One question,
not two

Our line is “Solutions for Sustainable Planet (Human Happiness Included).” That is the what. The rest of this site is an attempt at the how. Madhyasth Darshan offers an explanation of how the two can go together. Here we try to separate what that explanation proposes from what we have shown so far, which is not yet much.

The proposal

Understanding is proposed as a common root with two outcomes. It does not make the two the same thing, and one can appear without the other. Read the map from top to bottom.

The four human goals named in Madhyasth Darshan run across both: resolution (समाधान), prosperity (समृद्धि), fearlessness (अभय) and coexistence (सहअस्तित्व). Happiness alone is not the whole foundation. The four together are.

So the question we are really investigating is this: under what conditions does understanding lead to both lasting happiness and ecologically responsible living?

What we mean by happiness

Not pleasure, which depends on conditions and passes. Madhyasth Darshan describes happiness as freedom from delusion and problems: a present with resolution in it. Resolution is not only an inner feeling. It means knowing, accepting, recognising and then fulfilling, so it is meant to show up in how a person lives.

That is also what makes it testable. If resolution must show in conduct, then conduct can be observed. But understanding has to be assessed separately from the behaviour it is supposed to explain. Otherwise, whenever someone consumes too much, we could simply say they don’t truly understand, and the claim could never be disproved.

Five propositions, and how we would test each

1. Physical needs are limited

   A body can be fed, clothed and housed. Unlike wants, these needs have a limit.

   How we would test it: a limit on needs does not by itself mean everyone can meet them sustainably. Needs, available resources, production and distribution have to be examined separately.

2. Much acquisition beyond need is driven by something unresolved

   Not every need is physical. Knowledge, relationships, beauty and meaning are real needs too. But a great deal of acquiring is about status and security, an attempt to fill with things a lack that things cannot fill.

   How we would test it: distinguish genuine non-physical needs from status-driven acquisition, then see whether the second falls as understanding grows while the first is still met.

3. Understanding makes “enough” definable

   When a person knows what they need, enough becomes a real amount rather than a moving target. Madhyasth Darshan describes prosperity as producing more than is needed, consuming less, and no longer feeling a lack.

   How we would test it: assess understanding first, by means that do not ask about consumption, then observe consumption patterns over time.

4. Trust reduces accumulation driven by fear

   Some of what we hoard, we hoard against other people. Madhyasth Darshan describes fearlessness as trust in the present: mutual trust, and acting to complement one another.

   How we would test it: trust does not automatically reduce material use. Compare precautionary saving, stockpiling and defensive spending between communities with different levels of trust in otherwise similar circumstances.

5. Understanding nature ends the illusion of exclusive control

   Madhyasth Darshan calls the belief that forests, minerals, air and water can be monopolised a delusion. Without it, using nature becomes participation rather than possession. That is harmony at the scale of the planet.

   How we would test it: evaluate ecological knowledge on its own terms, and measure actual environmental consequences. A content, thoughtful person can still take part in a damaging supply chain without knowing it.

How we intend to test this

There are two kinds of verification here, and they should not be confused.

The three kinds of proof in Madhyasth Darshan are about verification in a person and in living:

Experience अनुभव प्रमाण

Each person checks in themselves whether understanding, not acquiring, is what brings lasting happiness.

Behaviour व्यवहार प्रमाण

That understanding shows, over years, in how a person and a family live and relate to others.

Experiment प्रयोग प्रमाण

It shows in work and production: what is made, how, and with what effect on people and nature.

Empirical research asks whether the pattern holds across many people, compared with others. A study worth trusting would:

• assess understanding independently, before looking at behaviour;
• follow families over several years;
• measure wellbeing, relationships, material sufficiency and environmental impact;
• compare them with otherwise similar families.

At the scale of organizations, Earth & Us is being designed to examine understanding, conduct and consequences in the same spirit. We have not yet published results of either kind. When we do, they will appear in what we learned, including where they go against us.

What outside research supports, and what it doesn’t

None of these studies uses Madhyasth Darshan’s meaning of happiness. Most measure subjective wellbeing, which is how satisfied people say they are. That is related, but it is not the same thing.

Materialism and wellbeing

Consistent association A meta-analysis of 259 independent samples found that people with a stronger materialistic orientation tend to report lower wellbeing.

Does not show that understanding causes lower consumption.

Wellbeing and ecological behaviour

Promising In two studies, people with higher wellbeing also reported more ecologically responsible behaviour. The link was explained by intrinsic values and mindfulness, not income.

Does not show cause, and relies on what people report about their own behaviour.

Income and happiness over time

Contested In the United States, decades of rising income after the Second World War did not bring a matching rise in reported happiness.

Does not settle the question. Later studies disagree, and the result depends on the countries and methods used.

Efficiency and rebound

Supported, with qualifications Greater efficiency can lead people to use more of a resource, as was observed with coal in the nineteenth century.

Does not mean efficiency always backfires. The size of the rebound varies, and policy can change it.

Where this might be wrong

• The definition could be doing the work. If anyone who overconsumes is declared “not really happy,” the claim cannot fail. That is why understanding has to be assessed on its own.
• Understanding may not be enough. A sustainable planet may also require institutions, technology and enforceable public policy. If so, understanding would be one foundation among several.
• Good intentions still need knowledge. People who are resolved and content can still cause harm they cannot see. Understanding has to include how the world actually works.
• It may be too slow. Understanding spreads one family at a time, and the planet may not wait. That is a reason to work alongside faster efforts, not against them.
• Resources matter. Someone can understand exactly what they need and still lack the means to meet it. Understanding does not replace fair production and distribution.

Sources

Madhyasth Darshan

1. Madhyasth Darshan, given by Shri A. Nagraj, Paribhasha Sanhita: मानव लक्ष्य (the human goal), p. 148; सुख (happiness), p. 199; समाधान (resolution: knowing, accepting, recognising and fulfilling), p. 188; समृद्धि (prosperity), p. 191; अभय (fearlessness), p. 21; समाधानात्मक भौतिकवाद, on limited needs and the delusion of exclusive control over natural wealth, p. 189; प्रमाणत्रय (the three kinds of proof), p. 126.

Research

1. Helga Dittmar, Rod Bond, Megan Hurst and Tim Kasser, “The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2014).
2. Tim Kasser, The High Price of Materialism (MIT Press, 2002).
3. Kirk Warren Brown and Tim Kasser, “Are Psychological and Ecological Well-being Compatible? The Role of Values, Mindfulness, and Lifestyle”, Social Indicators Research 74 (2005), pp. 349–368.
4. Richard A. Easterlin, “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence”, in Nations and Households in Economic Growth (Academic Press, 1974), pp. 89–125.
5. William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question (1865).