Many scientists don’t acknowledge the extent to which their disciplinary paradigms are influenced by the cultural frames of the colonial era. The so-called mental health crisis is a symptom of a terminally diseased institutional landscape. Neurodiversity and disability activists have been collaborating on coherent theories of human ways of being. Collaborative niche construction is the evolutionary process of reducing cognitive dissonance.
Completely normal ways of feeling unwell and distressed
The many ways in which atomised nuclear families depend on abstract institutions is considered normal, and all those who depend on assistance from others in unusual ways are pathologised.
The following interview with Eva Henje conducted by our friends at Local Futures outlines the alienating and dehumanising social experiences created by the global mono-cult that defines the institutional landscape that surrounds us:
Social power can be understood as the privilege of not needing to learn.
As we live through the current human predicament we are well advised to understand capitalism as a collective learning disability that actively contributes to human and non-human suffering. Michael Guilding offers a coherent and comprehensive explanation of how modern society and all earlier powered-up empires are based on the systematic hijacking of the evolved human fear response.
Michael Guilding’s explanation also reminds me of what a capitalist/investor once explained to me as “normal” or “human nature”, i.e. that people are driven exclusively by two forces: fear and greed. I suspect that this sad attitude is quite common amongst those who have navigated themselves into positions of social power within the mono-cult.
Traumatised populations driven by fear and greed are the culmination of the industrial factory model of society. This is a world of programmable “human biological machines” – the ultimate negation of the wonder of life.
Internalised ableism in the science of biology
The normalisation of internalised ableism runs deep.
Even well known biologists perpetuate the unhelpful industrialised metaphor of “human biological machines”, confusing first-order effects (the innate human inclination towards mutual aid and collaborative niche construction) with second-order effects (culturally transmitted “normalisation” of social power gradients), which are only present in dehumanising societies that are deeply troubled and sick.
In species with complex cultures, including whales, elephants, and humans, the naive distinction between two evolutionary survival strategies summarised below highlights the limitations of the paradigm used by some biologists and ecologists:
r-selection: On one extreme are the species that are highly r-selected. r is for reproduction. Such a species puts only a small investment of resources into each offspring, but produces many such low effort babies. Such species are also generally not very invested in protecting or rearing these young. Often, the eggs are fertilized and then dispersed. The benefit of this strategy is that if resources are limited or unpredictable, you can still produce some young. However, each of these young has a high probability of mortality, and does not benefit from the protection or nurturing of a caring parent or parents. r-selected babies grow rapidly, and tend to be found in less competitive, low quality environments. Although not always the case, r-selection is more common among smaller animals with shorter lifespans and, frequently, non-overlapping generations, such as fish or insects. The young tend to be precocial (rapidly maturing) and develop early independence.
K-selection: On the other extreme are species that are highly K-selected. K refers to the carrying capacity, and means that the babies are entering a competitive world, in a population at or near its carrying capacity. K-selected reproductive strategies tend towards heavy investment in each offspring, are more common in long-lived organisms, with a longer period of maturation to adulthood, heavy parental care and nurturing, often a period of teaching the young, and with fierce protection of the babies by the parents. K-selected species produce offspring that each have a higher probability of survival to maturity. Although not always the case, K-selection is more common in larger animals, like whales or elephants, with longer lifespans and overlapping generations. The young tend to be altricial (immature, requiring extensive care).
It is fascinating that the above definition refers to whales and elephants as examples of ‘K-selection’ without mentioning that these two species, not unlike humans, have an advanced capacity for culture, including the capacity for transmitting cultural norms across generations. The assertion that in such species “babies are entering a competitive world” is a projection of Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic (WEIRD) cultural bias onto other species. To date no one has been able to ask whales or elephants about whether they experience the world as competitive or collaborative, and even much less so to receive an answer to this question!
Only culturally well adjusted people in hierarchically structured empires understand the entire living world as inherently and primarily competitive.
Around the margins of empires, we find no shortage of examples of egalitarian collaborative cultural environments, even though in our current time, the majority of humans do find themselves trapped in a social landscape of powered-up institutions.
Many scientists don’t acknowledge the extent to which their disciplinary paradigms are influenced by the cultural frames of the colonial era. The so-called mental health crisis is a symptom of a terminally diseased institutional landscape. Vandana Shiva correctly identifies capitalist patriarchy as the cultural disease that is framing the entire living world as inherently and primarily competitive.
Reframing life in terms of collaborative niche construction
In order to appreciate the significant role that culture can play as part of evolutionary processes of gene-culture co-evolution, and to arrive at a deeper understanding of evolutionary processes, we must replace the misguided notion of K-selection.
At the very least, a less culturally biased and more nuanced understanding needs to distinguish between:
c-selection: On the one extreme are species with a capacity for culture that are highly c-selected. c is for compliance. Such a species puts only a small if any investment of resources into the development of new cultural knowledge and wisdom, and instead prioritises the production of adults that are well adjusted to the established culture. Such species are generally not very invested in protecting or rearing babies that do not seem to fit into the established cultural milieu. Often, the young are indoctrinated and expected to fend for themselves within a framework of abstract cultural institutions. The benefit of this strategy is that the emotional load of caregivers is significantly reduced, and everyone is encouraged to still produce some young, even if ecological conditions are deteriorating. However, each of these young has a high probability of mental unwellness and mortality, and does not benefit from the protection or nurturing of a caring parent or parents. Offspring in c-selected cultural species grow into replaceable, culturally well adjusted members of society, and tend to be found in ecologically degraded environments. Although not always the case, c-selection is more common in large scale societies, such as modern industrialised societies. The young are expected to become fully independent individual members of society.
C-selection: On the other extreme are species with a capacity for culture that are highly C-selected. C refers to Culturally adaptive, and means that the babies are entering a culturally diverse world, in a population at or near its local carrying capacity. C-selected reproductive strategies tend towards heavy investment in very few offspring, and tend welcome the discovery of new cultural knowledge and wisdom. Such species are generally invested in protecting or rearing all babies, even those that do not seem to fit into the established cultural milieu. C-selected cultural species encourage offspring to learn from the established cultural milieu, but even more so, from the ecological environment, and as a result have a higher probability of survival to maturity in times of rapid ecological changes. Although not always the case, C-selection is more common in small scale societies, like whales or human hunter gatherers. The curiosity of the young is nurtured in a diverse relational ecology of care, and the young are encouraged to engage in collaborative niche construction.
A framing of evolutionary processes that includes r-selection, c-selection, as well as C-selection strategies offers a more coherent explanation for the observed diversity within and between cultural species. The proposed ‘rcC-selection paradigm’ for evolutionary processes also encourages biological scientists to acknowledge that a purely biological and genetic categorisation of species demotes all the social sciences and all so-called non-scientific ways of relating to the world to being less “significant” for understanding the living world.
The naive ‘rK-selection paradigm’ obscures a [hypernormative] cultural bias against biological diversity, and especially against human cultural diversity. In the talk referenced above, Vandana Shiva reaches the same conclusion. She points out that the life denying ideology of capitalist patriarchy can be traced back to Francis Bacon, the father of Western science, to the British men who formed the East India Company, and to Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, and that this shaped the cultural milieu in which Charles Darwin grew up.
In species with a capacity for complex culture, ecologically stable environments with abundant sources of food can incrementally tip the balance towards c-selection over the course of multiple generations. But this strategy only works as long as the environment remains stable. c-selection can fail rapidly and abruptly if the environment becomes less predictable. Conversely, highly dynamic and unpredictable environments are favourable to C-selection strategies.
The human capacity for language and cultural transmission over many generations, together with what we know from archaeological and anthropological research, as well as from more recent written historic accounts, tells us that human societies exist on a spectrum of C-selection and c-selection strategies.
C-selection strategies, i.e. adaptive cultures, have allowed humans to survive through ice ages, and may be the key factor that has assisted humans in displacing other primates in most bioregional ecosystems. Conversely, the ability to adopt c-selection strategies, i.e. hypernormative cultures, have enabled humans to build empires and large scale societies in which human cognitive capacity is diverted away from communal survival, and towards exploitation of abundant resources and social competition.
The rich diversity of small scale cultures, including the visual symbolic representations and cultural values that survived and thrived in the Australian continent for 65,000 years, points us towards the collective creative human potential and towards the deep ecological understanding that has been systematically obliterated and suppressed by capitalist patriarchy.
The big cycle of life
In a dynamic ecological context, enduring relationships of mutual trust are not only more stable than abstract indicators of social status, they also constitute the ingredients of a life affirming ecology of care that is integrated into the regenerative cyclical flow of life.
Mutual trust is the priceless currency of living systems.
The sacred cycle of life includes the joy of birth, the art of living well, and the process of dying and nurturing the living planet in good company.
In contrast to the global mono-cult of capitalist patriarchy, this timeless wisdom is well understood within the Hindu, Buddhist, and Daoist philosophical and spiritual traditions. Hindu cosmology for example conceptualises the entire cosmos and all of human history terms of cyclic ages, i.e. in terms of four ‘Yuga Cycles’, which is in stark contrast to the anthropocentric WEIRD conception of human history as a linear arc of progress, perhaps punctuated by a few setbacks along the way, to accentuate the framing of life as a competitive struggle.
The framing of life in terms of collaborative niche construction is much more compatible with Eastern traditions,
with Joseph Tainter’s pioneering analysis of patterns of civilisational collapse, and with indigenous cultures, which all understand the planet as a regenerative system of relationships between living entities.
All cultural species that maintain dominance hierarchies and abstract forms of social status are diverting energy from the regenerative cyclical flow of life towards head-to-head in-group competition and the suppression of diversity.
The dying process of terminally diseased institutions is only a perceived disaster from the viewpoint of elites who are addicted to social power, and from the viewpoint of the abstract institutions that represent these elites.
Omni-directional sensing and learning
“Collapse” of spurious cultural complexity is a liberating experience for most.
Over the course of the last 25 years, as part of a concerted effort of exposing the internalised ableism that is keeping entire societies locked into suicidal paradigmatic inertia, neurodiversity and disability activists have been collaborating on coherent theories of human ways of being. Cultures in which it is a taboo to draw attention to culturally prescribed cognitive dissonance are life denying cultures. Deeply troubled cultures.
Most people in Westernised cultures are not driven by greed, but the toxic cultural environment ensures that the vast majority is driven by fear. Those who find the courage to acknowledge their fears are tortured by cognitive dissonance.
Lived experiences from our participatory research:
What is the biggest source of cognitive dissonance in your life?
I feel like I don’t deserve to be treated in the way in which I’d treat other people. I often help strangers but would feel distressed if one offered to help me (and would politely turn down the offer of help, most likely). I would be unable to fire someone due to economic reasons, but if I was fired for those same reasons, I’d accept it and would feel sad and scared, but that it’s okay for me to be treated that way. Even when I do help people, I worry that I do it for the “wrong” reasons, so I didn’t know how to answer some questions. For example, I give money to homeless people and chat with them. I “feel really good” about this because I know that the money means they might be able to afford something they need, and that being spoken to is likely at least a bit humanising in a world which dehumanises them. Despite this, when I give money and chat to homeless people, I beat myself up after and tell myself that I’m only doing it because I’m virtue signalling or want to feel good about myself, even if I know deep down I do it because I want to be helpful and want people to be safe and feel cared for. Even if I did do it to feel good about myself, then at least that person would have some money they probably need. It’s hard to remember that, though. Even writing this is uncomfortable, as my negative self talk says that I’m only writing it to parade how “good” I think I am.
Wealth inequality and class differences that have no logical justification, having to accept that poor people suffering is normal even when it’s entirely avoidable
Society expects that I should be able to ask for help whenever things get a little difficult but asking for help leaves me feeling very very unsafe and likely to be betrayed and have my request used against me as a weakness.
In healthy cultures our capacity to detect cognitive dissonance catalyses collaborative niche construction, and contributes to the co-creation of ecologies of care.
Collaborative niche construction is the evolutionary process of reducing cognitive dissonance, a process of omni-directional sensing and learning, which can only emerge in an adequately de-powered, non-overwhelming, and life affirming, i.e. holotropic and syntropic environment.
In recent years I have become increasingly intrigued by ai (shorthand for ant intelligence) as opposed to the hype of AI. ai is an awesome form of externalised collective intelligence beyond human comprehension. Some ant species can leave pheromone trails that can last for days – which I can confirm from personal experience, while others produce a pheromone trail that only lasts 10 minutes. Unintentional experiments from my kitchen reveal that once an ant has located a food source, that it only takes a few hours for a fully functional ai food logistics system to become established. On this planet ai goes a long way to ensuring that no food goes to waste. We could learn from that.
It is worthwhile listening to Bayo Akomolafe. I think he seriously underestimates ai, but he does a wonderful job of making Autistic ways of being and relating accessible to a neuronormative audience.
Taking stock
This year (2024), August 1st was Earth Overshoot Day, announced by the Global Footprint Network.
This is the date when humanity’s demand on natural resources exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate them in a given year. We are currently using nature 1.7 times faster than our planet’s ecosystems can regenerate. The Ecological Footprint Calculator is a useful tool for exploring our own ecological footprint and the huge disparities between the huge footprints of elites and the vastly smaller footprints of the majority of humans.
Daoist philosophers have warned humans for over 2,500 years that all forms of social power over others corrupts. Ignoring this warning has led to the current human predicament.
Rather than playing around with yet another “better” configuration of powered-up institutions, perhaps we are better served by practicing de-powered dialogue, and by learning how to de-power all our relationships – without asking any so-called authority for permission. The revolution will not be nudged!
Towards ecological wellbeing
Becoming conscious of human cognitive and emotional limits, and recognising that these limits are just as real, immutable, and relevant for our survival as the laws of physics may help us to fully appreciate the wonder of life.
Creating light, where all you could see is darkness.
– Sofía Gómez Uribe
There is no shortage of human scale initiatives that re-conceptualise human societies in comprehensible, compassionate, and life affirming ways. Collectively we can tap into a wealth of knowledge and timeless indigenous wisdom.
We need commitment, we need community. We need to create spaces of trust. But for that, there’s tremendous work that we need to be doing. But I don’t think that any of that work will be possible, should we not have that commitment–that commitment that no matter how challenging and tremendously difficult it will be to reckon with these narratives and to dismantle these narratives. Because seeing the horror in the eye of all these narratives that we live by comes with tremendous understanding. It will leave us very fragile, very vulnerable, and most, of course, are not willing to do that, because we don’t feel safe. But if we are able to stand the heat and create these spaces, if we commit to do this kind of work for the benefit of the planet, then we may be able to learn that we can fly.
– Yuria Celidwen
… and you can only do it with the help of friends who keep you safe. I don’t have a death wish, I have a depth wish.
– Stig Pryds
We are currently co-creating a comprehensive support model for Autists and otherwise neurodivergent and intersectionally marginalised people that is grounded in our collective lived experience, informed by what we are learning from the results of our ongoing participatory research.
- Gaia loves making senses - December 19, 2024
- Autistic human animals – a factor in cultural metamorphosis - November 27, 2024
- The ability to relate deeply is the inability to conduct transactional busyness - November 22, 2024
24 Responses
I like these ideas very much, but there are epistemological problems which are difficult to ignore or look past. Words and concepts make a big difference to the clarity of our understanding. Systems thinking does help, but systems theory, especially “General Systems Theory,” (von Bertalanffy) is often applied to non-biological but animate systems like culture, but it is not a good fit. There are problems with theories based on what we accept as valid premises about genetically mediated evolutionary processes and the phenomena of sociocultural “evolution.” This problem also applies to the use of the term “adaptive,” outside of biology. Human systems are more complex than ecosystems and they are not well explained by biological and ecological principles. This is largely because of emergent properties of social and cultural systems which are not just different because they are new, they have different values. Biological systems have a shared value: the persistence of life on this planet. Humans have some shared values, but we also have many that diverge or conflict. That is the problem with the conditions that supported life in the first place: diversity of elements led to the synergistic organization of cells, which then led to the divergent organization of organisms, species, biocenoses, and ecosystems. Then social organization and culture came along and created not just new forms of transgenerational organization (communication, social norms, and technology) but new symbolic values. The advent of sociocultural systems resulting in a dramatic increase in the opposite of synergy, antergy. Antergy means working against others. The same conditions in a complex open system that can lead to synergy, also increase the risk for antergy. Autism itself is both a reflection of failing sociocultural synergy (“progressive segregation” was von Bertalanffy’s term for decreased cohesion and collaboration in a system), and an increased experience of antergy: that others are working against us rather than collaborating with us. This is not helped by electronic media which paradoxically decrease our experiences of shared control and shared creativity because as much as we increase our superficial rates of interaction, we do not have a sense of either individual or shared control over our experiences — those are provided for us. In that sense, participating in culture (at the center of which is the idea of play, as in Vygotsky’s conception of play as participation in shared creativity) can lead to either increased synergy or increased antergy. In order to increase synergistic creativity and outcomes, however, society needs to allow individuals to share personal experiences and not interfere by trying to control those experiences in order to profit from them (economic values are inevitably at odds with both human and biological values: businesses care about creating wealth, not individual and shared experiences of organisms that don’t involve them).
I agree with most of your observations. Linear language is a very limited tool for establishing shared understanding, there is a diversity of values across human cultures, sociocultural systems have emergent characteristics that transcend the frame of biology, and corporatised digital media are actively interfering with and distorting human interactions and the process of culture co-creation.
As importantly, the rise of powered-up empires, and especially the systematic suppression of indigenous cultures, have resulted in a collective learning disability, and in an increasing decoupling of sociocultural environments from their ecological contexts. In this context the entrenched separation of mind and body in Westernised cultures has increased the level of decoupling over the course of the industrial era. I seriously doubt that ecosystems are less complex than human sociocultural systems. In indigenous cultures the complexity resulting from the diversion of human cognitive capacity away from communal survival towards social competition (what you refer to as antergy) is usually recognised as spurious and harmful complexity.
Sociocultural complexity that is aligned with ecological complexity – which is relational diversity – is conducive to life, including human wellbeing. The Western focus on the individual “self” is an unhelpful consequence of the attempt to separate mind, body, and community, and paves the path towards “normalised” social competition.
It is easy to become entangled in anthropocentric hubris. It is worthwhile to study the diversity of indigenous cultures, to appreciate both the commonalities and differences in values across the board, and to study human cognitive and emotional limits. The spurious complexity in modern sociocultural systems, i.e. the decoupling from the underlying ecological context, is not something to be celebrated, and it is at the core of the so-called mental health crisis.
More context:
https://autcollab.org/projects/research/collaboration-and-learning-tools-for-the-next-200-years/
https://autcollab.org/2023/09/07/coherent-theories-of-human-ways-of-being/
I relate to this conclusion about modern post industrial revolution attitude to human interaction. I believe the modern anti family ideology and emotional wellbeing equated with politicised view of gender and race has contributed to the impersonal treatment of neurodiverse and emotionally or mentally unwell. Denial of basic family unit has decimated society and prevented greater understanding of difference rather than help it. Child abuse is greater amongst those with leraning difficulties or disabilities, including those with high IQ autism which is masked and undiagnosed to a greater degree due to social pressure to conform, yet still beimg emotionally and socially naive and over trusting.
Hi Jorn, thank you so much for all your heartfelt work. For me as an neurotypical to much information, but my heart tells me it is true. The indians and all other primeval People lived in balance with nature. They new by heart how to live with respect for there environment.
We (mainly the industrialized nations)lost this harmonie and it shows all around, and in us. Nature out of balance, a lot of broken families and a lot of anger and pain inside.
Thank you Jorn for helping us understand were it goes wrong. The more we understand this, the more chance we can start making better choises. More and more People start seeing this and I belief mostly by heart.
We need neurodiverse People very hard in this world, because your moral standard is often so high. Your honesty and fight for all beings, and your hollistic few makes me hopefull for the future. We need your clarity.
Please do not feel any pressure, by just being here and doing your best you are doing a lot.
Thank you all for being here,
A neurotypical friend
Careful with thinking Indigenous Peoples and worldviews are something in the past. Settler-colonialism and its related genocidal policies are ongoing, and is something we need to stop. Believing it is in the past is part of individualism, and not recognizing our complicity in ongoing activities done in our name.
Note: I’m a settler Canadian currently living on un-ceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory. I support decolonization and landback, which are governance issues and not about people of European descent (like myself) going back to Europe. While I was born on this continent, the Dominion of Canada (a set of foreign imposed institutinos, not a place or a peoples) was not.
Short thought: I believe there is a big difference between nuclear family values, and healthy communities providing support for offspring. The focus on the nuclear family is itself part of the isolation of individualism to generate economies based on fear and greed.
There is a reason that the “childless cat ladies” political comment landed so poorly, and that is the presumption that in a healthy society that we should only care for our own biological offspring. I subscribe to Seven Generations thinking, and not tied to my individualistic genetic ancestry or genetic descendents.
Wat een mooie inzichten lees ik hier na ongetwijfeld veel denk onderzoek en dat dan niet zonder de tussenkomst van het hart.
Het is mijn persoonlijke ervaring, dat ons hart ons de juiste koers doet nemen wanneer wij ons erdoor durven te laten leiden.
Ga als individu naar je hart en omarm jezelf. Wees liefdevol naar jezelf, want alleen dan zal je dat ook gaan uitstralen naar al het andere.
Het is de grootste gift die je kunt geven aan alles wat leeft (uiteraard inclusief jezelf).
Heal yourself and you will heal the world. Just do your bit and it will make you a shining star.
Sorry het woord fouten moet inzichten zijn.
The translation is quite crazy. The word insight (inzichten in Dutch )is being translated to mistakes.
Hi everyone! I’m from Chicago and recently found Drake Casino. The jackpot games are thrilling and the no deposit bonus got me started without risk. I also like the game selection from top providers. It’s refreshing to see a casino in the USA that’s this complete and user-friendly.
Hello, maybe in the modern world the keyword tribe still has many negative meanings as you have proposed. However, not everywhere has such a point of view. It is completely normal for a few individuals to misunderstand or distort an issue, but how to adjust them is really important, maybe that is the root.
Great points about shifting disciplinary perspectives. Presenting these complex ideas clearly can be tough – I’ve used AI PowerPoint to quickly turn similar concepts into engaging slides. It really helps when trying to explain big changes to audiences.
Your interest in ant intelligence as a model for understanding collective behavior and problem-solving is both insightful and relevant. By studying these small yet powerful creatures, we can glean lessons on efficiency, collaboration, and sustainability that could significantly impact how we approach our challenges on a larger scale.
Exploring the intersection of ecological and communal wellbeing is essential for fostering inclusive and sustainable communities. Incorporating practices that promote physical and mental health, such as yoga, can contribute significantly to this goal. For instance, many individuals have found that engaging in yoga routines, as highlighted in yoga go reviews, can enhance personal wellbeing and, by extension, community health. These practices not only improve physical fitness but also foster a sense of connection and mindfulness, aligning with the principles of ecological and communal wellbeing discussed in the article!
What if life feels empty and you’re left with nothing? You can either struggle or find your own path—but embracing positive things makes life much more meaningful and interesting.Website
Świetny artykuł! Bardzo podoba mi się, jak łączy temat ekologii z ideą wspólnotowego dobrostanu. To pokazuje, że prawdziwa zmiana zaczyna się od małych kroków i współpracy między ludźmi. Dbanie o środowisko naturalne to nie tylko kwestia działań indywidualnych, ale też budowania więzi i wspierania się nawzajem w codziennych wyborach.
Podobnie jak w dobrej grze, ważna jest strategia, zaangażowanie i współpraca. Jeśli ktoś szuka inspiracji i chce połączyć rozrywkę z refleksją, warto zajrzeć na https://fair-spinn.pl/
“Thank you for this deep, thoughtful piece on communal and ecological wellbeing. I especially appreciated the way you connect internalised ableism, the culture of competition, and ecological crisis — the framing around “collaborative niche construction” resonates strongly. The idea that we — as communities, as individuals, as non-human relational beings — can shift away from the entrenched mono-cultures of domination is inspiring.
One small thought from a practical standpoint: when we talk about regenerating community spaces and shared relational ecologies, I often think of humble, everyday gatherings where things are made together (food, art, conversation) rather than bought or consumed in isolation. In that spirit, I’ve seen how something like a well-used Lello Musso Pola 5030 ice cream machine can become a communal tool in a neighbourhood garden or co-op: folks bring in seasonal fruits, churn up fresh ice cream together, share, talk, laugh, not just eat. It’s a small gesture, but in a system of care it helps build trust, interdependence, and delight in the local ecology.
Thanks again for the article. It’s a call to deeper listening and action.”
Thank you for this insightful and deeply thoughtful piece on communal and ecological wellbeing. I especially valued how you wove together internalized ableism, the culture of competition, and the ecological crisis. Your framing around “collaborative niche construction” really resonated with me. The idea that we — as communities, individuals, and interconnected non-human beings — can move beyond entrenched mono-cultures of domination is truly inspiring.
https://futbolslibre-tv.co/
The article offers a thoughtful and timely reflection on how ecological responsibility and intersectional community care are deeply interconnected. I especially appreciated the emphasis on collective wellbeing rather than individual solutions, which feels crucial in a world driven by speed and constant consumption. At the same time, it is interesting to consider how these values translate into everyday choices people make online, including how we spend, interact, and seek balance.
For example, digital platforms that prioritize simplicity, accessibility, and user autonomy can, in their own small way, reflect similar principles of care and inclusion. Solutions like BLIK-based payment systems, such as those discussed on platforms like https://pl.kasynopolska10.com/blik/, show how technology can reduce friction, energy, and complexity in daily transactions, offering an alternative to more resource-intensive or exclusionary systems.
While clearly different in scope from ecological activism, these practical innovations remind us that sustainability and wellbeing also grow from small, pragmatic decisions. When aligned thoughtfully, technology, community values, and accessibility can support a more inclusive and balanced future.
This article really makes me think about creating calm environments for everyone. It reminds me of how my baby finds peace with the Bright Starts Bouncer, which helps soothe and support their wellbeing too.
The article offers a thoughtful and inspiring perspective on how ecological responsibility and intersectional thinking can work together to support genuine communal wellbeing. I especially appreciated how it frames sustainability not only as an environmental issue, but as a social and ethical practice rooted in care, access, and shared accountability. This holistic approach feels increasingly relevant in a world where economic systems often overlook community resilience and inclusivity.
What stood out to me is the idea that wellbeing grows when systems are designed to meet people where they are. In a very different context, digital tools can sometimes reflect a similar principle. For example, platforms that prioritize accessibility and ease of use—such as payment solutions discussed at https://casinophilippines10.com/gcash/ how technology can adapt to users rather than forcing users to adapt to rigid systems. While the goals are not ecological in themselves, the underlying logic of inclusivity and practical support is comparable.
Overall, the article successfully plants “seeds” for reflection, encouraging readers to rethink how interconnected our social, environmental, and economic choices really are, and how small, intentional design decisions can have wider communal impacts.