Rethinking Sustainability: Can a Life-Centered Worldview Lead the Way?
It’s about time the global movements for a healthy and resilient planet forge a powerful narrative that integrates human and non-human stakeholders, provides a global vision of the problem, and unveils the path ahead.
The labyrinth of language in the fight against climate change and socio-ecological collapse is a challenge that cannot be understated. Sustainable or ecological? Green or regenerative? Developed or developing? The array of words is overwhelming, leaving many wondering what we are talking about when we talk about a much-needed transition.
Why so many terms?
As we see it, there is a lack of a common vision among development practitioners, activists, and theorists as to the problems underlying our current socioeconomic systems and what a better future could look like. This lack of consensus leads to confusion, ambiguity, and frustration, ultimately hindering progress.
Moreover, the profusion of language surrounding climate change and the lack of rigor in its use not only confuses experts but the public in general too. This confusion is undermining our collective efforts to bring about the radical change this planet desperately needs.
Nested, as an organization and community geared toward “sustainable development”, needs a solid theoretical and practical grounding that avoids any such ambiguity and ensures our impact meets our Theory of Change and goals.
In this article, we explore an alternative — one that places life at the center of our efforts: the Life-Centered Worldview.
Not a matter of wording — The importance of storytelling
When our concepts lack a firm foundation, they become akin to loose Lego bricks, their potential diminished by their lack of meaning. That is why wording matters. Language allows us to present age-old problems in a new and compelling way, rallying people around a cause where other narratives have failed.
Take the case of “sustainability” and “regeneration”. While the difference in phrasing might appear slight, their implications differ immensely. Sustainability emerged in the 1970s as a compromise between economic growth and environmental preservation. In contrast, regeneration aims not only to sustain but also to restore the damage inflicted. The subtle differences result in vastly divergent courses of action.
Moreover, the success of movements like Me Too and Black Lives Matter in part stems from their ability to bring neglected realities to the forefront, igniting a global chain of solidarity and spotlighting the experiences of women and black people.
The “sustainable/regenerative development” movement also needs a strong narrative that unites, excites, and empowers diverse and even contradictory struggles within the field, from sustainable development to regeneration, from the circular economy to women’s peasant struggles in the Global South.
We wish to take a bold step forward and propose an idea:
It is possible to achieve dramatic progress and change if we learn how to truly place Life, both human and non-human, at the center of every impactful decision we make — and do so!
This is by no means a new idea. It is in fact what many indigenous communities have been doing for centuries. We think, however, that such a simple yet profound principle — putting Life at the center — has never been enacted to its full potential within our existing transition theories.
While the conviction that something “is” doesn’t always have to be backed up in empirical knowledge, we wanted to ground our statement in theory. To do so, we conducted a non-exhaustive yet representative literature review to understand how “life-centered” was being used.
It soon became clear that the concept is being used in a variety of fields, from design to agroecology, but that there is no agreed-upon definition for what “putting life at the center” actually entails.
In response to (even more) lexical ambiguity, we aim to present a set of initial guiding principles and a definition for the term that we think encompasses every effort to put life at the center, the “Life-Centered Worldview” or LCW.
At its core, a life-centered worldview entails the profound understanding that all life is interconnected and that every caring or harmful action done towards any form of life is ultimately done to oneself. Consequently, a life-centered agent is someone who considers the impact of their actions on all living beings and strives to enhance the quality of life for all through their actions.
To build on the existing literature, we have developed and synthesized a set of core principles that underlie the LCW:
- Non-hierarchical web of life. Rejecting the notion of human superiority over other species or things, a life-centered worldview acknowledges the interconnectivity and interdependence of all life.
- Non-materialistic worldview. Emphasizing the importance of intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and social well-being alongside material affluence, a life-centered worldview prioritizes quality of life over quantity of life.
- Interdependency. Recognizing that human beings exist within a chain of dependencies and symbiotic relationships, a life-centered worldview emphasizes our dependence on and responsibility towards other forms of life.
- Use-value over change-value. Money and capital are seen as important only insofar as they contribute to our general well-being, rather than as ends in themselves.
- Inspired by nature. Nature’s patterns and principles serve as a model for our technologies and institutions, rejecting a mechanistic approach in favor of one that mimics the regenerative processes of nature.
- Cyclical logic over linear logic. Rejecting a linear and wasteful approach, a life-centered worldview adopts a cyclical mindset that seeks to eliminate waste and ensure the long-term sustainability of our actions.
So, where do we go from here?
Our definition and guiding principles have significant shortcomings that we cannot overlook. Firstly, the exploratory research on which it was based was developed with the human work, capital, and time available at Nested. We do not have the capacity to cover more approaches or utilize research methodologies other than a (partial) literature review at this point.
Secondly, we are aware that some practices/theories don’t use the term “life-centered” but put life at the center in the way that we have described above. A broader analysis of these related theories and movements will help us enrich our understanding of the life-centered worldview.
The life-centered worldview could provide the much-needed common ground for the climate change and development field. By placing life at the center of all human endeavors, we can create a truly more sustainable and equitable world. Our research has identified some guiding principles for a life-centered worldview, but we acknowledge that there is still much to learn and explore.
This article was written by Ignacio Ahijado and copyedited by Pablo Ahijado.
We invite you to join us in this journey of defining our philosophy as a “life-centered” community and organization. We welcome constructive criticism, collaboration, and engagement from all those who are inspired or challenged by our vision, or who are on a similar path to us. If this is you, come share your journey with us and collaborate toward a brighter future for all:
info@nested-solutions.com
*Researcher’s note: 53 bibliographic references were analyzed during this research. If you wish to review them, please send us a request.
