Periodic Reporting for period 1 - PostReNex (Tackling the paradox of growth and sustainability - A SDG indicator framework for water, energy, land, and materials based on postgrowth and resource nexus thinking)
Période du rapport: 2023-10-01 au 2025-09-30
Despite many attempts, humanity transgresses most planetary boundaries. Consequently, people’s lives are affected. There has been a common misconception that economic growth improves people’s wellbeing; however, this is not true after a specific point of development. A different paradigm is necessary for a democratic transformation of the economic system without significant ecological impacts, and with improved wellbeing. The paradigm shift suggested herein, within a postgrowth world, is degrowth. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding such a transition.
Useful policy recommendations depend on ethical, logical, as well as realistic models and indicators. All metrics are based on specific principles. The principles upon which the current economic system is based are hedonistic, and more specifically utilitarian. In recent years, within ecological economics, as well as within degrowth, the principles proposed are eudaimonic. In theory, this change is in line with a degrowth transition’s principles, putting more weight on aspects that can lead to both an improvement on people’s wellbeing and ecological impacts. The use of eudaimonia is noble, but various concerns remain. Some of them include conceptual and practical mistakes regarding eudaimonia and hedonism, an assumption of voluntary simplicity, and a lack of consideration of how to deal with an inevitable ruptural transition trough.
This project concentrated on shedding light on these questions. At first, the assumption was that working directly on indicators would be the way to go, but during the first few months it was deemed vital to first concentrate on the basic underlying philosophy (eudaimonia) that ought to be used to be able to achieve the proposed transition. As such, the objectives of the project were to examine the philosophical basis of current ecological economics and degrowth work, identify misconceptions and propose corrections, analyse needs for a degrowth paradigm shift, identify and embellish degrowth principles, and finally propose proto indicators to assist with degrowth future planning.
Useful policy recommendations depend on ethical, logical, as well as realistic models and indicators. All metrics are based on specific principles. The principles upon which the current economic system is based are hedonistic, and more specifically utilitarian. In recent years, within ecological economics, as well as within degrowth, the principles proposed are eudaimonic. In theory, this change is in line with a degrowth transition’s principles, putting more weight on aspects that can lead to both an improvement on people’s wellbeing and ecological impacts. The use of eudaimonia is noble, but various concerns remain. Some of them include conceptual and practical mistakes regarding eudaimonia and hedonism, an assumption of voluntary simplicity, and a lack of consideration of how to deal with an inevitable ruptural transition trough.
This project concentrated on shedding light on these questions. At first, the assumption was that working directly on indicators would be the way to go, but during the first few months it was deemed vital to first concentrate on the basic underlying philosophy (eudaimonia) that ought to be used to be able to achieve the proposed transition. As such, the objectives of the project were to examine the philosophical basis of current ecological economics and degrowth work, identify misconceptions and propose corrections, analyse needs for a degrowth paradigm shift, identify and embellish degrowth principles, and finally propose proto indicators to assist with degrowth future planning.
The main activities of this project revolved around extensive literature reviews and analyses of concepts around ethics, politics, and postgrowth, which included their merits and shortcomings. More specifically, the main philosophical concepts analysed were eudaimonia and hedonism. Additionally, methods and metrics within eudaimonia and hedonism were analysed to identify shortcomings and possible improvements.
Hence, the main work performed included the following: a) analysis of consequences of growth; b) study of degrowth and what a paradigm shift would mean; c) investigation into voluntary simplicity and similar terms; d) exploration of the philosophies of eudaimonia and hedonism from an Aristotelian and Epicurean starting point to their current meanings and applications within our economic system, and their potential uses in ecological economics and degrowth. Aspects of Eastern philosophy (Confucius) were also considered; e) the meaning of ruptural change and what a transition trough would entail; f) analysis of objective and subjective wellbeing; g) identification of self-reported wellbeing issues (adaptation, lack of “right” and “wrong” desires and hence morality, etc.); h) identification of objective wellbeing concerns; i) analysis of real-world application feasibility; j) investigation and presentation of current degrowth principles and what changes would be required to deal with implementation problems; k) presentation of a novel definition of eudaimonia within a degrowth world; l) presentation of proto indicators for assessment of where specific countries are lacking to allow for a degrowth transition; m) discussion of politics and ethics divide.
All of these are written in the academic papers that are at different stages (from final drafts to first drafts) and will be published in open-access high impact journals. Additionally, most aspects have already been presented in various conferences, workshops, and seminars, and the novel ideas and recommendations have been discussed widely within academic and professional circles.
Hence, the main work performed included the following: a) analysis of consequences of growth; b) study of degrowth and what a paradigm shift would mean; c) investigation into voluntary simplicity and similar terms; d) exploration of the philosophies of eudaimonia and hedonism from an Aristotelian and Epicurean starting point to their current meanings and applications within our economic system, and their potential uses in ecological economics and degrowth. Aspects of Eastern philosophy (Confucius) were also considered; e) the meaning of ruptural change and what a transition trough would entail; f) analysis of objective and subjective wellbeing; g) identification of self-reported wellbeing issues (adaptation, lack of “right” and “wrong” desires and hence morality, etc.); h) identification of objective wellbeing concerns; i) analysis of real-world application feasibility; j) investigation and presentation of current degrowth principles and what changes would be required to deal with implementation problems; k) presentation of a novel definition of eudaimonia within a degrowth world; l) presentation of proto indicators for assessment of where specific countries are lacking to allow for a degrowth transition; m) discussion of politics and ethics divide.
All of these are written in the academic papers that are at different stages (from final drafts to first drafts) and will be published in open-access high impact journals. Additionally, most aspects have already been presented in various conferences, workshops, and seminars, and the novel ideas and recommendations have been discussed widely within academic and professional circles.
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.
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.