There were a series of anticipated and unanticipated results that went beyond the state of the art. Firstly, after an in-depth literature review, it was observed that there are conceptual misunderstandings when it comes to the concepts of eudaimonia and hedonism. These misunderstandings might seem trivial at first, but their adoption in indicators and modelling could have significant ramifications in policy recommendations and consequently within society. The potential issues are analysed in detail in the project’s upcoming publications; however, the first point of concern is a dissociation of politics and ethics, which can have implications in political transitions. A ruptural transition was identified as a potential future if we are to adopt degrowth. Current political parties, and the system as a whole, are not equipped to deal with ruptures and sudden transitions, especially since they will inevitably affect people’s wellbeing in the short-term. Eudaimonia comes in in such a scenario to provide a smoother transitional period, which is one of the major results of the project, and something that can have significant socio-economic impact.
Another result with potential impact has to do with voluntary simplicity assumptions within degrowth, which would potentially not allow its adoption in a future transition. “Informed desire” was a concept that was identified as being potentially useful. Degrowth, and its required voluntary simplicity, falls into this pitfall of a lack of informed desire, since if any kind of implementation of it were to happen without the right information, most of the population will not comprehend its benefits, will not appreciate it, and consequently, they will be against any such change. This is also the reason why Gallup World Poll and similar subjective measures of wellbeing are most likely not the way forward for measuring, understanding, and suggesting improvements regarding wellbeing for a degrowth transition.
Additionally, there were two aspects identified and analysed that can have significant impact in metrics and modelling. Self-reported wellbeing misses eudaimonic aspects, and it is not as useful as it is presented in literature for a postgrowth future. Life satisfaction surveys are subjective in their evaluation of wellbeing, not surveys of subjective states. However, this does not mean that they necessarily capture objective dimensions of life like mental state, family and friendships, work situations, etc. The objective dimensions remain a black box that cannot be unravelled. Hence, “right” and “wrong” desires (a prerequisite for eudaimonic understanding) are lacking by definition, and hence morality is lacking, which does not allow us to define or attempt to reach a worthwhile life. Another concern of both subjective evaluation and subjective content is that of adaptation, which means that different individuals in different contexts will have different standards and expectations of what a good life entails. This has significant implications regarding values, and consequently principles that would be adopted in a transition. Finally, much of the work within ecological economics and post-growth studies focuses on DLS, or similar standards, as the sole conditions to achieve eudaimonia, and although theoretically DLS are a prerequisite, they are not the only conditions that need to be met. It is useful research, but even if we assume that these DLS are what we should aim for, the “how” we will achieve this goal is still elusive.
