being of humans and all of nature at the center. The new narrative needs to incorporate yet go well beyond business and economic activities, while simultaneously recognizing the fundamental transformations needed in both of those systems. The emphasis needs to be somehow building a world that is more equitable, just, and flourishing for all, defined in whatever terms make sense to people in their particular cultures, traditions, and geographies. Business as usual has created an unsustainable set of ecological conditions in the world, along with gross inequity, and a decided lack of voice or participation by far too many people in public institutions. The new narrative, particularly as the world recovers from the devastation of Covid-19 and attempts to rebuild needs to highlight not business as usual—which is and was highly problematic—but how to rebuild towards a future in which all want and are able to participate equitably—and that also addresses the many ills associated with lack of sustainability. With such a narrative, we can begin to take different courses of action, create new practices, policies, and institutions, and work together towards achieving this vision of greater harmony, less intense resource use, and synergy between humans and nature.

The Power of a New Narrative

Compelling stories, narratives, and visions have a few central characteristic, as expressed by Dagny Scott of Fearless Unlimited: they go beyond “just the facts” and are true, simple, and aspirational.⁶ Thus they provide a guide to the future that shows people how all can contribute to that imagined (better) future. In addition, Freya Williams of Futerra notes that to achieve a large system change, you need to combine people and passion and multiply that combination using a compelling a “plot” or story that resonates emotionally with the particular audiences you are interested in reaching.⁷ Taken together, this advice suggests that the overarching narrative needs to be general enough to appeal to multiple audiences and allow them to create their own stories specific to their interests, culture, and places, while being specific and aspirational enough to provide hope and some emotional connection to the story that is being woven.

Narratives are foundational in helping people make sense of what is happening and what is expected, providing needed guidance for all who would bring about a change. Narratives and stories can help define purposes and ensure that they are compelling. People do not need to agree on all of the particulars or specifics of the narrative as long as core memes are common. We can contrast a new narrative emphasizing flourishing for all with the neoliberal narrative. The neoliberal narrative, generated by a group of economists, historians, and others after World War II in a meeting in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland,⁸ places a couple of important values at its core: freedom and dignity. In the neoliberal narrative, “freedom” means individual freedom for people and companies to do what they want to do as individuals (or individual companies). The fundamental idea is that dignity comes with such freedom. In contrast, in a flourishing for all narrative, individual freedom is important yet it is bounded by the realization that individual freedom can only be achieved in the social and ecological contexts in which we are all embedded and coexist.

This distinction recognizes that humans and many other living beings are social creatures whose freedom inherently depends on collaboration and coexistence with others. It recognizes a concept in African cultures known as Ubuntu, the idea that “I am because we are.” Thus, freedom is not absolute nor is it something that individual persons or organizations can achieve without regard for others or nature. True freedom occurs when all are flourishing and prospering, where “all” includes not just human beings but also other living beings and nature’s ecosystems. To put it bluntly, we are all in this world together and our individual freedom, not to mention our long-term survival as a species, depends intimately on how we live in that context with others.

Other aspects of the neoliberal narrative draw on this individualistic sense of freedom to articulate the need for free markets, where companies and others can do what they like without governmental or other restrictions. In turn, the neoliberal frame advocates free trade across borders, creating a highly competitive environment in which winners tend to take all and to heck with the losers. Rather than viewing governments as providing necessary protections, the neoliberal narrative thus views governments as restrictive, regulations as unnecessary and invasive, and sets forward a belief that the less government there is, the better. Globalization is viewed as part of making progress, with inequality merely an inevitable by-product of competition. If winners and losers are created as part of this process, well, then, so be it. This powerful sense of “less government is better” is what both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher articulated in the early 1980s, and that messaging has been consistent since. At least that was the case until governments were forced to intervene in important ways during the Covid-19 pandemic, when suddenly many people began to remember what governments could and needed to do in times of need—and in public interest.

Other aspects of the neoliberal narrative include an emphasis on constant (economic and material) growth to achieve progress, a belief that is problematic in light of climate change and resource drains now occurring as a result of rapid human population growth. The neoliberal narrative also includes a straightforward notion that progress is based on intense competition among different actors in the system, leaving little room for cooperation or collaboration. Out of this approach also comes the belief that goods and services should be private. In fact, there is a general disregard for public goods in the belief that neither public goods nor the common good of communities are real. Ultimately, this system gets us to today’s belief that the sole purpose of companies is to “maximize shareholder wealth.” That is, firms exist to serve only one group of stakeholders, the purported “owners” (who actually today may “own” shares only through financial institutions and in broad portfolios so that they do not even know what they own, and often for very short periods of time) rather than the broader set of stakeholders whose interests are invested in the firm. These ideas about individual freedom, free markets, laissez-faire governments, maximized shareholder wealth, progress, and constant growth are the foundational memes on which the neoliberal narrative or story is built.

A new narrative, as developed here, emphasizes connectedness and shared well-being/flourishing, with recognition that both collaboration and competition are necessary. The recognition is that individuals cannot thrive without being in relationship to others. The physical sciences now tell us that at the quantum level everything is connected. The rapid spread of the novel Coronavirus, SARS-Cov-2, globally highlighted the connected nature of today’s globalized world, highlighting that in ecosystems, when one part of the system changes, the whole system alters, too. That recognition underlies the need to emphasize connectedness in any new narrative.

The idea of shared flourishing brings back the notion of common good or the public interest/public good, that is, the fundamental notion that we are all in this world together. The exponential rate of human population growth over the past century plus and the consequent straining of ecological resources means there is a need to recognize this idea of common good on a planetary level, not just locally in communities or even nationally. Too many issues like climate change, problems in the oceans or the air, various forms of pollution, pandemics, and many other issues transcend national boundaries today and need to be dealt with at the global level.

Memes “work” when they replicate easily from mind to mind (person to person) and when many people start to use them in similar ways, in effect, telling similar stories. Memes are like viruses that spread among people, suggesting that they are like a contagion⁹ when resonant. Such successful memes draw upon people’s core values, interests, and understandings, perhaps elaborating or shifting them, but somehow resonating with what is already at least somewhat familiar or in accord with how people see the world.¹⁰ In developing transformational system changes and the stories that guide them, it is important to consider what people are already familiar with, what their values are, and what types of ideas, images, metaphors, and symbols will resonate with them. Neoliberals understood this idea very well in developing their core notions of liberty/ freedom and individual responsibility, particularly in the U.S. context.

What is important to understand is that memes serve as the foundation of the stories and narratives that we tell ourselves. Important stories, for example, origin stories and stories about “how things work here,” frame the ways that people view the world about them, shaping attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. That is why the underlying memes in the neoliberal narrative, things like “maximize shareholder wealth” or “free markets,” are so important. If we wish to bring about a system change towards a new narrative of well-being and dignity for all, then we need similarly powerful—resonant and replicable—memes to support that story. It is resonant memes on which stories, narratives, and frameworks that shape how people act and what they are and are not willing to believe and do are built.

If the narrative and its memes tell us that inequality is merely a necessary by-product of economic activity and that constant growth is necessary, no matter the ecological consequences, or that the only purpose of firms is to enrich their shareholders, those ideas have consequences—and they are not all positive. A different narrative that emphasizes the common good or collective value,¹¹ that tells us that we are both individual and collectively responsible, has different and potentially more salutary consequences. This new story, one of shared well-being, connection with others and with nature, shared responsibility for ourselves and each other, living in harmony with nature’s resources, will ultimately be better for humanity than the more unrealistic notions of the neoliberal narrative. Importantly, governmental responses to the Covid-19 pandemic have dramatically shifted thinking in governments and beyond about the potential to simply shift focus—to use money on creating flourishing for all versus simply creating wealth. The choice for flourishing is what Global Ecological Footprint founder Matis Wackernagel calls “one planet prosperity,” important because as he notes, we humans have only one planet available.¹²

Moving towards a new story of flourishing for all means fundamentally revising some of the memes that support the old story, not by getting rid of them, rather by including and moving beyond them to broader and more encompassing (and probably somewhat more complex) concepts. Although shifting core memes is vitally important to change processes, the role of memes often goes largely unrecognized.¹³ For example, in the neoliberal narrative, the idea (meme) of freedom is strongly associated with individual freedom, both for the person and for the individual company. In contrast, in a flourishing narrative, the idea of freedom is linked to the ability to create a flourishing world for all, hence is embedded in a sense of the overall flourishing of both the individual and the collective, community, organization, society, or, indeed the whole world. The idea is one of shared freedom, and, in a sense freedom from the desperation of states like poverty, oppression, and otherwise undignified existence.

The neoliberal narrative is all about the economy and production of wealth, with memes of wealth maximization, free markets and trade, and individual responsibilities and freedoms. In contrast, the emerging flourishing/well-being narrative is about economic, societal, and planetary flourishing. It involves business prosperity and flourishing communities sharing collective responsibilities for the good of all, offering dignity for humans in ways that suit their cultural norms and for all other living entities. It affords dignity to planetary and human systems, respected as wholes and valuable in and of themselves. All these things are associated with flourishing for all, that is, principles that give life to systems rather than draining the life out of them.

The idea of shared flourishing on a healthy planet is decidedly different from the neoliberal goal of shareholder wealth maximization in a system of supposedly free markets. Indeed, while markets remain important in a flourishing world, they are not the central element of human and planetary well-being. Further, markets need to be fair for all, not just “free,” so that people of different means can access them if they wish. With its emphasis on dignity for all, the new narrative emphasizes that we humans are deeply and inextricably connected with each other and, importantly, with nature; we are not separate and distinct from nature. The purpose of shared flourishing on a healthy planet thus emphasizes our interconnectedness with each other—and with the planet itself, as will be discussed more later.

Indeed, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–2008 suggests that the dominance of financial interests not to mention financial institutions in societies can have rather dramatically negative impacts. Further, much of the emphasis during the Covid-19 pandemic was on returning the economy to its former state rather than thinking about social or ecological restoration—or, more importantly, renewal, though attitudes and practices significantly changed during this latter crisis, opening up the potential for transformation. In a finance-dominated world, goals tend to be the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, rather than being linked to a broader set of more humanistic values that aim towards flourishing and dignity for all. Rather, under the flourishing narrative, markets are there to support nature’s flourishing while simultaneously meeting real human needs, not to drive the system. That is also true for finance, which is best viewed as a support function that when properly deployed enhances the ability of enterprises of all sorts to successfully provide needed goods and services.

Performance Metrics for Life- and Flourishing-Centric Narratives

The concept of flourishing or well-being reflects the general condition of a person, group, community, or society, and is associated with a positive condition or state of being or a general state of health (wellness), happiness, and prosperity, even thriving. Flourishing means giving vibrancy and “life” to socioecological systems. The idea of well-being tends to focus on humans and their various communities. Well-being has both subjective and empirically measurable (objective) aspects, both of which are important to a complete understanding. Well-being for humans ensures that they are able to live in dignified, secure, and prosperous ways that support vitality (life) and flourishing human and natural systems. Well-being for the planetary systems that include and transcend human beings means that the whole system is flourishing.

While in some ways “happiness” is associated with well-being, well-being actually has many dimensions, all of which are relevant to a holistic way of thinking about the concept. Clearly, there is a subjective side to well-being, which has received much attention in recent years, revolving around the issue of happiness and self-assessments of what is termed life-satisfaction.¹⁴ Helliwell points out, for example, that notions about subjective well-being go back as far as Aristotle. He quotes Aristotle as defining happiness as “prosperity combined with excellence; or as independence of life, or the secure enjoyment of the maximum of pleasure; or as a good condition for property and body, together with the power of guiding one’s property and body and making use of them.”¹⁵ Among the “constituent parts” of subjective well-being that Aristotle notes are: “good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, and also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck and excellence.”¹⁶ Helliwell further explains that Aristotle’s view of subjective well-being includes a “lifetime’s virtuous activities,” with material wealth as a means to well-being, not an end it itself.

Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, is the developer of important ideas about positive psychology, or the scientific study of what helps people and their communities thrive. Along with a group of colleagues, Seligman argues that subjective well-being is inherently multidimensional in nature, that is, it is composed of multiple parts. Thus, subjective well-being, for Seligman, cannot be reduced to a single concept like happiness, positive emotion, engagement, meaning or purpose, quality of life, life satisfaction, relationships and social support, accomplishment and competence.¹⁷ Instead, all of these elements combine to constitute subjective well-being. Taken separately, none alone defines well-being.

Seligman puts subjective well-being or what is here called flourishing at the core of his ideas about positive psychology, which is the study of what strengths enable individuals to thrive, lead meaningful lives, and enhance their life and work experiences.¹⁸ Such individual flourishing means being able to develop one’s talents to the fullest, build strong and lasting relationships with other people, and meaningfully contribute to society. Through what he calls his PERMA model, Seligman and colleagues synthesize subjective well-being and flourishing as having five individual-level attributes: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (hence the acronym PERMA).¹⁹ Seligman argues that these five attributes best approximate “what humans pursue for their own sake.”^20,21,22

In developing the idea of well-being, Seligman and colleagues built on the work of Amartya Sen, who developed what he terms a “capabilities approach.”²³ In that approach Sen distinguished between “functionings,” or those things that people value being able to do, and “capabilities,” which are what it is possible for them to do.²⁴ Martha Nussbaum elaborated Sen’s ideas by articulating a working list of capabilities that are foundational to collectively contributing to well-being. Based on extensive empirical work, these capabilities, Nussbaum argues, are vital to human well-being. Nussbaum’s (evolving) list of specific capabilities includes life (not dying prematurely), bodily health (including reproductive); bodily integrity (freedom of movement, from assault, to make choices). It also includes the development and expression of the senses, imagination, and thought (freedom to use imagination and though); emotional health (ability to make attachments, freedom from fear and anxiety); practical reason (ability to conceive of “the good,” religious freedom, freedom of conscience); personal and political affiliation; relationships with other species and nature; play; and control over one’s environment.²⁵

Nussbaum’s list of capabilities bridges the individual conception of well-being into systemic and empirically measurable conceptions that work at the system level, which is also important to a fulsome understanding of well-being. It is important to build this bridge because well-being/flourishing occurs not just at the individual level but at numerous collective levels, including family, community, societal, national, and planetary, which is increasingly recognized as important, for example, by governments.

In one important initiative aiming to move the bar on collective well-being, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for example, has developed a Better Life Index, a sort of well-being dashboard,²⁶ to measure societal well-being. The Better Life Index attempts to capture well-being’s dimensions, emphasizing four key features: people, that is, individuals and households and their relationships to their communities; aspects that go beyond the purely economic; relative equity of distribution among the populace; and both present and future considerations. The Better Living Index, as described by Romina Boarini and Marco Mira d’Ercole, attempts to put Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” approach into practice, emphasizing two key domains: material living conditions and quality of life, which are subcategorized into 11 different dimensions that are considered relevant everywhere.²⁷

Specific indicators or dimensions that the OECD views as constituting well-being include and go beyond the subjective experience of well-being, which is only one of 11 dimensions, all of which are considered “universal,” or relevant in every nation.²⁸ The dimensions, reflecting Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities, are:

Not surprisingly, of course, the OECD also adds income and financial wealth (i.e., usable financial/economic resources), which, as David Korten points out,²⁹ is a conflation of money with actual wealth (as opposed to what John Ruskin called “illth,” the reverse of wealth³⁰).³¹

To support and measure these dimensions of well-being, the OECD has identified 55 specific indicators that are regularly compiled in different nations, come from sources (typically national statistics offices), and allow for disaggregation of different subgroups.³² Obviously, the complexity of the idea of well-being suggests that no single indicator, no “magic bullet,” will be sufficient to understanding well-being. The OECD’s Better Life Index and its annual “How’s Life” survey, which uses these 11 dimensions to assess and compare well-being across nations, reflect this recognition of the complexity of the concept.³³ The idea is that eight dimensions of quality of life (health status, work and life balance, education and skills, social connections, civic engagement and governance, environmental quality, personal security, and subjective well-being) are assessed against indicators of material conditions (jobs and earnings, and housing, and income and wealth, [important, at least, in how today’s wealth, not illth is measured]) to reflect individual well-being. These indicators of the present state of well-being, along with GDP minus what the OECD terms “regrettables,” that is, the negative things that GDP takes into consideration. This combination then results in a future-oriented sense of how well well-being will be sustained over time in terms of four capitals: natural, human, economic, and social capital.

There are other leading candidates for measuring well-being that similarly go beyond gross domestic (national) product (GDP), which has been known to be a flawed metric since its introduction. GDP/GNP measures only economic activity—for good or for ill. Thus, clearcutting a forest, while devastating for the natural environment and many creatures in it, is a boon to GDP. Similarly, if you become ill and go to the hospital, GDP will benefit, even as you suffer from the illness. As then U.S. Senator Bobby Kennedy said in a 1968 speech when he was running for president, GDP “measures everything except that which is worthwhile.”³⁴ To deal with the limitations of GDP and begin to get a handle on measuring well-being, we need new metrics and indicators that subtract the negatives and enhance the positives.

Indicators that address well-being better than GDP does include the Gross National Happiness Index, promoted by the government of Bhutan, the UN’s Human Development Index, and the Genuine Progress Indicator. The Gross Happiness Indicator (GNH), developed by his Majesty, the Fourth King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, in 1972,³⁵ includes four “pillars” (good governance, sustainable socioeconomic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation). It also includes nine domains, which include psychological well-being, health, education, use of time, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards. Some 33 indicators measuring these domains are integrated to develop a single number, which is known as the GNH Index, an index that can be disaggregated to assess the GNH of particular groups for use in policy decisions that hopefully enhance overall well-being.

The United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI) similarly combines a number of elements to construct a single number index, though it is relatively simpler than some of the other well-being metrics. HDI emphasizes three key dimensions, including a long and healthy life (specifically, life expectancy at birth), being knowledgeable (specifically, mean years of schooling for adults over 25 and expected years of schooling for children entering school), and having a decent standard of living (gross national income per capita).³⁶ As the website admits, however, the HDI is a partial indicator of its intended target of human development, overlooking issues like inequality, poverty, security, and empowerment.

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), like the OECD Better Living Index, is a holistic, complex, and robust treatment of well-being based on the belief that “if policymakers measure what really matters to people—health care, safety, a clean environment, and other indicators of well-being—economic policy would naturally shift toward sustainability.”³⁷ Considered an economic indicator, GPI is meant to replace GDP by providing a more accurate and holistic assessment of the economy that takes into account whether economic activity benefits or subtracts from sustainability and well-being, rather than simply measuring that activity as GDP does. One problem, however, is that GPI begins with the same data that GDP uses, hence it is monetarily based (which can cause “illth” rather than actual wealth or well-being). It adjusts for income distribution; housework, volunteering, and higher education; crime; resource depletion; pollution; long-term environmental damage; changes in leisure time; defensive expenditures; life span of consumer durables and public infrastructure; and dependence on foreign assets.³⁸ But, problematically for a discussion of well-being (as real wealth), this index is still framed in monetary terms—in a sense buying into the same economic logic that has gotten the world into its current difficulties.

In the overall context of generating well-being, it is becoming increasingly clear to some governments and many other observers that some metric that goes well beyond GDP is needed. The three introduced above illustrate that such metrics exist and can be rigorously developed and employed to provide more complete assessments of how the world is working, in particular, whether humans and other living beings of all sorts are accorded dignity so that they can experience well-being the context of a flourishing natural environment.

Perspectives—Dignity as a Core Value

To have dignity means to have intrinsic worth, worth that has nothing to do with status, rank, wealth, or any other criterion except that one is.³⁹ All humans and other living beings, ecosystems, and planet earth itself need to be accorded dignity. In other words, dignity is accorded to fellow human beings simply because they are, not because of who they are, what they have done, or what they are worth. Dignity scholar and conflict resolution expert Donna Hicks says that dignity and respect need to be differentiated, because all have inherent dignity, while respect is something that must be earned. She further argues that dignity violations are at the heart of most if not all human conflict.⁴⁰ Amartya Sen similarly argues that all people ought to be able to use their capabilities to gain adequate functionings, that is, people should have sufficient knowledge, resources, and other necessities, to be able to live in meaningful and dignified ways, as explored above in thinking about well-being.

The concept of dignity is traditionally applied to human beings. Here, though, I want to broaden that concept so that we can more fully develop a perspective that will truly enhance flourishing for all. “All” envelopes other living beings of all sorts and natural ecosystems. In short, to get to a flourishing planet that supports flourishing human existence, new ways to accord dignity to all of nature’s creatures and ecological manifestations are vital. Mistreatment of the natural environment and other living beings greatly diminishes how life can flourish in all respects. Nature’s manifestations include living beings of all sorts, of course, both plant and animal. That perspective encompasses things like trees, aquatic life, birds, and mammals. It also includes nature’s and human beings’ systems—forests, rivers, lakes, and oceans, plains, mountains, communities, regions, nations, families, and so on. The idea here is that these ecosystems and the creatures they support have intrinsic worth. They are not valuable simply because they can be exploited by or are useful to humans; instead, they are valuable—and should be accorded dignity—in their own right.

This more universal perspective on dignity recognizes the inherent worth of other creatures and of nature herself, creating a more earth-and life-centric socioeconomic perspective, which is in distinct contrast to traditional Western views that tend to place humankind in the center of things. Such a view accords with emerging systems perspectives from physics that recognize that everything is fundamentally interconnected, including humans with nature. From a practical perspective, since we humans draw all of what we need from nature, it is sheer folly to think that we can strip nature’s resources, degrade ecosystems, and abuse natural entities without long-term consequences, some of which we are already facing in the form of climate change and various crises of ecosystem sustainability. While nature may be bountiful enough to support some of that behavior for a time, as human population grows and impacts increase, it becomes quite literally unsustainable. The hard reality is that unless nature’s resources are stewarded successfully, human civilization is at severe risk.

Using a dignity lens for all of nature’s manifestations—people, other living beings, and ecosystems—is entirely consistent with many Indigenous perspectives, which view manifestations of nature as having spirit⁴¹ and hence worthy of being accorded dignity, will be discussed in the next chapter.⁴² It also has significant implications for how we humans treat each other, not to mention the way our businesses and other institutions deal with the raw materials that nature provides and the waste that is created in production processes. Such a dignity lens also recognizes the interconnectedness of all of life and, in a sense, the “oneness” of humans with the rest of the earth and even the universe itself, bringing forward the type of conception of our planet expressed by James Lovelock as the living system, Gaia.⁴³

The next chapter looks at how focusing on flourishing—or what gives life to systems—can help move societies toward creating what has been called collective value.

¹ Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2005.

² Gladwell, M. 2006. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Hachette Book Group.

³ Gleick, Chaos.

⁴ Meadows, Leverage Points.

⁵ Waddock, Achieving Sustainability.

⁶ Dagny Scott of Fearless Unlimited Expressed these Ideas at the Regenerative Future Summit, Boulder, CO, May 15–17, 2017, URL: https://regenerativefuturesummit.org/dagny-scott/

⁷ Freya Williams of Futerra Discussed these Ideas at the Regenerative Future Summit, Boulder, CO, May 15–17, 2017, URL: https://regenerativefuturesummit.org/freya-williams/

⁸ The history is detailed on the Mont Pelerin Society website (undated), URL: https://montpelerin.org/

⁹ Williams, “Management Fashions and Fads.”

¹⁰ Williams, “Management Fashions and Fads.”

¹¹ Donaldson, T., and J.P. Walsh. 2015. “Toward a Theory of Business.” Research in Organizational Behavior 35, pp. 181–207.

¹² Global Footprint Network. 2020. Website, https://footprintnetwork.org/ (accessed May 6, 2020).

¹³ Sandra Waddock, Reflections.

¹⁴ See, for example, Helliwell, J.F. 2003. “How’s Life? Combining Individual and National Variables to Explain Subjective Well-Being.” Economic Modeling 2, pp. 331–60.

¹⁵ Helliwell. 2003. p. 232, Citing Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1360b, pp. 14–23.

¹⁶ Helliwell, 2003, p. 232, Citing Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1360b, pp. 14–23.

¹⁷ Indeed, in an extensive review Forgeard, M.J.C., E. Jayawickreme, M.L. Kern, and M.P. Seligman. 2011. Consider the multitude of existing definitions and metrics associated with wellbeing in “Doing the Right Thing: Measuring Well-being for Public Policy.” International Journal of Wellbeing 1, no. 1, pp. 79–106.

¹⁸ Seligman, M. 2010. “Flourish: Positive Psychology and Positive Interventions.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, p. 31.

¹⁹ Seligman. 2011. “Positive Psychology and Positive Interventions.” See also Forgeard et al.

²⁰ Forgeard et al., 2011, p. 97.

²¹ Huppert, F.A., and T.T. “So, Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being.” Social Indicators Research 110, no. 3, pp. 837–61, offer a similar conception of well-being or flourishing at the individual level, which includes 10 “hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being: competence, emotional stability, engagement, meaning, optimism, positive emotion, positive relationships, resilience, self esteem, and vitality” (p. 843).

²² See also, Jayawickreme, E., M.J. Forgeard and M.E. Seligman. 2012. “The Engine of Well-Being.” Review of General Psychology 16, no. 4, pp. 327–42.

²³ Sen, A. 1999. “Capability and Well-Being.” In The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, ed. Dainel M. Hausman, 30–53. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

²⁴ Sen, 1993; also Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

²⁵ Nussbaum, M.C. 2007. “Human Rights and Human Capabilities.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 20, pp. 21–24. “Which Builds on Capabilities and Human Rights.” Fordham Law Review 66, pp. 273–300.

²⁶ As advocated by Marie Forgeard, J.C., E. Jayawickreme, M.L. Kern, and M.E.P. Seligman. 2011. “Doing the Right Thing: Measuring Wellbeing for Public Policy.” International Journal of Wellbeing 1, no. 1.

²⁷ Boarini, R., and M.M. d’Ercole. 2013. “Going beyond GDP: An OECD Perspective.” Fiscal Studies 34, no. 3, pp. 289–314, pp. 293–94.

²⁸ Boarini, Going Beyond GDP, p. 294.

²⁹ Personal communication.

³⁰ Illth, Wikipedia, 2020. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illth (accessed June 18, 2020).

³¹ Boarini, Going Beyond GDP, pp. 294–95.

³² Boarini, Going Beyond GDP, p. 295.

³³ Durand, M. 2015. “The OECD Better Life Initiative: How’s Life? and the Measurement of Well‐Being.” Review of Income and Wealth 61, no. 1, pp. 4–17.

³⁴ Kennedy, B. 1968. “University of Kansas.” URL: https://theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/24/robert-kennedy-gdp (accessed May 27, 2020).

³⁵ Details here are from the Gross National Happiness website: http://grossnationalhappiness.com/ and http://grossnationalhappiness.com/articles/

³⁶ Human Development Index website. 2020. URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi (accessed May 27, 2020).

³⁷ Quoting Redefining Progress on the Genuine Progress Indicator, General Agreement on a New Economy, URL: http://greenecon.org/gane/resources/federal/fed_res.php (accessed May 27, 2020).

³⁸ General Agreement on a New Economy.

³⁹ Hicks, D. 2011. Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.

⁴⁰ Hicks, Dignity.

⁴¹ Four Arrows Jacobs, D.T. 1986. Point of Departure: Returning to Our More Authentic Worldview for Education and Survival, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2016; and Dow, J. 1986. “Universal Aspects of Symbolic Healing: A Theoretical Synthesis.” American Anthropologist 88, no. 1, pp. 56–69.

⁴² See Waddock, S. 2019. “Wisdom, Sustainability, and the Intellectual Shaman.” In Sustainable Wisdom: Integrating Indigenous Knowhow for Global Flourishing, eds. D. Narvaez, B. Collier, Four Arrows, E. Halton, R. Nozick and G. Enderle, pp. 244–64. New York: Peter Lang.

⁴³ Lovelock, J.E. 1979. A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, 1979 and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: The Final Warning, PublicAffairs.