!

THE FUJI DECLARATION IN ACTION:
ECONOMYPaths toward a civilization of Oneness with Diversity in thesphere of the Economy.

!

by Sándor Kerekes and Tamás Kocsis© 2015 The Fuji Declarationwww.fujideclaration.org

!
!

PATHS TOWARD A CIVILIZATION OF ONENESSWITH DIVERSITY IN THE SPHERE OF THE ECONOMY
Sándor Kerekes, Kaposvár University, Hungary
Tamás Kocsis, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary!
!
!
Study overview!

In the Spring of 2014, The Fuji Declaration Secretariat sought background studies in four spheres(the economy, politics, media, and business) to show how its goals for humanity, as expressed in
the Fuji Declaration, at that time provisionally entitled, “AWAKENING THE DIVINE SPARKIN THE SPIRIT OF HUMANITY: For a Civilization of Oneness with Diversity on Planet Earth”
can be achieved. The Declaration points to the possibility of a worldwide shift in consciousness,from materialism-centered sustainability to full-spectrum flourishing.

!

This report presents a background study about the economy. It outlines the path toward a
Civilization of Oneness with Diversity as it is being shaped and advanced by the economy.
In this study, we describe:!
!

•

The economic theory behind (un)sustainability;•

The shift towards an economy of flow (a GDP-friendly path);•

The concept of the’ celestial footprint’ (the increase of which is always
advantageous, in contrast to increases in the ecological footprint);•

The shift towards voluntary simplicity (a GDP-reducing path)!

We conclude by commenting on the interdependencies between our economic and ecologicalsystem which highlights the importance of Oneness and the need for a paradigm shift as
expressed in the Fuji Declaration.

!

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 2! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

Table of Contents
Paths Toward A Civilization Of OnenessWith Diversity In The Sphere Of The Economy ...................................................................2
Introduction: The world economy is growing faster than the population .............................3
The economic theory of (un)sustainability ............................................................................4”Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can” (John Lennon) ............................................8”Imagine all the people sharing all the world...” (John Lennon) .........................................10
The need for ecological and social resilience ......................................................................13
Introducing the Celestial Footprint ......................................................................................14
Paths of Gaining Happiness .................................................................................................17(Non)material and (non)monetary trade-offs .......................................................................19
IPAT and the logic of Celestial Footprint.............................................................................20
Voluntary Simplicity: a radical, non-market strategy for increasing Celestial Footprint ....21
Conclusions: Sustainability and interdependencies .............................................................23
References ............................................................................................................................25!
Introduction: The world economy is growing faster than the population!

Between 2000 and 2030 the world’s population will grow by 2.5 billion, the demand for food will
nearly double and industrial production and energy consumption will triple, but thecorresponding rate of increase in developing countries is expected to quintuple. This growthcarries with it the risk of environmental disaster, but also the opportunity to create a better
environment and the conditions for providing mankind with basic goods, clean air and healthywater. Which of the alternatives will happen basically depends on political decisions.

!

Some predictions indicate that the average GDP per capita in Europe will exceed $40.000 by
2050. By 2100, China will catch up with the United States in terms of GDP per capita, while
India will become a superpower by 2030 because its population growth exceeds the global
average. Dividing the annual gross domestic product evenly among the peoples of the world
would provide every individual with $5-10.000. This “economy” could theoretically provide
people with healthy drinking water and organized health care and could reduce the number ofbirths and eliminate illiteracy too. Unfortunately, this trend is not developing yet; differences justkeep growing. There exist countries with a GDP per capita of over $100 000 (Qatar, Luxemburg),
and there are very poor countries with a GDP of around $1 000 (Bangladesh, Sub-SaharanAfrica).

!

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 3! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

In 1970, the income of the richest 20% of the world’s inhabitants was only thirty times as muchas that of the poorest 20%. By 2005 the income of the rich had grown to seventy-five times as
much, and the difference keeps growing. In the meantime, the global population is exponentially
increasing. In 1800 only one billion people lived on the Earth and 130 years passed before thisnumber doubled. Another doubling occurred in 47 years, another in 12 and then one more in only
9 years – in total another 4 billion had been added. The rate of increase is slowing a little, but thegrowth in Asia and Africa seems unstoppable. Population growth is characteristic of poor regions.

!

Data concerning the increase in the productivity of agricultural work are available to the public.
In the past 100 years, while the amount of cereal grown per hectare has increased 6-10 fold, thenumber of working hours and thus the number of employees required per hectare has dropped toa fraction of this (it has decreased by about 95%). It is common knowledge that in developed
countries 2-5% of the entire workforce are capable of providing the whole of the society withfood, and before long the proportion of workers employed in the industrial sector will also drop
below 5-7%. According to optimistic analysts, demands for employment will be absorbed by theservice or tertiary sector. Others predict that there will be more free time for individuals because
the same amount of work will be distributed among more people, which will result in a double
benefit – more free time favors the development of the service sector and creates demand forservices.

!

The situation seems more complex in reflection of the statistical data. In certain regions – e.g.
South America – a third generation is growing up with no-one in the family ever having had apermanent job; this generates huge social tension, and there is not much hope that children
socialized in such families will become employed as adults.

!

The other no less surprising fact is that employees’ free time is not increasing even in developed
countries; what is rather typical is that people work more than 8 hours a day and cannot even taketheir vacations. When we examine the labor market, it is only with difficulty that we can find jobs
which offer 4-6 hours’ employment, although such working hours would be critical for thehealthy functioning of families. That is to say, changes in the labor market do not support themore optimistic predictions; a developed economy can only manage with well-qualified labor
force that is prepared for competition, and those who want nothing ‘but’ to make a living are of
no value to the current economy. Social supply systems attempt to handle these issues using
welfare states, and such problems are in theory usually easily manageable in the economic sense.
A productive economy is capable of taking care of the physical needs of the unemployed.
Ensuring the quality of life of the millions that are excluded from economy, however, is a more
complex problem than simply satisfying their physical needs.

!

The economic theory of (un)sustainability!

The concept of sustainable development has undoubtedly made a major influence on theeconomy – e.g. by supporting the uptake of environmentally friendly consumption habits, clean© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 4! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

technologies and increasing appreciation of the significance of renewable resources and defining
development as qualitative rather than quantitative growth.

!

The roots of sustainability (Hicks, 1946) are found in Hicks’ writings that claim that “a man’s
income is the maximum value which he can consume during a week and still expect to be as welloff at the end of the week as he was at the beginning”. In 1970, when the outlines of theenvironmental crisis were already visible, the same John Hicks claimed that a few grains of sandin the wheels of international finance would do the job of slowing down development. This socalled Tobin tax is just now being re-invented by the EU bureaucracy and domestic politics. It
may seem strange that what then was expected to slow down development is now hopefully
going to intensify economic growth.

!

Ecological economics partly builds its conceptions about sustainable development on Hicks’
Theory of Wages (Marshall, 2004). The need for equality between generations that appears inBrundtland’s definition is also rooted in the history of theory and can be discovered in the SolowHartwick sustainability rule (Marshall, 2004). This rule states that consumption is sustainable andmay even grow even if the proportion of non-renewable resources drops, provided that thebenefits generated by the use of these resources is invested into reproducible capital. In 1920,
Marshall wrote: “When capital ceases to increase, income likewise will stop growing. Henceseeking to keep capital intact should be seen as fundamental to income generation.” (Marshall,2004). When referring to natural capital, environmental economists keep repeating this mantra,
but their words fall on deaf ears. Natural capital is decreasing because there is hardly any effort
being made to replace what has been used.

!

In ecology, the carrying capacity of a given territory is considered to be the land area required tosupport the largest possible population (over the long term) that does not damage the given
territory. We may now ask the theoretical question: how many people can the Earth accommodate
at an acceptable or preferable standard of living?

!

Simon Kuznets (1971), considered to be the pope of growth theory, was awarded the Nobel Prizein 1971. It may be natural that Kuznets viewed growth in an optimistic way. In the speech hemade at the Nobel award ceremony, though acknowledging the negative effects of growth, heaffirms quite clearly that “two points are relevant here. First, the negative effects of growth havenever been viewed as so far outweighing its positive contribution as to lead to its renunciation no matter how crude the underlying calculus may have been. Second, one may assume that once
an unexpected negative result of growth emerges, the potential of material and social technology
is aimed at its reduction or removal. In many cases these negative results were allowed toaccumulate and to become serious technological or social problems because it was so difficult toforesee them early enough in the process to take effective preventive or ameliorative action. Even
when such action was initiated, there may have been delay in the effective technological or policy
solution. Still, one may justifiably argue, in the light of the history of economic growth, in which
a succession of such unexpected negative results has been overcome, that any specific problem so© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 5! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

generated will be temporary - although we shall never be free of them, no matter what economic
development is attained.”!

Back in 1971 Kuznets claimed that no-one had ever questioned the idea that growth results inmore good than bad, and that growth offers solutions that will offset negative effects (through the
deployment of technology). With circumspection, Kuznets presents six basic characteristics ofmodern economic growth:
1. Significantly faster growth of national product per capita and population in developed
countries compared to earlier periods,
2. Significantly faster increase in work productivity as compared to earlier periods,
3. High speed structural changes in the economy, agriculture taking a back seat and thedeveloping dominance of industry first and the service sector later. Companies take thelead from private enterprises, which changes employment circumstances,
4. Rapid change in social structure and associated ideologies,
5. Transport and telecommunication technologies enable developed countries to easily
access the rest of the world, which leads to the convergence of the world,!

6. Despite economic growth, three quarters of the world’s population have a much lower
standard of living than that it would be possible to provide them with through theapplication of modern technology.

Kuznets’s ideas were presented far earlier than the emergence of the theory of sustainable
development. While Kuznets was being awarded the Nobel Prize, the writing of first report of theClub of Rome, entitled “The Limits of Growth”, was already underway. The Meadows’ book was
published in 1972 and expressed doubts about the long term sustainability of growth and statedthat the effects of growth are rather positive than negative (Meadows, 1972).

!

The authors of the Club of Rome certainly did not argue with Kuznets. If we take a close view ofKuznets’s statements, above, it is obvious that the growth theory of this economist – still
considered a classic today – mostly encompasses all that researchers have presented as criticismsof growth theory in the past thirty-five years. Kuznets views technological and social innovations
as being the basis of development, but also deems natural, social and cultural dimensions to beimportant by saying “thus, modern technology with its emphasis on labor-saving inventions may
not be suited to countries with a plethora of labor but a scarcity of other factors, such as land andwater; and modern institutions, with their emphasis on personal responsibility and pursuit ofeconomic interest, may not be suited to the more traditional life patterns of the agriculturalcommunities that predominate in many less developed countries.”!

Kuznets certainly does not interpret GDP as a welfare indicator; moreover, in his aforementioned
paper he clearly states that “the conventional measures of national product and its components do
not reflect many costs of adjustment in the economic and social structures to the channeling ofmajor technological innovations; and, indeed, also omit some positive returns”. This shortcoming© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 6! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

of this theory in confrontation with new findings has led to a lively discussion in the field inrecent years, and to attempts to expand the national accounting framework to encompass the so
far hidden but clearly important costs, for example, in education as capital investment, in the shift
to urban life, or in the pollution and other negative results of mass production. These efforts will
also uncover some so far unmeasured positive returns – in terms of better health and longevity,
greater mobility, more leisure, less income inequality, and the like.

!

Professionals have made estimates and found that the peak of the inverted parabola, the so-calledturning point, is situated at very different per capita GDPs for various pollutants. For carbon
monoxide, as is mentioned above, this happens at only $35-57 thousand, and the GDP per capita
of the USA is still far below this level. For sulfur dioxide the level is $9400-11300; this is wherean improvement becomes demand.

!

The situation is even more complex with water pollutants, though there is a correlation that isclearly supportable with data concerning the change in biological and chemical oxygen shortageor the potable water supply and sewerage of homes.

!

Using an understanding of economics based on the concepts of the environmental Kuznets
curves, politicians frequently think that economic growth will also solve environmental problems.
However, it has become clear by now that economic growth will not solve the problems that exist
with easily externalizable pollution for which there is little chance of establishing the liability ofthe polluter (as is the case with greenhouse gases and some other wastes), or with contaminationthat causes irreversible degradation or damage (e.g. the accumulation of heavy metals, stableorganic contaminants, etc. due to the shade effect),
The political optimism about the omnipotence of economic growth is overshadowed by yet
another contradiction with development. Based on several forecasts, most of the world will not,even by 2030, reach a per capita GDP at which the quality of the environment should start
improving. According to prognoses, the most developed countries in the world will reach andexceed a per capita GDP of $50000, while the world average may produce only $12000 andAsia28 around $8000. Even if the future deepening of the North-South crisis were socially andpolitically tolerable (although obviously it is not), this situation is certainly intolerable in theecological-environmental sense. The figures show that without a radical change in the conditionsof distribution, squalor will remain permanent in the developing countries to such an extent that it
will pose an obstacle to positive demographic and environmental change. Taking the delay
inherent in feedback into consideration, should this prediction come true we would most probably
have to expect disaster.

!

The assessment is made more complex because we have no knowledge about the resources future
generations will use, or about the course of development the countries of the third world will
take. The best possible outcome and the worst possible outcome are probably very different.
Historical experience proves that there is room for optimism: this perspective reminds us that
discoveries come from people, and if there are enough people trying to solve a given problem,
they will manage to do it (Simon, 1998). The recent change in the dimension of change, however,© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 7! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

counters the optimistic point of view. So far the economy has been dwarfed by the size of thebiosphere, but it is now becoming dominant.

!

The supporters of the optimistic approach take heart in the idea that today’s generation may leave
less natural resources for generations to come, but our successors will have a higher standard oftechnology and greater capital.

!

Regarding prognoses about the future of the Earth, it is crucial how limited we consider theplanet’s carrying capacity to be, and how resistant carrying capacity is to erosion.
”Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can” (John Lennon)!

The ‘second shift’ now occurring refers to a potential source of economy that is now used foraccumulation, even by the middle class. If, instead of accumulating the income saved by doing a‘second shift’, we paid employees to do most of the housework we now do (i.e. throughemploying quality services), the amount of free time we have would increase and the quality of
our lives would improve. Social differences would be reduced with very beneficial socialenvironmental effects. Finally, we would live in a world more capable of staying in harmony with
Earth’s limited carrying capacity. The Economy would finally use the resource that is available
almost without limit: the human labor force. One of the main obstacles to this occurring is man’s
tendency to possessiveness. If man did not desire to possess, but rather to satisfy needs, he would
not strive to accumulate assets but to maximize happiness.
Disregarding housework when calculating GDP is a frequently-cited error. Provided such activity
was turned into paid service, this would result in the growth of GDP with reduced environmental
impact. A better division of labor would have a number of beneficial effects. How prepared theworld is to make this change is questionable, but it is interesting that there are positive examples
from two areas. Going back in time, it is obvious that the hunter-gatherer society was a world inwhich opportunities were exploited and profits were ‘hidden’ through common activity andownership, but this mode of being has been left behind for the society of individuals, which has
an exaggerated emphasis on private property and prestige based on consumption. Now we havearrived at a point where some members of developed societies are no longer so tolerant about the
proliferation of private property or the type of capitalism they have created. There are a growing
number of those who, in the name of “back to basics” (Kocsis, 2002), are trying to question the
traditional values of the welfare society. The limit to Earth’s resources, pollution issues, thegrowing population in the third world and the reduction in the size of the population in thedeveloped countries of the world are all well-known, commonplace-sounding issues. The demandfor consumption, however, is not only increasing in developed countries, but in the emerging new
middle class in developing countries – mainly India and China. This may lead to serious
sustainability problems not only in the long run but also in the short term.

!

In a study published in 2000 (Mont, 2000), the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
identified the following three potential paths to promoting urgently needed sustainability:• reduce the population© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 8! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

!

•

reduce the level of consumption•

make consumption sustainable.

The first option is obviously impracticable in the short run since all the indications are that, even
if the growth rate of the population does not accelerate but stays stable, the global population
could reach 8-10 billion by 2100. (Walker, 2014)
Sustaining such a huge population clearly makes the second option, cutting down on
consumption, impossible. The situation is made even graver by the fact that most of the
population growth will happen in developing regions where living standards lag far behind thoseseen in the developed part of the world. Improving economic performance, however, will meanthat even the citizens of poor regions will want to consume in a similar way to inhabitants of the‘developed’ world. Moreover, inhabitants of countries that are emerging from poverty will muchless be sensitive to conservation approaches and will rather be inclined to exploit environmental
resources disproportionately to enjoy marginal improvements in their living standards. Efforts to
reduce consumption would be liable to evoke major public dissent in countries where inhabitantsalready consume much more than is required to meet their basic needs. No national government
would be ready to support such programs.

!

Today, improvements in eco-efficiency are partly the result of price competition. Everybody istrying to sell products more cheaply. This creates demand for new branches and services and, in
this sense, has an important part in stimulating economic growth. In some sense, this is also aparadox because due to improvements in eco-efficiency, the rate of increase in GDP should beslowing down, but it seems to be gaining speed. In environmental studies, the rebound effect is awell-known phenomenon that describes how eco-efficiency leads to increases in consumption
because any money saved by using more efficient goods and services is recycled and invested
into purchases in other areas. However, an increase in eco-efficiency could be used to favorably
affect GDP growth if the economies gained from increases in eco-efficiency were ploughed backinto structural development.

!

In his study into the Steady State Economy, Herman Daly (Daly, 1977) points out that unlimited
economic growth is impossible on a limited Earth. Grossman and Krueger (1994) state that
economic growth affects the quality of environment in three ways. The first is the so-called scaleeffect, which refers to when large scale economic activity causes large scale environmental
degradation through the increased demand for inputs, including natural resources, and thecorrespondingly higher output rate, which is indicated by the production of waste. The second is
the so-called structural effect, which may yet be environmentally favorable in the future. The firststructural changes that affected economic activity – urbanization, the shift from agricultural
production to industrial production, etc. – had a negative environmental impact. Current
structural changes, such as the tendency to increases in energy efficiency, sectors with greater
added value and the expansion of services indicate a favorable change in that they reduce
environmental impact per unit of GDP. The third significant factor also brings favorable effects
since wealthier countries are spending more on research and development, which enables the© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 9! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

replacement of polluting technologies with cleaner ones, thus reducing environment impact. Thisis usually called the technical-technological component of growth.

!

In the past century, economic growth has taken a trajectory, which, regarding Earth’s limited
resources, cannot be maintained. There might be, however, another course to take, which offers
the economic growth necessary to create opportunities for those currently excluded from income
generation (the unemployed) to make a living, and to appear on the market with purchasing
power. There remains the possibility for structural economic growth. This proposal is in close
harmony with Grossmann’s ideas, and what Weizsäcker and Lovins (Hawken, Lovins & Lovins,2013) call a shift from a ”stock” economy to a “flow” economy.
Countries with low raw material consumption per capita have significantly reduced in number
over the past two decades. These countries also include some fairly opulent ones. Whenobserving the history of countries with rapid economic growth, like Finland or Singapore, we
may note that their sudden economic growth went hand in hand with the large scale consumptionof raw materials and resources. There are, however, developed countries, which have also
managed to create significant wealth with relatively low per capita resource consumption. The socalled eminence of Finland’s environmental position may be called into question if we note that
average per capita resource consumption in Finland is over double that of Italy’s, which isconsidered to be a laggard in terms of environmental matters.

!

”Imagine all the people sharing all the world...” (John Lennon)!

The idea that the main goal of man’s life is “self-fulfillment” has become a major factor inappraising quality of life, although there is only a thin line between self-fulfillment andselfishness, which may be useful for boosting the economy but has little to do with humanhappiness. Quality of life does not seem to be related to wealth or sustainable development;
however, in reality, cultural perceptions and messages about one’s quality of life fundamentally
influence sustainability. The differentiation between wealth and ‘well-being’ is important,because if an average shopping cart contained more (and here the term is broadly interpreted)‘culture’, increases in wealth would require less consumption of material and energy and thus
environmental impact would be lower.

!

According to estimates, the population of Earth is bound to reach between 7 and 10 billion in thefollowing 30 years. It is also public knowledge that, at present, 800 million people are living (orstarving) on less than $1 per day, and nearly 3 billion are living on less than $2 a day: the poverty
level. That can still mean that economies remain viable because people who work 12-14 hours a
day are fairly productive and can “finance” well-developed social support systems.

!

The frequently-mentioned notion of competition generates the illusion that every “game” in life iszero-sum. If tax revenues are spent on environment protection, there will be no resources left forbuilding motorways. If pensions are subsidized, there will be nothing left to support small© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 10! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

enterprises. These suppositions that suggest that only one goal can be realized – to the detrimentof another – are all too familiar.

!

Sustainable development needs a radically different way of thinking. “Sustainability” means thedevelopment of multiple dimensions. In this respect, the word “or” should be erased from ourdictionaries since the simultaneous development of different dimensions can only be expressedby the words “and/both”. There are always favorable compromises that can be made, and it isnever true that there are only two options to pick from: inevitably, innumerable potential options
exist. The sin of dominant paradigms is that in certain periods certain approaches are prioritized,
and society is ‘made’ to face a choice. This is where government intervention comes in; agovernment is a system of institutions operated by society without which there would be noenvironmental safety, or even a moderately tolerable environment.
Csikszentmihályi (1997) states that, in a welfare economy, consumers care little about“existence” itself but their attention turns towards “experiential” needs instead. That is, they need
activities to satisfy their need for practical experience. Interestingly enough, the consumer’s maininterest changes from merchandise to the experience of shopping itself. This may have positive
and negative consequences from the perspective of sustainable development.

!

Sustainability means ensuring the continuous existence of “something”. Growth in GDP does notnecessarily mean growth in wealth, and even less that of well-being. Growth in well-being
requires the development of education, increases in healthy life expectancy, the improvement oflife and social security and even the improvement of factors like personal freedom, which are allcomponents of the quality of life.

!

According to the Easterlin (1974) paradox, the satisfaction or happiness of people is not linearlycorrelated to wealth (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008). Those who do not become preoccupied withstatistical averages but pay attention to individuals claim that over half of the active population
suffer from depression, and note that the disease tends to also attack those who live in a state of“wealth”. Perhaps the illness does not only affect wealthier nations, but they certainly constitutethe basis for the diagnosis of depression as the endemic disease of the modern age. Earth’s
carrying capacity is limited and seems to be failing under the environmental impact of mankind:the needless and mindless consumer habits of the rich or the misery of the poor, since both
overload the global ecosystem. Maria Csutora and her colleagues at the Institute ofEnvironmental Science at Corvinus University, Budapest describe an interesting phenomenon
concerning people’s environmental awareness and ecological footprints. While one would expect
environmentally-conscious people’s ecological footprints to be smaller than those of nonenvironmentally-conscious people, the research found no such correlation. In her research, which
has major international resonance, Csutora calls the phenomenon – which we might label the
Csutora-paradox – the “Behaviour–Impact Gap”. The main point of the paradox is that theecological footprints or the carbon footprints of so-called ‘brown’ (the least environmentallyconscious) and green (the most environmentally-conscious) consumers do not significantly differ
from each other. Ecological footprints are correlated to income, but the beneficial effect ofenvironmental awareness cannot be demonstrated (Csutora, 2012).

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 11! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

!

Environmentally-conscious consumers are ready to undertake some ‘self-limiting’ activities(selective waste collection, turning off the tap, disconnecting the telephone recharger, etc.) that
only have marginal effects on the ecological footprint, while they typically reject making radical
changes. They do not give up flying, become vegetarians or move into smaller homes. Thiscertainly does not mean that environmentally-conscious consumption does not have positive
long-term effects, but rather that these long-term effects are structural in nature and are difficult
to numerically express.

!

Regarding this observation, and accepting the premise of macro-economics that says that
economic growth is a necessary condition for the growth of wealth, a major dilemma arises as towhat type of economic growth causes the least damage to the natural environment, or rather
which type best serves the goals of sustainable development. Ecological economists and scientists
deny the existence of such types of economic growth. However, there is a concept of economic
growth that serves sustainable development that we may call structural economic growth. Ecoefficiency may be increased in a way that it simultaneously results in an increase in the divisionof labor within society. Supported by an increase in the division of labor, the consumption ofservices in the economy would also significantly increase at the expense of material
consumption, which would mean the replacement of the stock economy by a flow economy.
Instead of buying washing machines, refrigerators and kitchen equipment, we would buy clean
clothes from the laundry and we would eat out in restaurants. We would hire specialists, rather
than do things ourselves at home. Specialists equipped with professional tools would clean ourhomes. This would promote economic growth because, due to the division of labor, we would
pay for these services: however, instead of spending our money on buying washing machines wewould only need to settle the laundry bill. These days, television sets that offer a movie
experience are available to buy: in a flow economy we would just go to a movie theatre where
400 of us could watch the program on one ’set’. High-income people can afford home movie
equipment because the necessary technology has become cheap enough. A television set meeting
nearly all the user’s needs, providing 3D quality images, ‘only’ cost three hundred thousand
forints (approx. $1000) in 2014. The cost of cinema tickets is typically a multiple of hiring a film
on DVD. Technology is growing cheaper, while services are becoming more expensive, largely
due to increases in wages. But this up-to-date home movie equipment, however, is consuming
150W of energy in the background. According to careful estimates, this means that while we arewatching our movie at home, at least two strapping “energy-slaves” are required to power theequipment (MacKay, 2008). Each is capable of keeping a 75W light bulb on. If we leave a 75W
bulb on and go to sleep in front of the TV, two slaves will be doing unnecessary work (Grossman& Krueger, 1994). It is easy to realize what a change in environment impact the change in ourentertainment-related behavior has caused just over the past five years. The energy consumptionof a single commercial movie projector (per head) is nothing in comparison to the energy
consumption of hundreds of individuals watching TV.

!

The development of the economy in the past one hundred years indicates that it is capable ofmore efficient development if not hindered by government or other regulations. It has also been

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 12! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

proven that the market itself is unable to successfully deal with problems such as poverty orsocial inequalities. The market creates an irresolvable contradiction by attempting to minimize
the use of labor as a production factor while high employment rates are more desirable for society
as a whole. The size of an economy and rates of consumption are defined by the size of thehuman population, the complexity of ecosystems, and how much, what and in what way an
individual consumes.
The need for ecological and social resilience!

What does ‘resilience’ mean when applied to social science and ecology? Obviously, something
different than it does to a mechanical engineer. Walker, Holling, Carpenter and Kinzig (Walker etal., 2004) discuss the three concepts: "Resilience, adaptability and transformability", theinteraction of which they think determine the resistance and stability of systems against external
shock. “While the technological flexibility approach focuses on the steady state and defines theamount of disturbances needed to move the system from one stability domain to another,‘ecological flexibility’ is characterized by the amount of changing circumstances which thesystem is able to absorb before its structure transforms due to the modification of variables,
processes and the nature of management” (Walker et al., 2004). The sustainable relationshipbetween nature and man requires attention to ecological flexibility because its central concern isthe space between stabilization and destabilization: present day development, global
environmental change, decreases in biodiversity, degradation of ecosystems and sustainable
development. The term ‘technological flexibility’, however, gives the dangerous impression thatnatural systems may be efficiently managed, that consequences are predictable and the goals ofsustainability are achievable (Walker et al., 2004).
A flexible, adaptable and thus sustainable social-ecological system is characterized by having thefollowing characteristics:

!

•
•
•
•

!

it maintains diversity and supports the preservation of biological, landscape, economic
and social components,“human control” of ecological diversity is limited,
it respects modularity (combined systems are better able to withstand shock),it recognizes and emphasizes the importance of education, social networks and locallydeveloped rules.

To sustain the operability of a flexible and adaptable social-ecological system it is necessary to.
• give prompt feedback: e.g. in the case of drought, immediate irrigation is needed with notime spent waiting for EU support policy to change. If there is no demand for selectively
collected waste paper, its energy content must be exploited through incineration before it
degrades in a backyard. There may be no time for prolonged discussion about the best
course of action;• direct the attention of politics to better managing slow variables and processes ofaccumulation, despite the fact that politicians are disinterested in these kinds of issues:
they are not newsworthy. When a river floods or a fire breaks out there always are funds© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 13! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

available for repairing the damage, while nobody really cares about the slow degradationof dams or fire stations. The slow increase of nitrogen, or the accumulation of heavy
metals in the soil is a graver problem than the occasional foaming of the River. The latterphenomenon, luckily, attracts attention, while the previous one does not;ensure an appropriate balance between private and public property and overlapping rightsof access. Seemingly, the state is a bad proprietor, which is why the liberal economy
wants to privatize everything. The state may be a bad proprietor in the economic sense,
but it is good in the ecological sense – for example, in the case of public assets such as
drinking water; moreover, also with non-public assets (e.g. energy supplies, where aprivate owner may be able to cut prices but is unable to ensure security of supply);create a strict system of sanctioning and a culture of honesty. The health of theenvironment and society can only be ensured if an appropriate system of moral values
exists;create a harmonized, overlapping institutional system that functions on different levels ofdecision-making. The principle of subsidiarity does not only mean that decisions should
be made on the level at which information is available, but also that upper levels should
support lower levels in handling problems. Expertise, material resources and perhaps
coercive measures are desirable if, for example, a local government, driven by economic
interests, harms the living standards of local inhabitants. Some inhabitants of metropolitan
agglomerations have fallen victim to such conduct;
recognize and incorporate non-priced ecosystem services into development proposals. The
construction of a motorway, a wind farm, a landfill or a sewage system involves
environmental destruction, the rate of which may be decreased only if suitable impact
assessments are prepared and alternative proposals are also examined;
be open to change: create an atmosphere supportive of innovation and experimentation –this presupposes the existence of trust in institutional systems. It is worth testing
everything out on small scale before mass rollout. Smaller shocks can be met through theflexible responses of ecosystems and society;be strongly committed to avoiding major shocks and to responding quickly (e.g. providing
feedback about) large scale events.

!

Introducing the Celestial Footprint1!

One of the greatest dangers of using GDP is that it is often associated, more or less, with
wellbeing which is a different and more complex concept. Such misleading use is easy to avoid.
We now also introduce an analysis of a measure of subjective wellbeing (or happiness,2 seeDiener, 1984, 2002) which seems to be a better candidate for an index of general wellbeing than

1 This section of the paper is part is mostly based on Kocsis (2012).
2 We use subjective wellbeing and happiness as synonyms.

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 14! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

GDP. For specific purposes, of course, GDP may be regarded as a somewhat good proxy for theobjective conditions of wellbeing, while happiness may be its subjective side (cf. Vemuri andCostanza, 2006). As a limiting factor we use ecological footprint data (Wackernagel and Rees,
1996).
Now, using this happiness and ecological footprint data, the concept of celestial footprint can be
introduced. The name ’footprint’ refers to the concept of the ecological footprint which isdesigned to quantify human material demand relative to a sustainable basis. The name ’celestial’refers to features of human existence complementary to the ecological footprint - because humanbeings need far more than just material resources to reach a state of wellbeing and a good qualityof life. To highlight the contrast with the earthly emphasis on the ecological footprint it seems
suitable to name this concept ’celestial’, which clearly points to the spiritual and/or non-material
parameters of human existence (cf. Clark and Lelkes, 2009) without any demand for the subject
to be familiar with any specific religious tradition. Of course, the important question of the typeof spirituality needs additional consideration. Moreover, it must be recognized that sources ofcelestial footprint might not be solely spiritual, although spirituality is an important element.
As a theoretical concept, celestial footprint is not directly measurable. But as a good proxy it isworth estimating it as a ratio of perceived subjective wellbeing and calculated ecologicalfootprint (happiness/gHa) over some time period.3 This concept is not sensitive to the size of
population, as by using per capita measures we produce the same ratio mentioned above[(happiness/capita) / (gHa/capita)]. Celestial footprint is therefore a general characteristic of acommunity regardless of population (ceteris paribus, changes in population do not affect celestial
footprint). As the ecological footprint usually measures privately consumable material resources
it naturally depends of the size of the population. As ‘consumption’ of celestial/non-material
resources measured by celestial footprint has a communitarian (non-private, common good)characteristic it is the same size either for one person or a million.
Celestial footprint relates to the non-material content of the happiness of a specific community orof a person. The higher the celestial footprint is, the less the material content of a specifichappiness level. The dynamic face of pursuing a bigger celestial footprint is easy to recognize:
this is the question of “how to be happier with the same ecological load”; or of “how to decrease
our ecological load without being unhappier”. Of course, the numerator and denominator may
change simultaneously. The question of the celestial footprint is crucial in a materially limited
and by now unsustainable world because our celestial resource pool of happiness is by its natureunlimited. But the potential to utilize this resource is not given by nature – it is rather a questionof ability, influenced by culture, attitudes, and values of individuals (cf. Elgin, 1993; Soper,
2008).
While the concept of celestial footprint in itself seems to be clear, it is worth analyzing its
relationship to the economy and to monetary issues too. This leads us to two other important
ratios which may be identified as components (or factors) of celestial footprint in the monetary

3 We may think of this ratio as an environmentally efficient measure of wellbeing. This concept was

introduced by Dietz et al. (2009), though their method is different.

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 15! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

world of economics. We now introduce the Kuznets factor (eco-efficiency)4 and the Easterlin
factor5 into our analysis.
It is worth noticing here that both Kuznets and Easterlin factors are indifferent to changes in sizeof population (as is true for the product, celestial footprint). As increases or decreases in theeconomy should rarely be ends in themselves, it is hard to say that higher or lower Kuznets or
Easterlin factors are good or bad in themselves. For example, sustainability experts usually praise
higher eco-efficiency (higher Kuznets factors) but the origins of these increases are too manifold
to be positively evaluated without additional information. Despite these issues it is true that boththe Kuznets and the Easterlin factors are factors of the celestial footprint whose growth is always
beneficial. The upper part of Table 1 summarizes all the information regarding celestial footprint,
Kuznets factor, and the Easterlin factor.
Table 1The Celestial Footprint, the Kuznets Factor, and the Easterlin Factor; Paths of increasing
Happiness and Trade-offs between paths of Gaining Happiness!

Kuznets factor

X

Easterlin factor=

celestial footprint

Measure$/gHa

XHapp/$=

Happ/gHa

Essence

non-material dollars(eco-efficiency)X

Non-monetizedhappiness=

Non-material
happiness

IPAT

1/T

X

Thapp

=

Thapp

Channel-1–↑↑

Channel-2↑–↑

Channel-3–––

Channel-4

↓

↑

–

↓

–

↓

mat. trade-off

4 As the Environmental Kuznets Curve conception analyses the connection between affluence (A) (usually

measured in dollars of GDP/capita) and specific environmental loads it seems reasonable to call the $/gHa ratio a Kuznets-factor. An increase may indicate greater monetary affluence from the sameenvironmental load or less environmental loading with the same monetary affluence. Of course thenumerator and denominator may change simultaneously, leading to many special cases.
As Ronald Easterlin (1974, 1995) first analyzed the connection between monetary affluence andhappiness in a country over time, it seems reasonable to name the happiness/$ ratio the Easterlin-factor.
It measures the de-monetization of happiness. An increase in the ratio may indicate higher levels ofhappiness from the same level of monetary affluence or less monetary affluence paired with the samelevel of happiness. Of course, the numerator and denominator may change simultaneously leading tomany special cases.
5© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 16! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

non-mat. trade-off

↑

–

↑

monet. trade-off

↑

↓

–

non-mon. trade-off

↓

↑

–

a For the connection with the IPAT formulab Upward pointing arrows indicate an increasing tendency for the measure in question;

downward pointing arrows show the opposite.

!

Paths of Gaining Happiness!

Too aid in understanding basic happiness-gaining scenarios, a simple model was developed (seeFig. 1). There are thousands of ways to increase/maintain happiness but all these seem to havecommonalities as: (1) they either use earthly or celestial resources; and, (2) these resources areeither achieved via markets (price tagged resources) or they are not (i.e. they are free in monetary
terms).6 These possibilities indicate that there are four basic channels for gaining humanhappiness.
Channel-1: Here we directly use non-material (celestial) and non-price-tagged resources whichhave nothing to do with market mechanisms or the economy and which may be regarded as‘storing up treasures in heaven’. Warm family atmospheres, a high level of social capital (Leunget al., 2011), the enjoyment of natural beauty or silence, or having the benefits of a clear worldview may all have this characteristic, as does receiving an English lesson in kind, too. This way
of gaining happiness corresponds to the later-described strategy of voluntary simplicity andincreases celestial footprint through increasing the Easterlin factor (see the middle section of
Table 1).

6 Causality is a constant issue for happiness studies. As our model is a resource-based one we supposethat resource use is the cause, and happiness is the effect.

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 17! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

#

!
!

Fig. 1 Channels of Gaining Happiness (Note: Increasing celestial footprint and decreasing
ecological footprint is always beneficial in our materially limited world.)

Channel-2: This channel uses the same non-material resource pool as Channel-1 while resources
are used via market mechanisms. In modern societies, every marketed and monetized value added
to material resources falls into this category. Eco-efficiency (or the Kuznets factor) as a nonmaterial source of GDP reflects this phenomenon. Economic development – without material
growth – also falls into this category. The monetary values of licenses, marketed logos or cultural
relics all are examples of this category, as well as the whole strategy described earlier based on
more intensive use of services and greater division of labor (the flow economy). This way ofgaining happiness increases the celestial footprint through an improved Kuznets factor (see themiddle section of Table 1).
Channel-3:”repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” (Mt 22,21)/. This channel corresponds toour main understanding of economy. Here we use material resources via market mechanisms for© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 18! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

buying all types of material resources, foods, clothes, etc. Critics of economic growth – familiar
with the stock economy – assume that: (1) this way of pursuing happiness is the most typical andyet is unsustainable in a materially limited world, and that; (2) dollars of GDP (or any othercategory of indicators of economic performance) correlate to the ecological load of humanity.7
While this connection clearly exists, it would be misleading to forget about the other threechannels of pursuing happiness. This method of gaining happiness does not increase celestial
footprint at all, as we get happier through increasing the ecological footprint here (see the middle
section of Table 1).
Channel-4:”Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns,
yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Mt 6,26). This channel indicates our direct use of material
resources which are not mediated via market mechanisms - these resources are free in monetary
terms. Breathing fresh air and drinking free clean water are all examples of this. What is more, ina system of reciprocity (see Polanyi, 1944), material resources are usually exploited via thereciprocal help of a wider family net without any money transfers. While this mode of activity
may have less weight in a modern market system, it can still be significant (housework, etc.). The
importance of this way of gaining happiness may differ considerably between countries/
communities. This method of gaining happiness does not increase celestial footprint at all, as we
get happier by increasing the ecological footprint, but it restructures the relation between the
Easterlin and the Kuznets factors (see the middle section of Table 1). What the Easterlin factor
gains, the Kuznets factor loses, nullifying all effects on celestial footprint. (This way of gaining
happiness – along with Channel 1 – corresponds to the later described strategy of voluntary
simplicity.)
Of course, these channels may be the ‘sources’ of different kinds of ’bads’ as well, which act tolessen our happiness (leaking happiness). Identifying these is easy, as we only need to reverse all
the above-discussed developments (cf. Fig. 1). Analyzing these bads opens a new way of
discussing negative externalities too, which may be the subject of another paper. In sum, thesechannels may be combined in almost endless variations, offering myriads of attractive or
avoidable development paths for any country/community.
(Non)material and (non)monetary trade-offs!

Using our 4-channel happiness model it is possible to identify two basic trade-offs; namely, the(non)material trade-off and the (non)monetary trade-off.
Clean cases of material trade-offs occur if reducing Channel-1 will be compensated by increased
use of Channel-4; or if reducing Channel-2 will be compensated by increased use of Channel-3(Fig. 1). In these cases the ecological footprint and material content of happiness increase while
the level of happiness is unchanged. Celestial footprint decreases here through a mitigatedKuznets factor (eco-efficiency worsens; see the bottom section of Table 1). The reverse of thisdevelopment is the non-material trade-off. As this latter reduces ecological footprint without any
For example, the sustainable ‘de-growth’ movement is strongly based on this assumption (see e.g.
Martínez-Alier et al., 2010).
7© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 19! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

happiness loss through better eco-efficiency and a bigger celestial footprint, it is always a blissful
scenario.
Clean cases of monetary trade-offs occur if reducing Channel-1 will be compensated for byincreased use of Channel-2; or if reducing Channel-4 will be compensated for by increased use of
Channel-3 (Fig. 1). In these cases dollars of GDP and the monetary content of happiness increase
while the level of happiness is unchanged. Celestial footprint is untouched while Kuznets factor
is increased (eco-efficiency is improved) and the Easterlin factor decreases (see bottom section of
Table 1). This is the classic version of Easterlin-paradox. The reverse of this development is thenon-monetary trade-off. As this reduces dollars of GDP (indicates a shrinking economy) without
any loss of happiness through an improved Easterlin factor, it does not seem to be a sociallyharmful scenario, while its impact on the environment, in its clean form, is completely
indifferent.
Naturally, these types of monetary or non-monetary trade-offs still raise the important question ofwhich absolute level of economy (or with which economic considerations) a society should live,or what level of connectedness between economy and society should be regarded as sound anddesirable. The strategy of a flow economy says that more dollars of GDP and greater division oflabor in a society is advantageous, while proponents of voluntary simplicity would argue theopposite (see later). These two basic, alternative economic strategies demonstrate the diversity of
viable sustainability paths, while their commonality relates to the human oneness declared in the
Fuji declaration: we need happiness and well-being in a sustainable form.
IPAT and the logic of Celestial Footprint
At the macro level one of the best possible analytical tools for analyzing environmental load is
the IPAT formula developed by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971, 1972) and Commoner (1972) - formore details on this topic see McNicoll (2002).

Ienvironment = P · A · Tenvironment
Here, mankind’s load on the environment (I − Impact) is viewed as three factors acting together:
population (P), affluence (A), and technology (T). Accurate measurement of these factors is
crucial. P will be dealt in its natural dimension (capita). A will be measured by GDP/capita(where GDP is measured in US$, using purchasing power parity). One of the mostcomprehensive measurements of I uses the ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996)
which is measured in global hectares. Thus for T, the most obscure factor in IPAT, we get gHa/$,
which is a measure of material intensity. So our equation, written in units of measurement, looks
like this:gHa = (capita) · ($/capita) · (gHa/$)
But it is worth developing a second, hedonic IPAT formula too. Here, our main question is “whatis the use and aim of economic activity?” To answer this we rely on the subjective wellbeing(SWB) conception using data from the most comprehensive worldwide database (Veenhoven,2006). This is usually measured using an eleven (0−10) grade scale – or is transformed to thisscale – wherein the highest value refers to the highest subjective wellbeing or happiness. To© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 20! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

collect this data, the surveyor should phrase a question similar to this: “Taking all things together,would you say you are very happy/quite happy/not very happy/not at all happy” (this question istaken from World Values Surveys, organized by Inglehart).
This measurement helps us to view not just the material resource-based side of economic activity
but its positive side too. Now we are able to reformulate the classical IPAT formula with amodified focus:

Ihappiness = P · A · Thappiness
It is clear that economic activity (P · A) − as a starting point − contributes not just toenvironmental load but to human subjective wellbeing as well, because increasing humanwellbeing is usually the main motive for transforming and exploiting our natural environment
through economic activity. Of course, subjective wellbeing does not exactly originate from
economic activity: lots of other subjective factors are involved and combined together(psychological, cultural, and behavioral; see Diener et al., 2003; cf. Fig. 1); these can be summed
up in the factor Thappiness. This factor opens up a way to extend the IPAT analysis throughinvolving important human characteristics (cf. IPBAT: Diesendorf, 2002; IPANT: Daniels, 2010;etc.) without sacrificing the mathematical rigor of the original IPAT formula. Using units ofmeasurement our equation can now be written as:
aggregate happiness = (capita) · ($/capita) · (aggregate happiness/$)
The Tenvironment and Thappiness concepts were combined to make the concept of celestial
footprint.
Voluntary Simplicity: a radical, non-market strategy for increasing Celestial Footprint
The concept of voluntary simplicity, as well as the movement associated with, it is considered to
be an institutionalized form of resistance to consumer society. The essence of voluntary
simplicity is a way of life which is outwardly simple but inwardly (spiritually) rich. It has its
roots in the legendary frugality and self-reliance of the Puritans, Thoreau’s naturalistic vision at
Walden Pond, Emerson’s practical and spiritual espousal of simple living and high thinking aswell as the teachings and social philosophy of spiritual leaders—with different levels of authority—such as Jesus and Gandhi. According to the advocates of voluntary simplicity, the current
social and environmental crisis is placing special emphasis on these ideas, urging people to live asocially and environmentally responsible way of life.
It is easier to understand the current implications of voluntary simplicity if we compare its value
set to that the material worldview. In this way we can highlight what the theoreticians andconscious followers of the voluntary simplicity movement do not accept about the prevalentsocial-economic system (Elgin, 1993) and how they define themselves in opposition to it.
Voluntary simplifiers strongly criticize consumer society, which is based on materialism. The
material nature of consumer society is proved by the fact that its goal is material progress andone’s identity is defined by the material goods possessed one possesses, as well as the social
position one can achieve based on these goods. According to this view, man is nothing more than

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 21! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

a group of molecules which exists alone and separately, other human beings are considered to berivals, while the living or inorganic environment is regarded as a resource to be exploited.
Voluntary simplifiers do not deny the importance of material goods but—as opposed tomaterialists—they also emphasize the importance of spiritual concerns. They think the goal oflife is to co-evolve both in a material and spiritual way. A person is an inseparable part of theuniverse around him/her: this view results in co-operation with other human beings and otherliving beings, as well as showing respect for them. The mass media have an especially importantrole in the forming of values. Voluntary simplifiers think they are dominated by commercial
interests which promote material values, although they should emphasize a balanced diet ofvalues and the importance of taking an ecological approach to living. Voluntary simplifiers stressthe role of personal responsibility in relation to global problems (the importance of the aggregate
effect of a lot of minor actions) and reject the idea of shifting responsibility to the free market orgovernment bureaucracies (that is, they oppose extreme libertarian capitalism and communism).
There are five values which lie at the heart of voluntary simplicity: material simplicity, humanscale, self-determination, ecological awareness and personal growth (Elgin–Mitchell, 1977, 5–8.).
The extent of one’s material simplicity can be examined by answering the following questions(after The American Friends Committee): (1) Does what I own or buy promote activity, selfreliance and involvement or does it induce passivity and dependence? (2) Are my consumption
patterns basically satisfying or do I buy a lot of things which serve no real needs? (3) How muchis my present job and life style influenced by installment payments, maintenance and repair costs
and the expectations of others? (4) Do I consider the impact of my consumption patterns onothers and on the Earth?
Answering these questions can help one to establish a life of creative simplicity and to free
oneself from excessive attachment to material goods, aids with national sharing of wealth withthose who cannot fulfil their basic needs (the poor), helps individuals to become less dependenton large and complex public or private institutions and restores the balance between the material
and non-material components of life.
Adherents of voluntary simplicity regard human-scale living and working conditions as importantbecause they think that operating on a massive scale results in anonymity, incomprehensibility
and artificiality. As stated by Ernst F. Schumacher in his book entitled Small is Beautiful (1980),
living and working environments as well as supportive institutions should be decentralized asmuch as possible in order to create more comprehensible and manageable entities. Each person
should be aware of what he or she is contributing to the whole and how much his or her
responsibility (as well as share of the reward) should be.
The notion of self-determination in voluntary simplicity refers to a form of consumption which
results in greater control over one’s desires and suggests that one should be free one from paying
installments, maintenance costs and the expectations of others. The key principles of this process
are “grow your own”, “make your own” and “do without”, all of which help to reduce (bothpsychological and physical) dependency on consumption. The principles also act against the© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 22! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

excessive division of labor.8 The aim of human labor will be again be to produce the whole of a
product, not only a small part of it, in this way making the sense of contribution more evident.
Self-determination also includes aversion to the unnecessary intrusion of distant bureaucracies
and a wish for greater local self-determination and grass roots political action.9
Ecological awareness is the recognition of the mutual connections and interdependence of people
and natural resources. It acknowledges that the resources of the Earth are limited, which should
encourage us to conserve physical resources and reduce environmental pollution, as well as tomaintain the beauty and integrity of the natural environment. Ecological awareness often extends
beyond the issue of scarce resources and includes social responsibility: it makes us aware of those
who are less fortunate than us. The philosophy—espoused by Gandhi—means that one should
avoid wanting what the least fortunate inhabitant of the Earth cannot afford. In this way thephilosophy of voluntary simplicity extends beyond the boundaries of a nation, making it lessisolated and self-centered than it otherwise could be.
For a lot of people, taking up a materially simple way of life means personal growth; it can help
one with clearing up external chaos and exploring one’s ‘inner life’. The above-mentioned basic
values of voluntary simplicity encourage one to grow both psychologically and spiritually. If all
you do is maintain yourself physically and forget about personal growth, then life becomes
merely about “not dying”. Numerous advocates of voluntary simplicity think that American
society (in the 1970s) became occupied with sustenance and forgot about the non-material
aspects of life (cf. Scitovsky, 1976). Though personal growth often includes a spiritualcomponent, it should not be associated with any particular philosophy or religion—it canembrace views ranging from humanistic psychology, transpersonal psychology, Eastern
meditative traditions and feminism, as well as fundamental Christianity. This tolerant approachclearly points to support for human diversity and to “the divine spark in the heart and mind of
every human being” that is highlighted in the Fuji Declaration.
Conclusions: Sustainability and interdependencies
The Stockholm Resilience Centre examined ten dimensions with regard to the limits of the Earth.
These dimensions are climate change, biodiversity, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, ocean
acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, freshwater use, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading
and chemical pollution. By examining these dimensions it becomes obvious that if we transcend
what constitutes "the Earth's boundaries" in any one of these dimensions, it will have an effect onseveral other dimensions. Many researchers emphasize the importance of systems theory and thenecessity of holistic thinking, but we rarely find scientific findings that are multi-disciplinary intheir approach and aimed at exploring interdependencies. With regard to sustainable
development, the problem is further complicated by the dimension of time. In the case of
economic research and forecasting, a 20-30-year time horizon is already considered to be ‘long-

8 This strategy is clearly different from that of the flow economy which was described earlier. By following theprinciples of voluntary simplicity, GDP would be reduced, but humans may nonetheless be fulfilled, and naturepreserved.
9 This effort, termed subsidiarity, has been part of the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church since the 1930s.

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 23! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

term’, whereas in the case of sustainability research, even a few centuries count as an unduly
short period of time.

!

Modelling is being used more and more extensively in order to predict economic and social
processes. One often finds forecasts that contain different scenarios. Models are suitable for
implementing sensitivity tests as well. It is interesting that predictions that have been based onmodels frequently contain outcomes that could not occur, in reality. For instance, fossil fuels may
run out, in theory; in practice, however, this cannot occur because we would "cook" the Earthbefore we got to that point. In other words, significant portions of the Earth’s continents would
become unsuitable for human life before the potentially-available fossil fuel was consumed – itwould not be possible for 9 billion or even more people to live on the Earth. If there were fewer
than nine billion people, the demand for energy would be less – and this train of thought can becontinued in a similar way. One can make predictions about the development of air travel ortourism but data-based estimates are unrealistic as it is impossible that as many passenger air
kilometers will be travelled or guests accommodated as is shown by such predictions. Thus the
problem is that investigations and models are narrowed down to examining independentproblems and the fact that the phenomena under investigation mutually affect each other, andthere is a connection between almost everything, is generally left unexamined. Politicians andeconomic experts are concerned to a great extent with ageing and collapses of the welfare systembut if we take into account tendencies in the migration of the world’s population, it becomes clearthat Europe will not get older but will rather become more multicultural due to its young, nonChristian immigrants; what may become an issue is whether we will be able to create an
institutional system that is able to maintain the level of social solidarity that we are used to in
Europe. The issue is not so much the ageing of the population, but rather the question whether
immigrant youth from Africa, China and India will be willing to work in Europe in order toprovide for an older generation which did not have ‘enough’ offspring to support itself.

!

This group of problems that stems from cultural diversity is probably unresolvable without theparadigm change defined by the ‘Civilization of Oneness’ principle of the Fuji Declaration.

!

At the same time, it is obvious that an equally radical paradigm change is necessary in the area ofthe economy. On the one hand, for those who are radically opposed to the current market-based
civilization, the voluntary simplicity movement seems viable. On the other hand –complementing, rather than contrasting with this trend – more market- and GDP-friendly
economic scenarios can be delineated for less radical citizens. According to these, what should bemade the focus of the economy is employment rather than profit; the fulfillment of needs rather
than ownership; and the creation of durable and safe products and services rather than products
and services that are subject to planned obsolescence. These changes will help to maintain andincrease human wellbeing and quality of life, while at the same time preserving our finite naturalenvironment for future generations, fulfilling, as it were, the principles laid down in the Fuji
Declarations and completing the necessary economic paradigm change.

!

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 24! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

References
Clark, A., E., Lelkes, O., 2009. Let us pray: Religious interactions in life satisfaction, Paris
School of Economics, Working Paper 2009/01.
Commoner, B., 1972. The Environmental Cost of Economic Growth, in. Population, Resources
and the Environment, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 339−363.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1997. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
Basic Books. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=HBodfUzmBcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=csikszentmihalyi+m&ots=V_4s0LxQVD&sig=Ek4y8TomuxIy4dskZV6fhL4peI
Csutora, M., 2012. One more awareness gap? The behaviour–impact gap problem. Journal ofConsumer Policy, 35(1), 145–163.
Daniels, P. L., 2010. Climate change, economics and Buddhism – Part 2: New views andpractices for sustainable world economies, Ecological Economics 69, 962–972.
Daly, H. E., 1977. Steady-state economics. San Francisco. Retrieved from http://
www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=DfLEt7HvbtYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA250&dq=daly+stady+state+economy&ots=Nhx2KLOeha&sig=q84x57_NBps26ihlvW1NN8qq7fc
Diener, E., 1984. Subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin 93, 542−575.
Diener, E., 2002. Well-being (Subjective), Psychology of, in. International Encyclopedia of theSocial & Behavioral Sciences, 16451−16454.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R. E., 2003. Personality, Culture and Subjective Well-Being:
Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life, Annual Review of Psychology 54, 403−425.
Diesendorf, M., 2002. I = PAT or I = PBAT?, Ecological Economics 42, 3.
Dietz, T., Rosa, E., A., York, R., 2009. Environmentally Efficient Well-Being − Rethinking
Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-being and Environmental Impacts,
Human Ecology Review 16 (1), 114−123.
Easterlin, R. A., 1974. Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence.
Nations and Households in Economic Growth, 89, 89–125.
Easterlin, R., A., 1995. Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization 27, 35–47.
Ehrlich, P., Holdren, J., 1971. The impact of population growth, Science 171, 1212−1217.
Ehrlich, P., Holdren, J., 1972. One-dimensional ecology, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 28,
16−27.
Elgin, D., 1993. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly
Rich, Revised Edition, Morrow, New York (first edition: 1981)
Elgin, D. – Mitchell, A., 1977. “Voluntary Simplicity (3),” The CoEvolution Quarterly, Summer,
4–19.

© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 25! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B., 1994. Economic growth and the environment. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w4634
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H., 2013. Natural capitalism: The next industrial
r e v o l u t i o n . R o u t l e d g e . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. g o o g l e . c o m / b o o k s ?
hl=hu&lr=&id=MXTdAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=(Hawken,+Lovins,+%26+Lovins,+1999)+natural+capitalism&ots=GJyRSTuMlr&sig=sxJS-aZPbWpqd1XEiJIbJ2XvZ8Q
Hicks, J. R., 1946. Value and capital (Vol. 2). Clarendon Press Oxford. Retrieved from https://
webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/368/368hicksVCutility2.htm
Kocsis, T., 2002. Roots. Pleasure and Wealth in a Globalizing Consumer Society. PhDDissertation; http://phd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/737/1/Kocsis_Tamas_den.pdf
Kocsis, T., 2012. Looking through the dataquadrate: characterizing the human–environment
relationship through economic, hedonic, ecological and demographic issues, Journal of Cleaner
Production 35, 1–15.
Kuznets, S., 1971. Nobel Prize Lecture: Modern economic growth: Findings and Reflections.
Leung, A., Kier, Ch., Fung, T., Fung, L., Sproule, R., 2011. Searching for Happiness: The
Importance of Social Capital, Journal of Happiness Studies 12, 443–462.
MacKay, D., 2008. Sustainable Energy-without the hot air. UIT Cambridge. Retrieved fromhttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/217849
Marshall, A., 2004. Principles of economics. Digireads. com Publishing. Retrieved from http://
www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=99HDrfwm_ZoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=principle+of+economics++marshall&ots=Fe_lmz_fLC&sig=7WwxjNTPl9PvRkTACKqey1MQ8DI
Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F-D., Zaccai, E., 2010. Sustainable de-growth: Mapping
the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm, Ecological Economics 69,
1741–1747.
McNicoll, G., 2002. IPAT (Impact, Population, Affluence, and Technology), in. International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 7903−7906.
Meadows, D. H., 1972. Dennis l. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III.: THE
LIMITS TO GROWTH. A Report to the Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York.
Mont, O., 2000. Product-Service Systems, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Stockholm: Sweden.
Polanyi, K., 1944/2001. The Great Transformation. 2nd Edition, Beacon Press.
Schumacher, E. F., 1980. Small is Beautiful, London: Century Hutchinson Publishing Group.
Scitovsky, T., 1976. The Joyless Economy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Simon, J. L., 1998. The Economics of Population. Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from http://
www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=VEu9EwQ9vTcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Julian+Simon&ots=kc90viA9tR&sig=nCgRuxWMrUrmKjBrmErN8bGkNlw© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 26! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org

Soper, K., 2008. Alternative Hedonism, Cultural Theory and the Role of Aesthetic Revisioning,
Cultural Studies 22 (5), 567–587.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J., 2008. Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing theEasterlin paradox. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/
papers/w14282
Veenhoven, R., 2006. World Database of Happiness, continuous register of scientific research on
subjective enjoyment of life, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, http://
worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl (accessed on 02.12.2014)
Vemuri, A., W., Costanza, R., 2006. The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in
explaining life satisfaction at the country level, Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI),
Ecological Economics 58, 119−133.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W. E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint, New Society Publishers.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability andtransformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
Walker, R. , 2014. Population, Climate Change, and the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/populationclimate-change_b_5863938.html© 2015 The Fuji Declaration! !

!

Page 27! !

!

www.fujideclaration.org