Hi @Kevin . Correct, not directed at you and a misreading of the comment. We set up WEAll 6 years ago to amplify the multiple pathways to a wellbeing economy - explicitly maintaining a defense of plurality in the face of requests to provide one true answer. Vanity of small differences is in reference to those that believe their way is the only true way. Best, Michael
1 Like
@JWGCox Why do you go immediately to Stalin when I write âmandatoryâ? Why do you keep forgetting the definition of degrowth which includes a strong emphasis on democracy? Obviously degrowth needs to happen democratically via citizen assemblies.
Obviously, âmandatoryâ is a reference to thermodynamics and overshoot of planetary boundaries.
Rich is always a matter of relative comparison. In Canada average emissions are 12+ tons per person while in Indonesia is about 2. So yes, the average human in GN may be considered rich. Not to mention income, wealth, energy consumption, material footprint etc.
Please do not continue to misrepresent the degrowth position.
I went to Stalin 2.0 given your heritage.
Degrowth hasnât clearly defined itself. I merely state how it appears. A clumsy term that triggers negative reactions.
Naive at best.
Having previously claimed how proud you are of being a socialist, anyone who had alternative views would naturally treat you with suspicion. Lastly your posts are arrogantly absolutist. You never countenance nuance to any degree. Youâre right anyone with a different perspective is wrong. Given your closed mindset, I can learn nothing from you.
Reading back my comments, I feel that I need to apologize for coming in so hot. I could have made a much calmer critique and offering that would not have been received as combative. Coming off the trump win, and recognizing this perpetual reliance on out-dated strategies by social and environmental activism had me frustrated on a soul level. Iâm recognizing that we are operating from two different frameworks.
One framewrok, the one that drove my frustration, is the one that assumes that the construct of capitalism is âfixableâ and offers addemdums to the existing structures in order to âsaveâ it.
The framework I find myself embracing is the one that the data reveals: Itâs not fixable, itâs collapsing at an exponential rate, the point of no return was 11 years ago, and there has been no significant slowing of the engine of disaster capitalism. If anything, itâs enjoying a resurgence, and amplifying the polycrisis.
In the first scenario, we try to use the levers of the collapsing machine to adjust course, except someone else is holding the controls, and theyâre not listening. In fact, they consider us the enemy.
In the second scenario, we accept the polycrisis as an immediate phenomenon that we are activiely participating, if unwillingly, or unconsciously. We accept that it is not fixaable and will at some point collapse as the data says it will. We recognize that mass messaging is a dead end because the world is being drowned in âinformationâ of all sorts and the ability to discern fraud is a skill few have taken up. We focus on what will be necessary to a) survive the collapse, and B) give birth to something new based on love and care on the other side of whatever happens, but preparing and laying the groundwork now.
Yes, that thinking relies on the work of a number of marginalized authors, not the least of which is Dr. Vansessa Andreotti and her book Hospicing Modenity. However, there is a wealth of thinkers, many of whom are connected to the WeAll movement as well. Itâs thinking that is heavily influenced by indigenous cultures all over the world and centers the idea that we are just entangled parts of a bio-intelligent meta metabloism that is the planet.
They are significantly different approaches, but they coexist within the sector. I let my frustration ge the better of me and came in notter than I would have otherwise. My apologies.
@JWGCox Au contraire, degrowth has many clear definitions, none is lesser than any textbook definitions for socialism, ecosocialism or capitalism.
Have you read any books on degrowth, such as The Future is Degrowth? Or any of the hundreds of peer reviewed papers? You can find a selection on our website https://degrowth.net/resources/the-degrowth-database/
Iâm sorry that you were subjected to that abuse. It was uncalled for and simple not true. They are the words of someone who is obviously trying to hurt you because he disagrees with you.
Degrowth is incredibly data-driven, clear, and organized. The website is easy to navigate, and there are loads of resources to learn from and go deeper into the philosophy and related ideas and projects.
I have always found you quick to adopt new ideas and use them to elevate your thinking and drive your publishing.
Criticism = abuse. How woke.@kevin
Snide remarks, on the other hand, to close down debate might be considered as abuse, but I frankly wonât waste any more time trying to penetrate closed minds.
Sorry for the delay getting back to you, Michael. My sense is that we are very much aligned, and with a few tweaks we might become very aligned!
It is difficult to have a nuanced in-depth discussion on email threads such as this one. Perhaps we might have a Zoom conversation to get acquainted and consider possibilities?
I live in the Blue Mountains outside of Sydney. My email address is andrew@stableplanetalliance.com.
Dear all,
Thank you deeply for your message and for creating a space for such necessary reflections. Discussing a well-being economy in contexts of extreme poverty and violence presents challenges that go far beyond theoretical discourse. While we strive to listen to the birds and the voice of nature, the sound of police helicopters flying over a community, followed by the echo of gunfire at dawn, is far more deafening. On these mornings, when armed confrontations between traffickers and police occur at 5:30 a.m., schools, public health services, and daily life come to a halt, making the concept of âwell-beingâ feel distant, almost utopian.
When schools donât open, thousands of children lose access to education, and families, many already vulnerable, are left without the vital support these institutions provide. Public health services, equally disrupted, fail to assist those in urgent need of care. All of this unfolds under a climate of fear, driving cortisol levels higher and fueling overwhelming anxiety, impacting both mental and physical health.
Even so, I believe in the importance of exchanging ideas with people from different contexts, like the ones you mention, because even in Wales, with its own set of challenges, there are valuable lessons for us all. Yet it is crucial to remain grounded, rooted in the realities we face here. The plurality WEAll advocates is essential, but it only becomes meaningful when we acknowledge the disparities between realities and seek to build bridges that respect these differences.
A well-being economy must be inclusive, and to achieve that, it must begin by truly listening to those living under the harshest conditions. After all, while some discuss the songs of birds, others are still struggling to survive amid chaos. True transformation comes from recognizing this contrast.
Sincerely,
VĂtor
3 Likes
@presidente Dear Vitor, thank you for raising these issues. I completely agree. I am of the opinion that wellbeing economics must always address the root causes of the polycrisis: abominable levels of wealth and income inequality, mind-boggling levels of inequalities in the material and ecological footprint between rich countries and poor countries and between social classes inside each country, all of these being possible because how capitalism is designed as an anti-democratic, extractive system.
Some folks may believe we can keep the cake and eat it too, namely have a wellbeing economics and keep capitalism. Iâm afraid itâs impossible. We ought to be brutally honest and recognize this incompatibility. We cannot have fully biodegradable apparel, as suggested in the documentary Buy Now! and keep this growth-obsessed system. In order to fix the polycrisis, all these inequalities ought to be phased out, democratically, asap.
2 Likes
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I share your concerns about the root causes of the polycrisis and its deep entanglement with capitalismâs extractive and unequal nature. However, Iâd like to add a layer of nuance to this conversation, drawing on the concept of the âfetish of the commodity,â particularly in the context of biodegradable apparel and other well-meaning but exclusionary solutions.
Letâs take the example of biodegradable clothing. In Brazil, a single piece can cost half of the monthly minimum wage. For someone living on the margins, this means choosing between buying a shirt and feeding their family for the entire month. Itâs not that the concept of biodegradable fashion is inherently badâitâs the way it becomes a luxury product, catering to an elite who can afford to display their âenvironmental conscienceâ while excluding the vast majority of people. This is fetishism at its finest: the commodification of environmentalism, where the focus is on the product (and its price tag) rather than the systemic change needed for true sustainability.
Whatâs ironic is that the poor have always been the true stewards of the environment, long before it was trendy. They practice circular economies not out of ideology, but out of necessityâwearing clothes until theyâre threadbare, passing them on, repairing them. They donât jet-set around the globe burning jet fuel; they live locally. Their solidarity is organic, not performative.
And yet, when disasters like Cyclone Chido hit Mayotte, killing 14 officially and likely thousands more, the silence is deafening. This tiny island, part of France but not the France of baguettes and berets, is home to a Black population where 3 in 4 people live in poverty. The devastationâa cyclone with winds exceeding 220 km/hâis apocalyptic, and still, the world barely notices. The poor, whether in Mayotte, Brazil, or elsewhere, have always borne the brunt of environmental and economic crises, while those responsible for the largest ecological footprints continue business as usual.
I absolutely agree that we cannot reconcile true well-being economics with a system as growth-obsessed as capitalism. But as we push for systemic change, we must also ensure that the solutions we advocate for donât become new forms of exclusion. Well-being economics must be rooted in inclusivity, dismantling the barriersâeconomic, racial, and geographicâthat perpetuate inequality.
Your insights are crucial, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue with youâŠ
2 Likes
@presidente I wholeheartedly agree with you. For the benefit of this community I would like to highlight the new book The Sustainability Class How to Take Back Our Future from Lifestyle Environmentalists co-written by fellow degrowther Aaron Vansintjan. They write about how the so-called sustainability class are among the least sustainable.
1 Like
There is a stark difference between good faith criticism and abusive rhetoric. Yours, and to be honest your approach to every conversation Iâve seen from you thus far, veers solidly into toxic behaviour and abusive attacks pretty consistently. I donât know what unlying traumas you are dealing with that brings this kind of behaviour out in you, but it is not ok, and definitely not the kind of behaviour one could possibly associate with âwellbeing.â Check yourself, friend. Try to be more in alignment with what you promote on your site.
Fyi, woke = to be aware of the ways that one is systemically oppressed as a Black person. Using it as a supposed derogatory term is the province of anti-Black bigots exclusively. Again, nothing that could remotely be aligned with wellbeing.
Toxic behaviour isnât the same thing as âdebate,â and no one should be subjected to it, especially not on a platform like this one. Being open-minded does not mean being the doormat for your abusive diatribe and attacks. Iâm glad that you wonât waste anymore of anyoneâs time with yiour toxicity. Iâm happy for that to be ended. It would be a shame for you to be the reason that this platform needs to develop a âblcokâ function because you canât control your own behavipour and engage civilly.
Hi @Michael, the mantra you shared, âtogetherness over agreement,â is nicely emblematic of the plurality of ideas and the spirit of collective empowerment WeAll seeks, and I hope that sentiment prevails. It takes an open mind to understand that Agreement doesnât have to precede Togetherness. For me it helps to frame it as: Together is the âwhy,â and Agreement is the âhow.â
Even as weâve seen arise in this thread, where most of us already have reached very similar conclusions about the causes of humanityâs ecological oversteps, what should be productive disagreement turns into disparaging conflict and potential alienation of valuable perspectives, which is opposite the intended effect.
Iâd bet if @JWGCox and @VladBunea and @Kevin ran into each other at a bar instead of online theyâd be joking with friendly barbs and quibbling healthily over semantics of their approaches instead of baiting each other into a fight. Taking a step back, weâre all pretty closely aligned here - itâs not like weâre hosting a Bernie Sanders vs Trump cage match in the WeAll forums.
This, I suppose, IS the vanity of small differences. But we are all climbing the same mountain, just from different sides. @presidente, spoke powerfully to that point with his account of daily reality in Brazil that would be unfathomable compared to the lives many of us lead. The language heâll use to rally people around a wellbeing economy will likely be different from that chosen in Eastern Europe or India or the USA. Thereâs no way to coalesce on the same exact messaging as everyone else (hence, a plurality) on a local level. Still together, but in different ways for different audiences.
I fear, however, that plurality on a global level means indecision or inconsistency; these words are anathema to building universal momentum and awareness. I would hate to see the mantra subtly come to mean âtogetherness over progress.â This is why I hesitated to share action steps - committees never move as quickly as an individual. On the other hand, an individual canât make an impact without support from others so I will continue to share more thoughts with you and the community here. Iâm very interested to be involved in the business conversations you are kicking off as well, so please let me know how I can get more involved⊠for those of us like myself who are to some degree trapped inside the system we are trying to change, it would be nice to do some work from within.
1 Like
In the US, 70% of the workforce is employed in for-profit business. The vast majority of those businesses seek profit maximization as their primary goal, benefitting owners/shareholders disproportionately compared to the workers⊠even down to the small business level (although the income disparity ratios grow absurdly as companies get larger).
This is all obvious, and nothing against small business especially, but I point this out because the majority of people go to work everyday and perpetuate their own inequality by richening the owners of capital by helping them produce more (damaging ecosystems) while paying less (in taxes and wages). To accomplish any progress towards a well-being economy on a nation-state scale, the workers must recognize this and demand change, ie unionization and regulation. Ingrid Robeyns makes a great case for some specifics in her book Limitarianism.
My point previously about talking in an echo chamber here is that we need a plan to incentivize workers like myself, who are far removed from well-being economy conversations, to see the American Dream (in our case) for what it really is - a placebo pill fed by the most powerful - and unite. When weâre dependent on powerful people not just for income to feed our families, but for inspiration (ie âone day if you work hard enough, you too will reach the top!â), we just shrug and get back at it, come what may, because what choice do we have?
With that in mind, one plan Iâm working on is to place a simple but cryptic / controversial symbol of systemic dysfunction as an ad inside the traditional advertising networks (tv, online, billboard, etc). Itâs using paid media against itself to provoke questions around what the symbol means. Iâm setting up 501(c) status now and working on pitching this for funding to aligned non-profits and foundations next year, and interested in finding partners to discuss further. This is as much as I can share publicly at this time, but in the coming days Iâll share other ideas with the community here.
1 Like
Hi @MichaelB . Thank you for both of your contributions. I will indeed reach out to you when we have more clarity in Q1 of 2025 as regards business ecosystem support - of the type that is not extractive as you describe. Even if some of the ideas may appear challenging to implement in todayâs world, some of E.F. Schumacherâs ideas in âSmall is Beautifulâ about different forms of ownership of businesses at different scales are interesting. And when you are ready to have a funding chat, happy to help.
2 Likes
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your concern about the potential paralysis of âtogetherness over progressâ touches on a critical sociological insight: inaction, or the refusal to take a definitive stance, often serves to uphold existing structures of privilege and inequality. As a sociologist, Iâm reminded of how deeply societies resist change, especially when that change threatens entrenched power dynamics. Understanding these permanĂȘnciasâthe structures that endureârequires us to ask who benefits from the status quo remaining intact.
Plurality is, without doubt, essential; it enriches our perspectives and broadens our imaginations for whatâs possible. Yet, plurality must not become an excuse for indecision. Instead, it should inspire a repertoire of enfrentamento: strategies to confront and dismantle inequities while creating alternatives. This connects to what Alberto Guerreiro Ramos called a âsociological re-educationââthe process of adapting universal ideas to specific, localized contexts. For instance, while the term âwellbeing economyâ resonates in some places, many communities already practice its principles without labeling them as such. Our task is to identify, map, and amplify these practices as contextually grounded solutions.
In my work, Iâm building a project to explore where the wellbeing economy is already unfolding. The goal is to create a strategic repository of actions and solutions, amplifying the voices and efforts of people who are driving change from below. This includes engaging with Black and economically marginalized individuals, particularly those who entered higher education through affirmative action policies and are now addressing environmental and climate justice. These individuals can help redefine what a wellbeing economy looks like, first in Brazil and then across the Global South, and ultimately in dialogue with the North.
Togetherness, as you beautifully framed it, is indeed the âwhy.â However, it must be paired with deliberate actionâthe âhow.â I look forward to continuing this conversation and sharing insights as we develop a more just and inclusive framework for global wellbeing.
4 Likes
@presidente Is that repository a project that others can get involved with? I have some experience of building similar repositories in South Africa.
Sounds great @Michael thank you
@judybackhouse it would be great to have your experience in building this repository of organic practices of the well-being economy. At this first stage, we are focused on observing how people living in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro build their coopetition and collaboration strategies. We want to know if, when we learn about the well-being economy as a concept, they are surprised or if they agree that it is nothing new and that they have historically practiced it. We are seeking financial resources to scale the project and hearing your experience as we build together will bring many benefits to the project.