From Limits to a Thriving Future

A "polycrisis" refers to the convergence of multiple interconnected crises, including climate change, biodiversity loss, rising social tensions, income and wealth inequality, declining trust in institutions, and other related challenges. These crises are interdependent and collectively pose a significant threat to both human and ecological thriving, to the point of potential collapse.

The fear stems from the belief that economic growth is synonymous with progress and the only way to improve well-being. People often associate economic growth with job creation, poverty alleviation, and overall prosperity. That is why the idea of letting go of the growth pursuit can invoke the fear that society may experience economic recession and a decline in living standards as a result. This fear of losing the perceived benefits of growth makes it challenging for individuals and institutions to embrace a different economic model. To address the fear of social unrest, we need to reframe our common narrative of what our society values most. Instead of abruptly advocating for the abandonment of growth, the focus should be on redefining the economic purpose. This approach ensures that people do not feel deprived but rather reinvigorated by a shared purpose to explore new ways of attaining happiness and satisfaction beyond material accumulation.

The alternative is to change the goal of the economic system from perpetual growth to meeting human needs within ecological limits. This alternative approach can lead to a more stable and sustainable form of prosperity. Economic studies, such as those around the Easterlin paradox, demonstrate that beyond a certain point, increased income and material possessions have diminishing returns when it comes to well-being. These findings suggest that once basic needs are met, shifting focus to meet social and spiritual needs can actually improve overall well-being much more effectively. This shift towards non-material needs can have a positive impact on not just society but also the environment, because social and spiritual needs can be satisfied in various ways, depending on culture and social norms, some of which require little to no resources. 

By focusing on human needs within Earthly limits, societies can reduce their ecological footprint while achieving higher levels of well-being even in richer countries, through improved social cohesion and sense of purpose. It allows for a more sustainable relationship with the environment and each other, thus contributing to a thriving future in which people, ecosystems, and economies coexist harmoniously. Elements of such a society we already see in countries like Bhutan, which governs based on a Gross National Happiness Index, as well as Ecuador, New Zealand, India, Bolivia, and Costa Rica, which have granted rights to nature in their legal frameworks. Indigenous populations are the best examples however; most have always organized around these goals. 

Working on systemic change can be uncomfortable. Everyone can do their part, by utilizing their unique qualities and position in the system. Even small actions can make a difference. This makes systems change a deeply personal endeavour. However, it can not stay at the individual level. Systemic change happens when people start connecting, spreading the new narrative throughout the system, until it eventually reaches a critical mass where broader societal change becomes self-reinforcing. Individual contributions matter because that change begins with just a small group of these engaged people spreading the new narrative.