I’ve been exploring what happens if we treat economic systems as emergent properties of infrastructure and governance, rather than primary engines of wellbeing. Has anyone in WEAll worked from that causal direction?
Hey Shawn, great question
I certainly view the economy as an emergent property. Emerging from how we relate to each other as governed by policies, institutions, language, culture, and our relationships with each other more broadly, across all scales of local, regional, national, and international levels.
I am working on this angle at the moment in my PhD studies.
Are you working on this angle?
I think we’re exploring similar ground, though my focus isn’t really on the economy itself. In my work (the DCAF), resource and relationship systems are built so directly around physical and social infrastructure that what we call “economic behavior” just shows up as a side effect, not something that needs to be designed or reformed.
In DCAF, local infrastructure and governance loops handle coordination directly. The “economic layer” emerges, but it isn’t required to keep things in balance… more like a secondary language the system can choose to use or not.
So my interest has been less in embedding an economy and more in seeing what takes its place when coordination becomes local, transparent, and looped. Does that align with how you’re approaching it in your PhD?
1 Like
If I’m understanding correctly, you’re framing the economy as something that doesn’t necessarily have to exist?
That is to say, there is a version of how the world runs that doesn’t need to include a formal economy as such?
I think I am potentially getting tripped up on your definition of “the economy”
In either case, what you’re describing reminds me of the commons quadrant in Kate Raworth’s Donought Economic model. That’s where the kind of activity you’re describing seems to best fit. I could be misunderstanding however
1 Like
Yes, you’ve got it. In my work, the economy isn’t required; though it can emerge once local infrastructure and governance loops are in place.
I like your connection to the commons quadrant in Raworth’s model — that’s a useful analogy for the type of emergent activity I’m describing. This approach goes a step further by operationalizing loops directly across material, social, and informational systems.
One historical example is the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, whose councils allowed resources, responsibilities, and governance to circulate relationally, without a formal economic layer. It’s not a replacement for Doughnut Economics, but it illustrates how relational and infrastructural design can generate emergent economic behavior as a by-product.
I’d be curious to hear how you see the connection between the commons and the infrastructural side of wellbeing… I think there’s a lot of overlap to explore?
Look, I’m just trying to sound more academic than I am. Anytime I try to talk like a regular person I get ignored or empty platitudes. I’ve studied all the basics and read all the books, but i filed “economics” away under “shit people put way too much importance in” a long time ago. It’s a social construct/myth that focuses on viewing the world from a place of scarcity imo. It leads to making every decision based on assumptions about the worst possible outcome, from my experience.
The reality is that with a little knowledge, land, and the right tech you can achieve practical post scarcity for yourself; aka Autonomy, defined as the ability to produce all necessities: food, water, shelter, power, sanitation, care, knowledge, defense, and communication for yourself (the last one requires other people by definition but you get my meaning).
We as a species could provide this for everyone, and at that point well being economies just emerge. At least that’s my hypothesis. I only set out to prove that practical post scarcity is possible. Economic theory was there in the back of my head but it was never a main focus of concern.
I realized we already have the tech about 10 years ago and have been trying to figure it out ever since. The key finally came from asking where Marx got communism and what happens if we combine what we know about those cultures (Haudenosaunee, Pueblo Peoples, Inuit, some Christian groups, and etc.) with modern tech.
The answer is you get a society where distribution networks become completely voluntary, but where cooperation through generalized reciprocity increases your comfort level exponentially.
I know how niave this probably sounds. Especially to all of you, but if, I’m right, then it is achievable. It’s not easy. It’s not “cheap” to do quickly, (roughly 14 trillion estimated BOM using US market values for a high average and assuming 10b population) but technically feasible. Though thats not the plan.
Assuming my hypothesis is correct (which i don’t, my first ask was/is for peer review) if even half of the brain power here were to dedicate themselves to perfecting the process and prioritizing need over everything else, I believe we could help house, feed, water, power, and defend everyone who most needs it within 50 years or so to a point of producing surplus.
If that proves true and those who are transitional can defend against the onslaught of capitalist interests, we could see global replacement of capitalism with something that fully aligns with the goals of a well being economy in 120-500 years. Give or take half a century depending on how the current global situation plays out.
It’s probably a long shot, but i built it by gathering proven practical steps that anyone can take to improve their situation, whether they have literally nothing in a completely ravaged city, live in an apartment, or are a millionaire and anything in between. Then applying a looping and redundancy logic to a layered material “tech tree” with it’s base in basic survival knowledge and skills.
It introduces people steeped in capitalist propaganda to ideas that they probably haven’t considered in a way that avoids or gently transforms triggering language. Scoring 3.5 - 5 in all metrics for each individual section using JL Friday’s Connection Engine framework llm prompt and 4.7 overall for the entire document.
So far I have had 4 people familiar with the concepts read it and provide feedback that comes down to “It looks good and info looks right but I’ve seen it all before”. They then cannot engage with anything about the framework that doesn’t appear in the first “chapter” which is just an intro for new people. Something clearly explained in the readme which is the front facing document… so I’m pretty sure they just skimmed it…
I know it would be better formatted as a book but I’m stuck on mobile and when i try to compile it all, either manually or using an llm, it gets all messed up… I know i don’t know what I’m doing and I don’t have access to the resources or time i need to do all this the right way. That’s why I’m looking for help.
I know asking someone to spend hours reading and critically thinking about something unproven is a big ask but idk what else to do. 
whenever i sit down to improve it I end up just picking away at it randomly with no direction and improving very little, potentially even making it worse overall.