Category: Uncategorized

In an era marked by escalating technological advancements, environmental crises, and intensifying cultural conflicts, the need for a transformative rearticulation of human values has never been more urgent. At the heart of this transformative quest lies a critical interrogation of our modes of existence, belief systems, and the economic structures that have come to define this period—not merely as the fulfillment of late-stage capitalism but as the logical culmination of its contradictions, a trajectory long recognized in critiques of imperialism and monopoly capital.

Our engagement with the world is too often confined within the narrow parameters of political economy, where even environmental concerns—issues that should fundamentally redefine our economic and political structures—remain subordinated to financial interests. This persistent framing reflects the hegemonic logic of capital, which demands that all aspects of life be mediated through market valuation and economic utility.

Yet, a critical omission in this framework is the role of interfaith engagement—not merely as a cultural or spiritual exercise, but as a structural force capable of counterbalancing the exploitative logics that define this era. Rather than an appendage to political economy, interfaith dialogue should be understood as a third pillar of human engagement, a necessary modulator that introduces ethical, moral, and cosmological considerations into the economic calculus. The systematic exclusion of faith from these discussions stems, in part, from its co-optation by power. Across history, organized religion has been instrumentalized to justify some of humanity’s most egregious crimes—genocide, slavery, expropriation, systemic fraud, and the violent dispossession of land and culture. This complicity has rightly drawn critique, but to dismiss religion entirely is to ignore its parallel tradition as a force for liberation.

Figures such as Jesus and Muhammad did not merely advance spiritual doctrines; they were radical social reformers who directly challenged the material and political structures of their time, calling for the redistribution of wealth, the upliftment of the poor, and the dismantling of oppressive hierarchies. Gautama Buddha, in his rejection of attachment to material accumulation and his emphasis on ethical living, laid out a framework for liberation that, while often depoliticized in contemporary readings, fundamentally disrupted the prevailing social and economic order.

Rather than allowing religion to be instrumentalized by capital or state power, interfaith engagement should reclaim its role as an emancipatory force. It must resist both commodification and dogmatic rigidity, positioning itself instead as a site of collective ethical reasoning—a space where economic and political decisions are scrutinized through the lens of justice, sustainability, and communal well-being. In a world where neoliberalism has normalized the commodification of life itself, the reintegration of spiritual and ethical dimensions into our economic models is not just desirable but necessary for survival.

Martin Heidegger’s seminal work, Being and Time, arguably offers the clearest articulation of “being,” echoing indigenous principles like the Fijian notion of Vakatabu—a philosophy of restraint and a “Whole of Life” sensibility. Indigenous epistemologies and spiritualities intertwine with Western humanist traditions, offering a potent counter-narrative to neoliberalism, Christian nationalism, and imperial domination.

The notion of spiritual warfare is deployed here not as a metaphor for conflict among differing belief systems but as a substantive framework for understanding the clash between humanistic, ecologically sustainable values and the destructive tendencies of neoliberalism. This article argues that our humanity, as encapsulated in the existential inquiries of Heidegger, has exposed the alienation inherent in our technological and economic regimes. Indigenous traditions and spirituality like Vakatabu offer a more integrated vision of being—one that is deeply relational, bound by place, and often attuned to Indigenous Peoples’ perceptions of the natural world.

But my friend, we have come too late. Though the gods are living,
Over our heads they live, up in a different world.

—Bread and Wine (excerpt), Friedrich Hölderlin

I. Heidegger’s Being and Time: Revisiting Existence

In confronting the crises of our post-modern era—an age defined by hyper-financialization, ecological collapse, and the algorithmic mediation of existence—we must recognize that we are not merely passive subjects within these systems but existential beings whose fundamental orientation is toward ‘Being-in-the-world’. Heidegger’s Being and Time challenges us to move beyond the superficial distractions of technological modernity and late-stage capitalism, not through nostalgia or retreat, but through a radical re-engagement with authenticity, finitude, and collective responsibility. Rather than accepting the extractive logic of the present as an inevitability, we must actively reject this era’s defining conditions, not in the sense of regression, but in a conscious movement toward a future grounded in a deeper understanding of Being—one that recognizes the wisdom embedded in indigenous epistemologies, the ethical imperatives of interfaith traditions, and the necessity of a moral realignment with the world. If we are to navigate the spiritual and existential crisis of our time, it will not be through further immersion in abstraction, commodification, or hyper-acceleration, but through aligning to ways of being that have long resisted the totalizing force of capital. In this, indigenous traditions and interfaith ethics offer not merely alternatives but vital pathways toward a more just and ecologically attuned existence, reminding us that the future is not something to be optimized, but something to be lived, relationally and responsibly, within the fullness of Being.

Heidegger challenges the traditional metaphysical understanding of human existence by exploring the nature of Being (Sein) in relation to time (Zeit). Heidegger contends that the human mode of being—what he terms Dasein—cannot be understood apart from its temporality, its situatedness in a world of possibilities, and its intrinsic finitude. His analysis reveals that modern technological society, with its emphasis on efficiency and calculability, has led to a disconnection from a more authentic way of “being”—one that is engaged, reflective, and rooted in the world.

Heidegger’s critique has often been read through a lens that neglects non-Western modes of thought. His focus on authenticity and the search for meaning should resonate with many indigenous traditions, even if he rarely acknowledged the alternative epistemologies that arise from communities with long histories of living in close symbiosis with nature. In many ways, the existential project Heidegger set forth is incomplete without a critical engagement with indigenous knowledge systems—systems that do not see time as a linear resource to be optimized but as a complex tapestry of relationships and responsibilities.

Like in the excerpt from the Bread and Wine poem, Hölderlin acknowledges that the gods have withdrawn, but their presence is not entirely lost—they exist elsewhere, waiting. Western or Indigenous, our human experience resonates with traditions where our connection to what is sacred remains dormant until it is rekindled by those who remember.

II. Vakatabu: Indigenous Restraint and the Whole of Life

In Fijian culture, the notion of Vakatabu encapsulates a sense of restraint and renewal—a principle that is not merely about self-control but is an ethical mode of being that governs interpersonal and environmental relationships. Vakatabu is imbued with the understanding that life is not an endless accumulation of resources or experiences to be exploited for immediate gain but is a carefully balanced interplay of give and take, presence and absence. This principle is directly antithetical to the consumerist ethos valuing accumulation and expansion at the expense of long-term sustainability and relational well-being.

Vakatabu leads communities to adopt a “whole of life” perspective—one that sees economic activities not as isolated transactions but as embedded within a broader ecological and spiritual matrix. In this light, ecological accounting emerges as an indispensable tool. Unlike conventional economic accounting, which focuses narrowly on monetary transactions, ecological accounting acknowledges that human well-being is intricately linked to the health of the environment. By integrating the valuation of biodiversity and social relationships, ecological accounting—what might be termed “intemerate accounting”—offers a more comprehensive measure of prosperity, one that is aligned with the principles of Vakatabu.

III. Spiritual Warfare: Hegemony, Faith, and the Political-Economic Struggle

The contemporary global landscape is marked by what can be termed as “spiritual warfare.” This struggle is evident in the contestation between ideologies that seek to impose a singular, often hegemonic, vision of humanity. On one side, we find the resurgence of Christian nationalism and contemporary Zionism—ideologies that not only claim divine sanction but also impose a rigid, often exclusionary, framework of belonging. This is evident, for instance, in the symbolic inscription of “In God We Trust” on the US dollar—a practice that intertwines religious iconography with the material power of a global reserve currency. Such gestures are not benign; they reflect an attempt to imbue economic transactions with a particular moral and theological order, one that reinforces nationalistic and imperialistic agendas.

Conversely, indigenous spirituality offers an alternative narrative—one that like interfaith, locates itself in a specific sense of time and place, and resists the commodification of belief. Indigenous traditions, with their totemic sensibilities and holistic understandings of the cosmos, challenge the reductionist worldview that underpins the neoliberal economy. They remind us that spiritual and material realms are deeply intertwined, and that the valorization of economic growth at any cost inevitably leads to environmental degradation and social dislocation.

The concept of spiritual warfare, then, might be understood as a struggle for the soul of society—a contest between a legacy of colonialism and imperial power, which exported a narrow, profit-driven view of existence, and a multiplicity of traditions that honor the intricate, interdependent nature of life. In this context, the battle lines are drawn not only in the economic or political arena but also within the realm of belief, where indigenous practices offer both resistance and an alternative model of living.

IV. Ecological Accounting and the Well-Being Economy

At the intersection of ecological accounting and indigenous spirituality lies the promise of a radically different economy—one that measures progress not in terms of GDP growth but in terms of well-being, environmental health, and social justice. The concept of “intemerate accounting” captures this alternative vision. By treating well-being as a modulator for economic performance, intemerate accounting challenges the dominant paradigm that equates value solely with market transactions.

This approach calls for the rearticulation of economic metrics to include non-market values such as ecosystem services, cultural heritage, and community resilience. It echoes the concerns raised by critics of natural capital valuation, who argue that monetizing nature risks commodifying what is inherently sacred and relational. Instead, by adopting a framework that privileges the cumulative value of our interactions with the environment, societies can begin to account for the true cost of economic activities, both in terms of ecological degradation and the erosion of cultural and spiritual practices.

Ecological accounting is thus both a technical and ethical project. Technically, it requires the development of new metrics, data collection methods, and regulatory frameworks that respect local data sovereignty and the principles of free, prior, and informed consent. Ethically, it challenges the prevailing logic of scarcity and commodification, offering instead a vision of abundance that is rooted in restraint—a vision that resonates strongly with the concept of Vakatabu. In this way, ecological accounting becomes a tool of resistance, a means to counter the hegemonic forces of neoliberalism and imperialism that seek to impose a one-dimensional measure of progress on a diverse and complex world.

V. Rearticulating Humanity: A Synthesis of Being, Restraint, and Spiritual Resistance

What emerges from this dialogue between Heidegger’s existential inquiry and the Fijian ethic of Vakatabu is a renewed conception of what it means to be human in the world. Heidegger’s call for an authentic engagement with one’s own being—an acknowledgment of the finitude and temporality of existence—finds a complementary echo in the indigenous insistence on living in harmony with nature and each other. Both perspectives challenge the relentless pursuit of profit and technological mastery that characterizes the neoliberal ethos.

In the context of spiritual warfare, this rearticulated humanity takes on a political and economic dimension. It is a humanity that refuses to be subsumed by a market logic that reduces life to a series of transactions. Instead, it is a humanity that recognizes the intrinsic value of restraint, embodied in Vakatabu, and seeks to build an economic system that is both ecologically sustainable and culturally inclusive. This rearticulated humanism stands in stark contrast to the divisive ideologies of Christian nationalism and contemporary Zionism, which serve as tools of imperial domination and cultural homogenization.

The struggle to reclaim this vision of humanity is not without its challenges. The forces arrayed against it are powerful and deeply entrenched, drawing on centuries of institutionalized power and the persuasive allure of market-based ideologies. Yet, as the global community grapples with the twin crises of climate change and social inequality, the imperative to rethink our economic and spiritual foundations becomes ever more pressing.

In practical terms, embracing a Vakatabu-inspired approach to life and economics would involve a series of transformative steps. First, it requires a fundamental reorientation of our educational and cultural institutions to valorize indigenous knowledge systems and ecological literacy. Second, it calls for the democratization of economic governance, ensuring that local communities have a decisive say in how their resources and data are managed. Third, it demands the development of regulatory frameworks that transcend narrow market logic and instead promote well-being—a regulatory vision that is attuned to the principles of free, prior, and informed consent.

In this rearticulated framework, economic indicators would no longer be the sole arbiters of progress. Instead, a suite of metrics that capture the health of our ecosystems, the strength of our communities, and the resilience of our cultural practices would come to define what it means to thrive. Such an approach would not only mitigate the ecological and social costs of unfettered growth but also forge a pathway toward a more equitable and sustainable global order.

Conclusion

If late-stage capitalism is capitalism’s final form, its expansion into environmental data marks the last frontier of commodification—where not only land and labor but life itself is financialized. This is not just an economic struggle but a fight for the right to exist beyond capital’s dictates. The question is not whether we can work within these markets but whether we can resist them entirely. Rejecting the premise that nature’s value can be measured, traded, and securitized, we must reclaim reciprocity, collective governance, and ecological autonomy. Yet capitalism’s total enclosure signals its own existential crisis, creating the possibility for rupture.

Drawing from Heidegger and Vakatabu, we can envision a future where well-being, ecological balance, and cultural diversity replace profit as the foundation of society. The struggle to redefine progress—not by monetary gain but by the health of our communities and ecosystems—is a struggle for our soul. As we navigate a world of deep divisions and competing visions, the wisdom of indigenous traditions and existential inquiry reminds us that economic, cultural, and spiritual lives are inseparable. Recognizing this interconnection is key to transforming the very foundations of existence.

References

Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Being and Time. Harper & Row.

Levi-Strauss, Claude. (1966). The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press

Vaai, Upolu & Aisake Casimira. (2024). The ‘Whole of Life’ Way: Unburying Vakatabu Philosophies and Theologies for Pasifika Development. PTC Press

Sometimes, in the Worldhood of the World—at least as I understand Friedrich Heidegger’s chapter in Being and Time— naming something clarifies it for what it is. Naming carries the weight of recognition, forcing us to confront what lies before us. For example, we didn’t need the International Court of Justice to formally proclaim that Israel was engaged in genocide in Palestine. We recognize genocide as it unfolds in our time and across history. We recognized the slow genocide in Palestine for decades. For those who seek to look, we see it in West Papua by Indonesian occupation. We saw it in Darfur and Rwanda, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the Holocaust, and in Nanking. We recognize genocide in the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the decimation of our First Nations peoples, including the occupation of Hawaiʻi. Obviously, naming these atrocities acknowledges their existence, yet it also indicts us for the inaction that so often follows such recognition.

The lack of reparations is, too, an example of this inaction. Of course reparations is the correct response to the atrocity of genocide, slavery, and dispossession, and it is easy to get bogged down negotiating a financial settlement, however, providing victims with access and infrastructure should be a no-brainer. The racism is still present, as is the evidence of occupation. The systemic structure of colonialism and neoliberal privatization inherent with capitalism is that the victors continue to revel in the spoils of their atrocities, until they can’t.

When we consider the liberalism that democracy evokes, we summon ideals like freedom of speech, equality before the law, individual rights, the rule of law, and popular sovereignty. These principles are enshrined as categorical moral imperatives, ideals that democracy claims as its foundation, as if they were innate and immutable birthrights. But what are we now, when these once-vaunted ideals are overshadowed by inaction, indifference, apathy, systemic hypocrisy, and moral complacency? If our supposed universal values are now selective and conditional, we have not only failed to uphold them but actively betrayed them.

Where does this leave us, except morally bankrupt, with systems that are inoperative, incapable of responding meaningfully to crises? We find ourselves displaced, not just geographically, as refugees or exiles, but existentially—estranged from the ideals we claim to hold dear. We are a society hollowed out by contradiction, proclaiming justice while perpetuating injustice, invoking human rights while trampling on them, championing democracy while silencing dissent. For many, we measure our democracy by what we consume, ignoring the fact that our consumption is the material manifestation of systemic exploitation, environmental destruction, and global inequity. It is the outward sign of an economic order that prioritizes profit over people, convenience over justice, and the immediate over the sustainable. Consumption becomes not just a personal choice but a political act, one that sustains the very structures of hegemony, extraction, and oppression that democracy claims to resist.

This moral displacement is not merely a failure of action but a failure of Being. In Heideggerian terms, it is a fallenness into inauthenticity, where we no longer engage with the truth of the world but are consumed by distractions, denials, and deceptions. Without a personal radical reckoning, without an acknowledgment of our complicity and a commitment to genuine restoration, we remain estranged from the world and for many, from ourselves.

The collapse of belief systems, particularly when tied to the ideals of justice, human rights, and environmental stewardship, is disorienting yet fertile ground for rediscovery and growth. The ongoing genocide and blatant occupation in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan with the support of our so-called liberal democracy reveals a moment in history that is not merely a crisis but an existential reawakening.

With all of its personal and immediate benefits, the distraction of social media, particularly the data hegemony associated with platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X, has fundamentally altered how we engage with the world and with ourselves. These platforms are not neutral spaces for connection or self-expression; they are deeply embedded in systems of surveillance capitalism, commodifying our interactions, thoughts, and even our identities. They foster a false sense of community while fragmenting genuine relationships, reducing complex ideas to soundbites, and encouraging reaction over reflection. In doing so, they mediate our experience of the world in ways that diminish our capacity for authentic engagement and understanding.

“Perhaps we are here in order to say: house, bridge, fountain, gate, picture, fruit tree, window—at most: column, tower… But to say them, you must understand,

oh to say them more intensely than the Things themselves ever dreamed of existing. Isn’t the secret intent of this taciturn earth, when it forces lovers together, that inside their boundless emotion all things may shudder with joy?”

Rainer Maria Rilke— excerpt: “The Ninth Elegy,” Duino Eligies.

Approaching Heidegger now, with these distractions in mind, returning to the quiet and disciplined philosophical and poetic roots that shape our existential inquiries, feels both necessary and urgent. It is a means of resisting the shallow immediacy of our current moment, where attention is continually hijacked by algorithms designed to exploit our impulses rather than cultivate our thought. Heidegger’s meditations on time and Being offer a counterpoint to this frenetic culture. His insistence on Dasein—the grounding of human existence in Being-in-the-world—calls us back to a deeper, more deliberate engagement with the world and with ourselves.

In this return, we are reminded of the importance of dwelling—of lingering in thought, experience, and connection. Heidegger’s concept of temporality, where past, present, and future are intertwined, encourages us to see our actions and choices as part of a larger continuum rather than isolated moments of gratification or consumption.

In returning to Heidegger, we also return to the poetic—to the language and art that reveal the world as it truly is, not as it is mediated or manipulated. This act of returning is not a retreat but a way to resist, a way to reclaim the quiet, deliberate space necessary for confronting the existential crises of our time. It allows us to untangle ourselves from the web of distractions and rediscover the essence of Being-in-the-world, grounding our lives in thoughtfulness, presence, and purpose.

Our Interfaith Moment

In the beginning was relationship! Relationality is in our blood. We came into being through relationships. And it is through us that relationships will flow and continue. Therefore, as Pacific isalnders, we don’t just understand. We understand according to the rhythms of relationships, We don’t just interpret. We always interpret through the lens of relationships shaped by a particular Pacific Itulagi (lifeworld). Hence, we don’t just decolonise, Decolonisation is always fashioned by our particular relational worldviews.

—Relational Hermeneutics: A Return to the Relationality of the Pacific Itulagi as a Lens for Understanding and Interpreting Life— Upolu Luma Vaai

In the following quote on relational hermeneutics, I am reminded that the Pacific has had to re-engage with the colonial establishment of Christian doctrine with its own indigenous wisdom and world view. From the shore of the Pacific, the practice of interfaith is an extension of relational wisdom, rooted in the rhythms of connection and guided by the harmonies of indigenous lifeworlds, so very specific to the experience and identity of Pasifika.

This relational wisdom, deeply attuned to the interconnected nature of existence, mirrors Heidegger’s own insistence that understanding is never static but a dynamic process of interpretation. The act of not fully understanding, of grappling with the ungraspable, is central to a hermeneutic journey. Heidegger’s own approach to Being is fundamentally interpretative, requiring us to continuously reframe and re-engage with what it means to exist. This struggle leads to a solipsistic yet divine encounter, reflecting the very nature of Being as relational and dialogical—anchored in the ontic— the concrete or factual— crises of the world yet pointing toward something greater: the possibility of understanding our epistemological place in the chaos. This contradiction is not a failure but a fertile space for reflection. This is a process of unconcealment—where what is hidden emerges in moments of clarity, only to retreat again. The personal engagement with faith, philosophy, and crisis becomes a mode of Being that is open to the divine while remaining grounded in the material realities of global injustice.

Interfaith dialogue and the role of houses of worship become central to this reflection, offering a critique of their absence or manipulation in the framework of political economy. This resonates with the ontological necessity of belief systems in shaping collective understandings of justice and resistance. Heidegger’s notion of worldhood underscores this, as faith traditions create networks of meaning that guide communities through existential crises and political oppression. Interfaith discourse as a pathway to resist hegemony aligns with the historical and philosophical roles of religious figures like Jesus and Mohammed, who can aptly be described as brothers against hegemony and injustice. Their teachings, pertinent to the resistance against imperialism, materialism, and social stratification, reveal faith as a profoundly political act. Similarly, Buddhism and Hinduism, with their emphasis on navigating suffering and injustice, provide frameworks for resilience and ethical engagement in a fractured world.

The exploitation of belief systems by global hegemony, and the commodification of faith to serve power, highlights a profound alienation from the divine and the communal. This alienation is central to the fallenness that Heidegger describes—where systems of meaning become co-opted, reducing authentic engagement with faith to mere functionality or control. This manipulation reflects the very crisis of Being that Heidegger warns against: a world where the sacred is eclipsed by the profane, and faith becomes a tool for domination rather than liberation. Yet, the irony is that the very figures and systems of belief rooted in justice are exploited to sustain injustice. This points to the necessity of reclaiming faith as a counter-hegemonic force. The ontological grounding of faith traditions, when authentically engaged, offers pathways for resisting exploitation and reorienting our collective systems toward equity and justice.

To argue for faith’s equal place within the framework of political economy is to challenge the modern separation of the sacred and the material. Heidegger’s emphasis on Being-in-the-world provides a philosophical foundation for this integration. Faith traditions, as expressions of worldhood, shape the relational totality of human existence. They influence ethics, governance, and community-building, and their exclusion from political economy reflects a profound misunderstanding of their ontological significance. Reintegrating faith into the discourse of political economy does not mean a theocratic imposition but an acknowledgment that systems of belief are foundational to how communities navigate crises and construct meaning. Faith, when authentically engaged, can counter the alienation and fragmentation wrought by neoliberalism and global hegemony, offering a framework for solidarity, resilience, and justice.

All this to say, the security of our humanity will not be safeguarded by the wrestling of political economies within the G20 or by the debates between freemarket capitalism and communism. However, if we center our collective indigenous and traditional faith networks within the framework of political economy, we might reclaim their potential to guide us toward collective liberation, navigating injustice with grounded and sacred resilience. The virtue of faith, of Dasein, is resolutely anti-imperialist, and only by supporting the remaining vestiges of decolonization will forge our human security forward, providing us with the regulatory zeal needed to manage what remains.

(the kiss of midnight, 2025)

“In the middle of the journey of our life, I found myself in a dark forest, for the straightforward path had been lost.” (Inferno, Canto I)

Dante’s words are a haunting reminder of our collective state as we enter the new year. We find ourselves entangled in a moral and political wilderness where democratic and interfaith dialogue, once heralded as a beacon of unity, has too often failed to confront the worst excesses of religious dogma and its political manifestations. This failure has allowed Zionism to perpetuate genocide under the guise of divine sanction and has emboldened Christian Nationalism in the United States to champion land grabs, deny the climate crisis, and reinstate the abuses of colonialism under the mythos of Manifest Destiny.

These ideologies thrive not in isolation but as extensions of a fractured political and economic system that rewards exclusion, disinformation, and the erasure of histories inconvenient to its power. Yet interfaith efforts, grounded in historical materialist analysis, have served potent but often ignored gestures. Interfaith offers dialogue with the accountability of faith and solidarity within righteous belief structures.

To move forward, we must reject identity politics as a neoliberal tool of division, recognizing instead the shared material conditions that bind us. Intersectionality, properly understood, is not the juxtaposition of identities in competition but the weaving of struggles into a cohesive tapestry of resistance and renewal. It requires clarity: an honest reckoning with the past and an uncompromising commitment to dismantling the systems of oppression that perpetuate the abuses of capitalism, ecological destruction, and exclusionary politics. Houses of worship and faith-based institutions should have long ago abandoned religious dogma and theocratic absolutism, and do what it does best: provide communities with the tools to navigate their lives with the urgency of compassion, accountability, and liberation.

This is not a call for new conversations but for new commitments. Interfaith programs must embrace a praxis rooted in historical materialism, addressing the intersection of faith, politics, and economic systems with precision and purpose. This includes recognizing that the most vulnerable communities—indigenous, displaced, and marginalized— may have at one time been subject to religious conversion and oppression, but now hold the keys essential to liberation and ecological and social renewal. Their leadership must be central, not ancillary, to any organizational change.

In 2025, let us strive for transformation. The straightforward path may be obscured, but it is not lost. It can be found through courage, solidarity, and a refusal to be co-opted by the very forces we seek to overcome. We have the collective capacity to confront the realities of our time with an unwavering commitment to truth.

This last year was defined by profound contradictions. We found ourselves trapped in a sanatorium of contradictions, where the promises of democracy and liberation were revealed as hollow facades. The United States, for example, alternated between the chaos of electing a demagogue and the calculated violence of a president who arms regimes to commit genocide. In this sanatorium, the systems that claim to offer care and progress instead confine us in inertia, stifling agency and perpetuating harm. The promise of liberation—whether through the ballot box or international diplomacy—had become another form of entrapment, an illusion of freedom that masked the persistence of imperialist violence and systemic hypocrisy.

Conditions in the sanatorium are becoming daily more insufferable. It has to be admitted that we have fallen into a trap. Since my arrival, when a semblance of hospitable care was displayed for the newcomer, the management of the Sanatorium has not taken the trouble to give us even the illusion of any kind of professional supervision. We are simply left to our own devices. Nobody caters to our needs. I have noticed, for instance, that the wires of the electric bells have been cut just behind the doors and lead nowhere. There is no service. The corridors are dark and silent by day and by night. I have a strong suspicion that we are the only guests in this sanatorium and that the mysterious or discreet looks with which the chambermaid closes the doors of the rooms on entering or leaving are simply mystification.

I sometimes feel a strong desire to open each door wide and leave it ajar, so that the miserable intrigue in which we have got ourselves involved can be exposed.

Bruno Schulz “Sanatorium under the Sign of the Hourglass”

Lost in a sanatorium is like being in a state of transition without clarity—a liminal space where the old structures of oppression persist even as cracks in their façade appear. We condemn Trump’s rhetoric but ignore Biden’s authorization of billions in weapons to destroy Palestinian homes, target hospitals, and perpetuate genocide in Gaza, while waging war and land grabs in Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria. The targeting of journalists, hospitals, and children by Israel is not incidental—it has been part of a broader strategy of annihilation that we enable with weapons, funding, and political cover. Our government and corporations largely support this genocide while feigning concern for human rights, and the complicity is staggering. This is not merely a failing of morality but a structural reality of imperialism: a system that requires war, oppression, and dehumanization to sustain itself.

In the Sanatorium, even the narrative of liberation is weaponized to justify the escalation of military aggression, not just in the Middle East but also against China. This ambiguity does not mark progress but rather the stasis of a system that feeds on war and division.

Information campaigns warp public perception of global shifts. We are fed narratives of China’s aggression while ignoring the U.S.’s provocations in the Pacific and the South China Sea. We are told to fear BRICS as a threat to “Western values” without examining how this multipolar bloc might overcome the challenges of dollar hegemony and provide alternatives to the predatory practices of the IMF, the World Bank, and discriminatory sanctions. Disinformation is not a flaw of the system; it is its backbone, keeping us docile, fractured, and asleep.

And yet, even in this Sanatorium, there are seeds of hope. The cracks in the old structures are real, and the possibility of transformation, though obscured, exists. But it requires confronting the illusions of liberation we have been sold and demanding accountability, not just for the obvious atrocities but for the systems that enable them. If there is to be liberation, it must come not from within the confines of this Sanatorium but from the deliberate dismantling of its walls. The hypocrisy of this system, which cloaks itself in the language of democracy and freedom, is not just staggering—it is systemic.

And yet, even for those of us who are awake, the feeling of helplessness looms large. Trapped in Schulz’s Sanatorium, we are left to wander corridors of inaction, aware of the machinery of destruction yet unable to stop it. The wires are cut, the bells do not ring, and we are left to question if anyone is even listening.

The only clarity we can hold onto is the historical materialist understanding of imperialism as the driving force behind these atrocities. It is imperialism that underpins the genocide in Palestine, the aggression in Yemen and Syria, and the disinformation about China and BRICS. It is imperialism that allows leaders to authorize war while chastising others for lesser sins, or to provoke wars like the proxy war between NATO and Russia taking place in Ukraine.

If we are to make 2025 anything other than a continuation of these horrors, we must confront this reality with unflinching honesty. As we fling open the doors of the sanatorium and expose the machinations of empire, we must resist the comfort of helplessness and embrace the struggle for understanding that imperialism is not inevitable—it is a system that must be dismantled.

The contradictions of this moment demand that we begin this new year not with false hope but with determination. Let us reject the untruths, expose the hypocrisy, and organize our world where mutual solidarity replaces empire, and justice replaces war.

Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not explicitly discuss “identity politics” or “intersectionality” as they are understood in contemporary discourse. However, their writings provide a framework for understanding and integrating these concepts into the broader context of class struggle. For Marx and Engels, historical materialism—the idea that material conditions and class relations provide the context and conditions that drive historical change—was central. They identified the proletariat as the universal agent of revolution, capable of uniting all oppressed groups in the fight against capitalism. This emphasis on class did not ignore other forms of oppression. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, linked the subjugation of women to the emergence of private property and economic structures. Marx’s writings on colonialism and imperialism, including his analysis in Capital (chapter 33), demonstrated his awareness of how economic exploitation intersected with national and racial oppression. Nonetheless, Marx and Engels prioritized class struggle as the foundation of societal transformation, viewing other forms of oppression as secondary to the capitalist system’s overarching framework. They would likely critique identity politics, if detached from class struggle, for risking fragmentation of the unity necessary to challenge capitalism.

Lenin advanced these ideas by addressing national and racial oppression more explicitly, particularly in the context of imperialism. In works such as The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, his polemic against Rosa Luxemburg precisely on the issue of oppression and exploitation, could easily be adopted to be an argument for intersectionality and to some degree against identity politics. If we look at Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin underscored the importance of recognizing intersecting oppressions tied to empire and colonial domination. He supported the self-determination of oppressed nations, acknowledging that class struggle must encompass these specific forms of exploitation. However, Lenin maintained that such struggles needed to be integrated into a broader revolutionary framework to avoid being co-opted by bourgeois interests, which appears to be the case in many western rights-based organizations, and political discourse.

From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, intersectionality—the examination of how various axes of oppression interact—can serve as a valuable tool, provided it is aligned with the goals of revolutionary praxis. Lenin would have likely embraced the concept to illustrate how different groups experience class oppression uniquely while cautioning against allowing it to overshadow the centrality of class in systemic transformation.

A Marxist critique of identity politics, however, would likely focus on its potential to fragment collective action or redirect efforts toward reforms that do not fundamentally challenge capitalist structures. At the same time, an intersectional analysis that deepens the understanding of exploitation and builds solidarity across diverse groups aligns with Marxist aims. For Marx, Engels, and Lenin, identity politics risks bourgeois co-option when it isolates grievances from the broader framework of class exploitation. Conversely, intersectionality becomes revolutionary when it illuminates how various oppressions reinforce capitalist systems and mobilizes these insights to unify struggles under the proletarian movement. In practical terms, a Marxist approach would incorporate intersectional analysis to address specific oppressions while retaining the focus on class as the foundation of societal change. This synthesis would ensure that the revolutionary movement remains both inclusive and effective in challenging capitalism’s multifaceted systems of domination.

The power of misinformation is indeed as potent as the power of information, highlighting a fundamental reality: information itself is power. As George Orwell describes in his seminal 1984, this power can be orchestrated, manipulated, and weaponized to serve specific agendas. However, when we refer to a Marxian material discourse of history, we engage with the conditions and contexts that shape economic, social, and political realities. Wealth and industries, driven by vested interests, will lie to protect and perpetuate their dominance. In turn, corporate-funded elections—especially those unrestrained by funding limits—secure policies and representatives that serve private rather than public interests.

Colonialism and privatization regimes have historically depended on violent mechanisms of accumulation: genocide, slavery, theft, fraud, and dispossession. These mechanisms, though often couched in legal frameworks, reveal an unsettling reality—that those who influence laws and judicial bodies can position themselves above the very rules meant to ensure justice. Neoliberalism, with its promise of market-based freedoms, exploits this dynamic by molding information to align with the interests of capital. The rule of law, under such a paradigm, becomes a contradictory rule of special interests.

This underscores why historical materialism remains crucial: it allows us to decode misinformation. Understanding misinformation involves more than simply recognizing falsehoods; it requires situating these falsehoods within the broader structures of power, class, and economic control. By analyzing the historical and material conditions under which misinformation is produced, disseminated, and consumed, we gain insight into the political economy itself.

Reading misinformation, therefore, is not a passive act but a critical exercise. It exposes the mechanisms through which consent is manufactured, inequality is perpetuated, and systemic injustices are maintained. By cultivating this critical literacy, we equip ourselves to challenge not only the narratives but also the structures that uphold exploitative systems.

The Density Debt Index

The working draft of our Density Debt Index (DDI) combines key factors that promote equalization within an ecological accounting framework. Population, area, and GDP are often cited as the most relevant variables, offering a comprehensive approach to valuing economic data. However, the inclusion of debt changes this dynamic, and if we are to pursue a new global order that is just and equitable to people and planet, then we need to include debt factors into our economic well-being.

In expanding this analysis, it is vital to articulate a broader understanding of how debt, development, and economic governance intersect within the frameworks of global power and equity. A Density Debt Index (DDI) is not merely a descriptive tool for ranking economies by debt per capita; it is a prescriptive lens that allows us to reimagine the ethical and practical consequences of debt burdens across diverse national contexts. Debt is both a tool and a weapon, shaping the trajectories of economies in ways that often exacerbate existing inequalities.

Debt in the Global Context: The Case of the United States

The United States presents a paradox within the global economy. As one of the most indebted nations by absolute figures, its economic dominance has largely shielded it from the adverse consequences typically associated with high national debt. This anomaly is underpinned by the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, a status enshrined in its designation as a Special Drawing Right (SDR) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The dollar’s stability is not self-sustaining; it is buttressed by a basket of other major currencies, including the Euro, British Pound, Japanese Yen, and, more recently, the Chinese Yuan. The inclusion of the Yuan is emblematic of China’s rising influence and its pragmatic approach to ensuring global financial stability, even as it challenges U.S. hegemony.

The U.S. economy, in many ways, operates with a safety net woven by other nations. The IMF’s management of the SDR and the cooperative role of countries like China highlight the interdependence of modern financial systems. Yet, this interdependence is asymmetric. The U.S. wields its monetary and fiscal policies with impunity, often exporting the costs of its economic, geopolitical and environmental decisions to other nations, particularly those in the Global South. This inequity underscores the fragility of a unipolar economic order that privileges a single currency and economy over the collective well-being of the global community.

The Rise of Multipolarity and the BRICS Challenge

The 2008 financial crisis was a turning point that revealed systemic flaws in the neoliberal economic order. The crisis exposed the vulnerabilities of economies deeply embedded in deregulated financial markets and speculative capitalism. In contrast, several emerging economies, including China, India, and Brazil, weathered the storm more effectively due to their relative insulation from the neoliberal orthodoxy of the Washington Consensus.

This divergence laid the groundwork for the formalization of the BRICS bloc in 2014. BRICS—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—emerged as a cooperative framework aimed at challenging the dominance of Western-led institutions like the IMF and World Bank. The bloc’s initiatives, including the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB), represent an attempt to create a multipolar economic order that prioritizes regional and local development over the extractive mechanisms of global financial capital.

The BRICS model emphasizes the sovereignty of nations over their developmental trajectories, offering an alternative to the conditionalities imposed by Western institutions. This vision aligns with the aspirations of the Global South, which seeks to rectify the structural imbalances perpetuated by decades of neoliberal policies. However, aligning with BRICS comes with significant risks, as evidenced by the backlash faced by nations that challenge Western hegemony. Sanctions, regime change, and negative media narratives are among the tools used to dissuade countries from joining alternative economic frameworks.

Debt as a Modifier of Economic Reality

Reconceptualizing GDP to account for debt factors offers a more nuanced understanding of economic health. When debt per capita and public debt ratios are considered alongside GDP, the disparities between nations like the U.S. and China become stark. For instance, while the U.S. boasts one of the world’s highest nominal GDPs, its per capita debt vastly exceeds that of China, which, despite its large population and significant public investments, has managed its debt within a framework that supports long-term development.

The DDI also exposes the inequities of debt in the Global South, where borrowing often comes with punitive conditions that strip nations of their sovereignty over labor, health, and environmental protections. The neoliberal order has weaponized debt to enforce compliance with free-market policies, deepening poverty and environmental degradation in vulnerable regions.

Reforming National Accounting Systems for Equity and Sustainability

National Accounting Systems (NAS) are foundational to how we understand and govern economies. Yet, their metrics, particularly GDP, remain deeply flawed. GDP measures aggregate production, consumption, distribution, and exchange but fails to account for the depletion of natural resources, the degradation of ecosystems, or the well-being of populations. It is a metric of growth, not progress, and its dominance perpetuates unsustainable practices.

Reforming NAS to incorporate measures of ecological biodiversity, social well-being, and resilience is not merely an academic exercise; it is a moral imperative. The System of National Accounts (SNA), governed by the United Nations Statistical Division, provides a platform for such reforms, but progress has been slow, hindered by the entrenched interests of advanced economies.

The Role of the BRICS+ System in Advancing Equity

The BRICS+ framework, which includes partnerships with non-member nations and regional organizations, offers a pathway to recalibrate the global economic order. By emphasizing localized development, ecological sustainability, and equitable trade, BRICS+ represents a counterbalance to the neoliberal model. Its success, however, depends on the collective resolve of its members and their ability to withstand external pressures.

A New Fulcrum for the Global Economy

The fulcrum of the global economy must shift from its current position, which disproportionately favors Western interests, to a more equitable center that reflects the realities of a multipolar world. This requires not only institutional reforms but also a reimagining of value itself. Debt, trade, investment, and development must be measured against metrics that prioritize human and ecological well-being over profit and power.

originally published on interglobalist.org for intemerate.earth. Consider subscribing to get access to the DDI and other articles that provide a unique geopolitical and economic perspective.

The International Court of Justice’s hearings (2024 December 2) (txt) on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, did something very powerful by framing climate in the context of political self-determination using the rights-based mechanisms of the UN Charter to ignite the intersections of international law and climate accountability. Despite growing legal recognition of the obligations states hold in preventing environmental harm, the persistent influence of economic self-interest and the selective application of international law—particularly by powerful nations like the United States—undermines meaningful solutions. The tension between legal frameworks, such as the UNFCCC, and their capture by monied interests demonstrates how climate governance has become entangled in systems that perpetuate inequality and post-colonial (now eco-neoliberal), ecological destruction.

Here are my summaries of the testimony by the government of the Republic of Vanuatu and representatives of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

Ralph Regenvanu, representing Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, addressed the International Court of Justice, emphasizing the urgency of climate change and its existential threat to nations like Vanuatu. He highlighted the crisis caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the inadequacy of past actions to address this known problem. Regenvanu called on the Court to determine the legality of states’ actions contributing to climate change, pointing to violations of international law and the disproportionate burden placed on vulnerable nations. He stressed that only a few states are responsible for the majority of emissions, while nations like Vanuatu face severe consequences. The representative urged the Court to declare these actions unlawful, demand their cessation, and require reparations. He concluded by calling the case one of the most consequential in human history, imploring the Court to act decisively to protect future generations.

Attorney General Arnold Loughman of Vanuatu underscored the role of international law in addressing climate change and holding states accountable. He emphasized his constitutional duty to uphold the rights, freedoms, and sovereignty of Vanuatu, which are now under threat due to external actions. Despite Vanuatu’s negligible contribution to global emissions, the nation faces severe impacts that undermine its constitutional rights and self-determination. Loughman argued that states have clear obligations under international law to prevent environmental harm, reduce emissions, and uphold human rights. The failure of major emitters to meet these obligations constitutes a wrongful act. He called on the Court to affirm these violations and hold states accountable, stressing the survival of vulnerable nations like Vanuatu depends on decisive action.

Ilan Kiloe, speaking on behalf of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, highlighted the devastating impact of climate change on Melanesian communities. He described the cultural and spiritual unity of Melanesia, where people are intrinsically linked to their landscapes and ecosystems. Climate change has unraveled this connection, threatening the physical survival of communities and dismantling their governance systems, livelihoods, and cultural identities. Kiloe shared testimonies of loss from across Melanesia, detailing how climate change violates the right to self-determination, especially for colonized and non-self-governing peoples like the Kanak people of New Caledonia, West Papua, and Torres Strait Islanders. He stressed that the climate crisis perpetuates the historical injustice of colonial exploitation. Kiloe urged the Court to affirm the illegality of actions responsible for these harms and provide legal remedies to ensure the survival and dignity of Melanesian peoples.

Julian Aguon (Blue Ocean Law) emphasized the critical role of the right to self-determination in international law and how climate change violates this right. He described self-determination as fundamental, encompassing the right of peoples to determine their political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development. Aguon explained how climate change has eroded self-determined ways of life in Melanesia, displacing communities, destroying resources, and threatening the existence of entire territories. He argued that states responsible for climate change have violated their obligations under international law, and self-determination must be understood dynamically to protect peoples at risk. Highlighting the cultural and spiritual significance of ancestral lands, Aguon called on the Court to reaffirm the rule of law and protect the right to self-determination for Melanesian peoples and humanity as a whole.

Professor Jorge Viñuales addressed the Court on the historical and ongoing failures of states to meet their obligations to prevent climate change and protect the environment. He outlined how a small number of states have contributed the majority of greenhouse gas emissions over the last 170 years, violating legal principles of due diligence and environmental protection. Viñuales cited international legal precedents affirming states’ obligations to prevent harm and reduce emissions. However, major emitters have expanded fossil fuel production and consumption, undermining these obligations. He described this conduct as a serious violation of international law, likening it to recognizing murder as unlawful while permitting genocide. Viñuales urged the Court to hold states accountable for their failures, emphasizing the catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet.

Professor Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh focused on the legal consequences of states’ violations of international law related to climate change. She explained that actions such as issuing fossil fuel licenses and failing to regulate emissions constitute internationally wrongful acts. The principle of state responsibility requires that these violations have consequences, including cessation of harmful conduct, assurances of non-repetition, and reparations. Wewerinke-Singh emphasized the importance of holding responsible states accountable through proportional reparations, such as ecosystem restoration and compensation for irreversible harm. She highlighted the need for international cooperation to support small island states affected by climate change and to ensure justice. Wewerinke-Singh concluded by urging the Court to apply the law of state responsibility decisively to protect victims and address the global climate crisis.

Cynthia Houniuhi, delivered a heartfelt address on the existential threat posed by climate change and the failure of major emitters to act. Speaking as a custodian of her community’s ancestral memory, she emphasized the sacred connection between her people in the Solomon Islands and their land and environment. Climate change threatens to sever these ties, undermining their ability to protect the environment for future generations. Houniuhi criticized large-emitting states for perpetuating the crisis through fossil fuel production, turning international agreements like the Paris Agreement into tools benefiting polluters. She expressed the profound consequences of this inaction, jeopardizing the future of youth and vulnerable communities. Houniuhi called on the Court to hold major emitters accountable, restore hope, and guide humanity toward addressing this monumental challenge.

US withdrawal from the ICJ

As we have seen with the ongoing genocide in Palestine by Israel, the ICJ has no binding authority over countries that have either not ratified, or have withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice , with the most prominent being the United States, which effectively ceased to recognize ICJ jurisdiction after the Court ruled against it in the 1986 Nicaragua case. The U.S. withdrawal and other similar actions by states illustrate a deep tension in international law: the ICJ’s authority relies on voluntary consent, meaning that countries can opt out if rulings conflict with their national interests. While the ICJ can issue binding rulings for states that accept its jurisdiction, those rulings lack enforceability for non-parties like the United States. This undermines the universality of international law and weakens global frameworks, particularly in addressing transnational challenges like climate change, where the United States is by far the largest offender of climate abuse.

The United States’ non-participation in ICJ proceedings creates a paradoxical imbalance. Other member states remain bound by ICJ rulings, potentially exposing themselves to legal obligations and reparative measures, while the U.S. operates outside this framework. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh’s critique highlights how international institutions like the UNFCCC, intended as vehicles for collective action, have been compromised by large emitters and financial interests. This “capture” has turned these mechanisms into spaces that serve corporate and polluter agendas, sidelining meaningful reforms and diluting their capacity to hold states accountable. This is not a failure of international law or the UN Charter but rather the result of institutional weaknesses exploited by monied interests.

Climate Capture by the Investor-State

The capture of climate policy by the investor-state system is particularly significant. It reflects a broader phenomenon where binding trade agreements and investor-state dispute mechanisms frame climate action in terms of market-driven solutions like carbon credits, offsets, and trading schemes, ultimately reinforcing extractive systems. Intemerate accounting tries to offer solution-based approaches that circumvent the chokehold that the investor-state has on sound climate policy, offering a pathway to recalibrate this imbalance by shifting focus from these commodified metrics to ecological and social well-being. Unlike accounting schemes that can only monetize and exploit nature, intemerate accounting recalibrates the valuation of ecosystems based on their intrinsic and relational importance. By introducing variables that align economic activity with ecological restoration and community resilience, economies and corporations should be compelled to account for real-world environmental impacts rather than perpetuating harm through abstract legal frameworks.

From an international trade perspective, altering national accounting systems have transformative potential. It can reshape how climate financing and trade rules are structured, ensuring that resources flow directly to projects that enhance ecological stewardship rather than supporting extractive practices under the guise of “green growth.” By quantifying environmental and social costs within an accounting matrix, intemerate offsets might challenge the investor-state system to take accountability for its role in perpetuating ecological harm. This system could, for instance, redirect subsidies away from fossil fuel production toward regenerative initiatives or enforce liability for historical emissions through reparative trade and financial mechanisms. Furthermore, it introduces a voluntary participatory framework that empowers communities—especially in the Global South—to set their own ecological targets and define success on their terms.

Reset National Accounting

The intersection of international law and investor-state systems is critical. While institutions like the ICJ can theoretically declare the obligations of states under climate law, these enforcement gaps highlight the structural limitations of legal frameworks in confronting investor-state dominance. Programs like Intemerate accounting sidestep this gap by embedding justice and equity into the mechanisms of trade and investment, reframing climate action as a matter of ecological repair and social equity rather than market expansion. Moreover, it shifts the narrative away from profit-driven solutions to one rooted in solidarity with the most vulnerable communities, who have borne the brunt of climate change but have been sidelined in crafting its remedies.

Ultimately, the failures of frameworks like the UNFCCC are not inherent to international law but the result of systemic imbalances that privilege investor-state interests over ecological and social necessity. Intemerate accounting provides a way to redress these imbalances by challenging the investor-state system’s role in perpetuating climate inaction. It offers not only a critique of the current structures but also a forward-looking blueprint for transforming how we approach climate policy and trade in an era of ecological crisis.

Vanuatu is years ahead of other countries and the Melanesian Well-Being Indicators have already laid the foundation for how we account for Well-Being. Adjusting these indicators towards a value framework that can modulate national accounts is the next step.

BRICS+

The emergence of a new international trade currency by BRICS+ countries offers a transformative opportunity to reshape the foundations of global trade and finance. Unlike systems dominated by Wall Street and commodity markets, which often prioritize profit over people and exploit natural resources, this new paradigm can align trade practices with the intrinsic well-being of communities. By focusing on ecological markets that value resilience, environmental stewardship, and social equity, this shift could challenge the extractive systems that have historically dispossessed indigenous, poor, displaced, and vulnerable communities.

BRICS+ nations, with their diverse geographies and strong histories of treaty compliance, have the potential to champion a framework rooted in international law and ecological justice. This approach prioritizes long-term sustainability and the restoration of ecological systems over the short-term gains of resource extraction. Ecological markets in this context could redefine the metrics of trade, valuing not only the tangible outputs of communities but also their knowledge systems, biodiversity contributions, and cultural practices that sustain environmental health.

This shift toward ecological markets represents more than just an economic opportunity; it is a moral imperative. It challenges the neoliberal orthodoxy that places economic growth above all else and insists on a model of development that uplifts the most vulnerable. By decoupling trade currencies from exploitative commodity valuations, BRICS+ countries could pave the way for global economic systems that respect and protect the rights of indigenous and at-risk populations while fostering a healthier relationship with the planet.

Such a transition requires a robust regulatory framework to ensure that these markets are not co-opted by financial interests and remain rooted in the principles of fairness, equity, and sustainability. Intemerate accounting, with its emphasis on valuing ecological and social well-being, could serve as a cornerstone of this framework, ensuring that the new trade systems genuinely benefit communities rather than perpetuate cycles of dispossession and exploitation.

“Harnessing the Tide: Keep your fucking Yachts (Because Lifeboats Are for Ecosystems, Not Economies, stupid)”

I recently facilitated the Ecological Accounting and Resilience Development Program for a group of 35 young academics attending the Pacific Theological College in Suva, Fiji. These students, many of whom have been sent by their respective communities across Fiji, represent the future of local data stewardship in the region. They were equipped with the deep cultural knowledge, processes of protocol and reciprocity, and community-centered practices that have long guided their peoples’ interactions with their environments.

Our work together centers on building the skills and frameworks necessary for these students to steward their communities’ ecological data—data that reflects local realities, values, and knowledge systems—while safeguarding it against the forces of data colonialism. This stewardship is more than just a technical skill; it’s a practice rooted in the protection and empowerment of their communities, ensuring that any data collected is governed and created in alignment with local protocols.

The aim of this program is to facilitate students to merge local data development with international standards when beneficial, or, just as importantly, to develop their own standards of data collection, stewardship, and governance. In doing so, they are creating systems that not only serve their communities but defend against the predatory data practices of trillion-dollar corporations like Amazon, Meta, Google, and other international agencies working in cooperation with Big Conservation and even Departments of Defense. These companies and agencies often impose top-down data practices that strip communities of their ownership and agency over local ecological knowledge.

The Pacific is no stranger to these global forces, and our goal is to ensure that these young academics can return to their villages as data stewards, armed with the skills and knowledge to protect their communities from exploitation and ensure that data is used for community resilience, sustainability, and self-determination.

As we begin to reflect on the broader systems that dominate global economics, it becomes clear that the very frameworks used to define growth and progress—like GDP and carbon credits—are deeply flawed. These metrics, which are still widely used to guide international policy and investment, fail to capture the true wealth of nations, particularly those like Fiji and other Pacific Island nations really the Global South as a whole, where communities have historically stewarded their environments for generations. This is where the concept of intemerate accounting offers a much-needed alternative…

And let me be clear—this is an accounting methodology that should benefit all impacted, displaced, at-risk, or vulnerable peoples, whether from war, climate disasters, or other systemic challenges. While we are launching this initiative in Fiji with the Pacific Theological College, the principles of this work apply across the Global South and beyond, with a specific focus on those who are struggling against systemic racism and violence, even within the advanced economies. These populations, whose resilience is continually tested, deserve an accounting system that reflects their real contributions to ecological and social well-being, not just market value.

Today, we find ourselves at the intersection of two critical global crises—ecological degradation and socioeconomic inequality. Many of the strategies we’ve developed to address these issues, particularly through GDP, carbon credits, and large-scale environmental accounts, are fundamentally flawed. This is not just a moral critique but a well-established structural problem that both reinforces inequities and undermines true ecological restoration.

We live in a world where metrics like GDP determine how “successful” or “developed” a nation is. GDP measures market transactions, but it does not account for well-being, environmental degradation, or the value of communal stewardship. In fact, if an oil spill happens, GDP rises as the cleanup costs are included as “growth.” But who does this growth benefit? And more importantly, what is it costing the planet and the communities most impacted by these disasters?

Take the carbon credit market. It seems like a straightforward solution—put a price on carbon emissions and incentivize industries to reduce pollution. But what happens when we turn these carbon credits into commodities? The very logic of commodification is the problem. This approach is a continuation of the same neoliberal, extractive mindset that has historically marginalized indigenous, peasant, and migrant communities. Instead of addressing the root causes of ecological destruction, it merely repackages them into market-friendly mechanisms.

We see the same logic applied to top-down investment strategies in environmental accounting. Large financial institutions and conservation NGOs often frame themselves as saviors of the planet, deploying billions of dollars to preserve “natural capital.” But let’s critically examine this term—natural capital. When we label ecosystems, forests, oceans, and even human communities as “capital,” we are fundamentally reducing them to commodities that can be owned, traded, and exploited. This is nothing less than an extension of data colonialism—a process where big conservation efforts manage and account for large swaths of blue and green data, not for the benefit of the land, sea, or people, but for the accumulation of data as wealth.

Local communities, especially in the Global South, are often left out of these discussions. Worse, their data—whether it’s knowledge of the environment, biodiversity, or climate resilience—is extracted without proper consent and used to generate profits elsewhere. This practice echoes the historical exploitation of colonial resources. What we need instead is a framework that champions local data sovereignty.

Local Data Sovereignty means that communities should own and control their data, especially when it pertains to environmental knowledge and biodiversity. They must have the power to decide how that data is used, who can access it, and how it contributes to their own development and resilience. This is where intemerate accounting comes in. Unlike GDP or carbon credits, intemerate accounting doesn’t commodify the environment. Instead, it measures the interactions of communities with their ecosystems in a holistic way, focusing on resilience, well-being, and sustainability rather than market-based profitability.

Let’s move away from the commodifying nature of current environmental strategies and consider an alternative: translocal data markets. These are markets not based on the buying and selling of environmental assets as commodities but rather on the reciprocal exchange of data, knowledge, and resilience between communities. Imagine a system where communities are able to share insights, build networks of resilience, and develop adaptive strategies that are recognized and rewarded—not in financial terms, but in terms of infrastructure, access to sustainable resources, and the ability to maintain ecological stewardship.

In contrast to the current push for “big conservation,” where large organizations dictate what lands or waters are worth saving, we argue for a more democratic and decentralized approach. These organizations often control vast swaths of blue-green data—oceans, forests, and wildlife—without recognizing the communities that have lived alongside these ecosystems for centuries. This is where the impulse to hoard data for wealth accumulation begins to resemble a form of colonialism, the exploitation of knowledge and natural assets for the benefit of a global elite.

We must resist this tendency by ensuring that the voices of indigenous, peasant, and marginalized communities are at the forefront of ecological accounting. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) must be central to any data-gathering process, ensuring that communities not only consent to how their data is used but also benefit from its application. This is a fundamental component of data sovereignty.

The Intemerate Equation offers a framework for this type of ecological accounting. It isn’t about adding nature into a market equation but creating an entirely new equation that balances economic development with ecological and social well-being. It measures well-being not in terms of growth but in terms of resilience, community interaction, and environmental restoration.

In this new framework, data is not a commodity to be traded but a resource for building translocal solidarity. By sharing data across communities—whether it’s knowledge of water management, sustainable agriculture, or disaster preparedness—we can build systems that are resilient, regenerative, and just. These translocal data markets are not for-profit exchanges but platforms for collaboration and mutual aid.

In conclusion, if we are serious about addressing climate change and restoring ecological biodiversity, we need to rethink our entire approach to environmental accounting. GDP, carbon credits, and top-down conservation efforts only perpetuate the same systems that caused these crises in the first place. Instead, we must look to intemerate accounting, local data sovereignty, and translocal data markets as ways to truly honor the knowledge, resilience, and stewardship of marginalized communities. These are the solutions that can help us build a future where equity, sustainability, and regeneration are at the center of our economic and ecological practices.

In conclusion, the Intemerate Equation offers a transformative path forward that addresses many of the fundamental flaws in current national accounting methodologies.

The Imperative of Local Data Sovereignty

In the discourse on development, equity, and human/indigenous rights, the focus has long been on tangible resources such as land, water, and cultural heritage, as these are vital to the identity and survival of communities. However, there is another equally crucial asset that has often been overlooked in this list of critical issues: DATA. Providing the ability to control and manage data about one’s community is not merely a technical matter—it is an issue deeply intertwined with the autonomy, cultural integrity, and economic security of indigenous peoples.

The Invisibility of Data Theft

Indigenous communities worldwide have historically faced a range of injustices, from the theft of land to the suppression of languages and cultural heritage. Today, in an era dominated by digital technologies and information flows, a new form of dispossession is taking place: the expropriation of data. Unlike land or water, the theft of data is less visible and equally as insidious, occurring through backdoor financial channels and information cabals. This kind of theft is perpetrated by entities that capitalize on the asymmetries of power and knowledge, further entrenching the marginalization of indigenous communities.

Data about indigenous lands, resources, cultural practices, and even genetic information has immense value in global markets. From pharmaceutical companies seeking genetic materials for drug development to tech firms mining data for artificial intelligence algorithms, indigenous knowledge and resources are often commodified without consent or fair compensation. This modern form of exploitation is facilitated by the absence of robust frameworks that recognize and protect the data sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

Understanding Local Data Sovereignty

Local data sovereignty refers to the right of indigenous communities to control the collection, ownership, and use of data related to their lands, resources, and cultural practices. This concept is not merely about privacy or security in the digital sense. It is about self-determination and ensuring that data is used in ways that are consistent with the community’s values, priorities, and aspirations. It is about preventing the unauthorized use of data that could lead to exploitation, misrepresentation, or harm.

 Emphasizing the responsibility and opportunities available to individuals and communities to steward indigenous or customary interactions with our environments, the value—including potential market values—should not be determined by investment regimes furthering their neoliberal ambitions. Local data sovereignty, in this light, empowers indigenous communities to determine how data is used and ensures that this data serves their development goals rather than being weaponized against them.

Further, at this time, we do not know what the future of data markets will look like, but what we know from generations of experience, is that capitalism exploits, privatization is a weapon, and indigenous and poor peoples remain dispossessed from accessing infrastructure and benefitting from their own capabilities and technologies.

When we consider that the World Bank has valued Natural Capital at over a $100 trillion dollars, and that Natural Capital is measured as environmental data, we should be concerned that the future direction of the global economy has the potential for capitalizing on the very data that we are relinquishing to foreign management in the Carbon trade or under reinsurance schemes framed as Loss and Damage. And while those numbers may seem alluring, values this high will invariably alienate people and communities from their environments, further entrenching peoples to become rentiers on their own lands.

Resist Data Colonization

Without local data sovereignty, indigenous communities are vulnerable to what can be termed “data colonization.” This occurs when external entities extract data without consent, often under the guise of research or development assistance, only to use that data to their advantage. Such practices are reminiscent of historical colonial exploitation, where the wealth of colonized lands was extracted for the benefit of colonial powers. Today, the resources being extracted are knowledge and data, with similar dynamics of power imbalance and exploitation at play.

Data colonization not only deprives indigenous communities of potential economic benefits but also undermines their cultural and political autonomy. For instance, the misuse of data could lead to misrepresentations that distort cultural narratives or undermine traditional practices. In extreme cases, data on indigenous resources could be used to facilitate land grabs or environmental degradation, further threatening the survival of these communities.

The Role of WIPO, FPIC and Cultural Heritage

The principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) has been established as a fundamental right of indigenous peoples in international law, ensuring that they are fully consulted and give their consent before any project affecting their lands or resources is initiated. However, FPIC must also be extended to data governance. Indigenous communities should have the right to consent to or refuse the collection and use of their data, and they should be involved in decisions about how their data is managed and shared.

Furthermore, just as cultural heritage—such as traditional knowledge, languages, and sacred sites—requires protection, so too does data. Data related to cultural practices, biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and even social structures are part of the collective heritage of indigenous communities. Protecting this data from unauthorized access and misuse is integral to preserving cultural heritage and preventing its appropriation or distortion by external actors.

In May 2024, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty was signed. For decades rules over Intellectual Property were hotly debated and remained a central sticking point in international trade agreements. This new WIPO treaty was seen as a big win for Indigenous Peoples, Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions. However, the United States insisted on the wording of the final text of the treaty which undermined the ability of countries to invalidate patents made with indigenous resources. For example, there has to be proof that theft occured, yet patent applicants do not need to disclose the origins of biogenetic material. There are so many back doors to cultural and biogenetic theft, including the fees to bring US corporations to courts. Small Pacific Island governments for example cannot even afford the legal costs to even bring this to court.

Towards a Just Framework for Local Data Sovereignty

To address these challenges, there must be a concerted effort to develop legal and policy frameworks that recognize the data sovereignty of indigenous peoples. This involves not only securing legal protections at the national and international levels but also supporting indigenous communities in building their own data governance capacities and their own local data markets.  

Efforts to enhance local data sovereignty should prioritize:

Providing technical assistance and educational resources to help indigenous communities manage their data securely and independently.

Ensuring that national and international laws recognize that data sovereignty must be protected and data or digital transparency initiatives written into trade and investment agreements are rejected or withdrawn. As with many trade agreements, mechanisms for enforcement are expensive and many countries cannot even afford to withdraw from these agreements.

Promoting partnerships that respect indigenous autonomy and support co-governance models for local data stewardship with the free, prior, and informed consent of participating communities.

Developing mechanisms to hold corporations, researchers, and governments accountable for unauthorized data use or breaches.

The importance of local data sovereignty for indigenous peoples cannot be overstated. It is a fundamental right that underpins their autonomy, cultural integrity, and economic security. Just as we recognize the need for indigenous control over land, water, and cultural heritage, we must also recognize our rights to control data about our communities. By doing so, we can help prevent the theft of indigenous properties and knowledge and promote a more just and equitable digital world.

In this pursuit, it is vital that we move beyond mere recognition of these rights to actively support the capacities of indigenous communities to exercise them. Only then can we ensure that the benefits of the digital age are shared equitably and that the historical injustices faced by indigenous peoples are not perpetuated in new, digital forms.

In the Book of Genesis, God created the first humans, Adam and Eve, and placed them in the Garden of Eden, instructing them not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. A serpent tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and she shares it with Adam. As a result, they gain knowledge of good and evil, realize their nakedness, and are subsequently expelled from the garden by God as punishment for their disobedience. As a foundation of the Abrahamic religions, this story introduces sin and mortality into how we perceive the human experience.

Recently, I attended a service at my home church where the minister deconstructed the Adam and Eve story through a series of thought-provoking “what ifs.”

The Adam and Eve story, among all the tales in the Genesis chapter of the Bible, has always struck me as tedious. So, it was quite surprising to find myself riveted by the litany of “what ifs” our pastor presented.

What if Eve hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit? What if Adam had eaten the fruit first? What if the serpent had not tempted them? What if God had not placed the forbidden tree in the garden? What if Adam and Eve had repented immediately? What if multiple forbidden trees existed? What if the Garden of Eden had no boundaries? What if other beings existed in Eden?

These “what ifs” transform the story, altering the foundation of what we think we know about free will, knowledge, morality, and the human condition. The alternative scenarios reveal how fluid and arbitrary some of the rules we take to be self-evident truly are.

In Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” he emphasizes that the “True Word” is one of both reflection and action, inseparable from praxis. To speak a true word is to transform the world. This resonates deeply with me, especially in the realm of sacred texts. It suggests that what we are often taught about the human condition can be arbitrary, constructed, or even deceptive, shaped by the actions and decisions of political or economic power, and not as something inscribed in stone.

What motivates the Original Sin is not the logic of a divine being, but rather a specific tribe whose historical actions have utilized the construct of disobedience toward the justification of dispossession, genocide, and theft. This cleaving of good and evil has not only undermined civilizations, countries, and regions, but it also continues to treat our differences as a categorical imperative–an “us versus other” mentality–thus betraying our very existence by alienating us from nature.

In the face of rapid climate change, we must question the perpetuation of a status quo where Nature itself is devoid of the same rights we demand of ourselves. The continued marginalization and oppression of women, people of color, indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, the homeless, and the incarcerated reflect a broader systemic injustice, one that overlooks the profound interconnectedness of ecological and social well-being. “Intemerate” describes our biodiversity, capturing the essence of immaculate conception and virgin birth—a creation of science, spirit, and the divine.

When we consider biodiversity, our oceans, and the entire interconnectedness of our planet, we see a creation that is wonderfully benevolent, violently robust, and immaculately conceived. Its very existence is the true work of the divine that we can measure. How we interact with our environment, recognizing its sacredness and inherent value is the true word we must speak and live by.

So, how then should we understand our economy? Should it be seen merely as a series of self-interested actions, or can it be something more? Our economy needs to address the fundamental: the inequality between the Global North and South and the inequality within countries. We need to ensure equal access to wealth and infrastructure. This is something tangible we can start with.

What if Adam and Eve cared for an Intemerate Apple…

In the archetypal narrative of the Garden of Eden, we encounter a primordial setting where the first humans, Adam and Eve, reside. This Garden epitomizes an ideal state of existence, wherein all coexist in interdependence, sustained by an intrinsic ecological and moral equilibrium.

At the heart of this garden lies the “Intemerate Apple,” hanging from the Tree of Knowledge. This apple, glowing brightly, signifies the Garden’s network between all things, symbolizing sustainability and resilience.

This luminescence not only signifies the balance of the natural world but also represents the foundational principles of communicative action and mutual aid that underpin the societal ideals of cooperation and coexistence.

This harmony was not merely a matter of divine intervention but was encapsulated in a special value, n=(x_i–x₀), representing the difference between ecological and anthropogenic conditions of the environment. The balance of the Garden was thus a dynamic interplay between various factors, a concept that Adam and Eve were entrusted to understand and uphold.

God assigned them the responsibility of tending to the Garden, ensuring its continuous flourishing. To aid them in this task, God provided the intemerate formula:

This formula was not merely a cryptic incantation but a sophisticated mechanism to measure and maintain the Garden’s equilibrium. In this narrative, the Garden of Eden was an early exploration of sustainable management, where the health of the environment is directly tied to the stewardship of its inhabitants. Adam and Eve’s role was not passive but active, requiring constant vigilance and understanding of the intricate balance that defined the Garden. This story thus underscores the importance of knowledge, responsibility, and the interdependence between human actions and environmental outcomes, themes that resonate deeply with the principles of ethical and sustainable development.

Explanation of the Equation

Each day, Adam and Eve would measure various aspects of the Garden’s well-being. This included the health of the plants, the purity of the streams, the happiness of the animals, and the quality of the soil. Each of these measurements was represented as x_i​, where each i represented a different aspect of the Garden.

x_i: Each data point x_i represents a specific measurement related to well-being or environmental conditions. For example, this could be an indicator such as air quality index, water purity levels, biodiversity counts, or measures of social well-being like happiness, health metrics, etc.

The Intemerate Apple glowed with the ideal value x₀​​, representing the perfect state of the Garden’s well-being.

x_0: The reference value x₀​ represents the baseline or target value that reflects a desirable state of well-being or environmental condition. This could be a historical average, an established target for restoration, or an optimal level defined by elders, experts, and the community.

Each day, Adam and Eve would calculate N to see how well the Garden was balanced. If N was small, it meant the Garden was close to the ideal state, and the Intemerate Apple glowed brightly. If N was large, it indicated bigger deviations, and the Apple’s glow dimmed, signaling areas that needed their attention.

Division by n: The total number of data points collected over a period or across different locations. For example, this could be the number of days over which data is collected or the number of locations being monitored.

By dividing the total relative deviations by the number of data points, we obtain the average relative deviation. This provides a normalized measure of how much, on average, the observed values deviate from the desired baseline. This single number N indicates how much, on average, the Garden’s well-being differed from the ideal balance.

One day they noticed that some plants were wilting (x₁), the stream seemed a bit cloudy (x₂), and the birds were quieter than usual (x₃). When they calculated N, it was higher than usual. This told them that the Garden’s balance was disturbed.

To restore equilibrium, Adam and Eve took specific actions: For the wilting plants they adjusted the watering schedule and added compost to the soil. For the cloudy stream they cleared debris and ensured it flowed freely. For the quiet birds they provided more food and created additional nesting areas.

After these efforts, they measured the Garden again, finding improvements. When they recalculated N, it was much smaller, and the Intemerate Apple glowed brightly once more.

Then, as the season changed, Adam and Eve faced new challenges. One summer, a drought threatened the Garden’s water supply. The streams dried up (x₄), plants began to wilt more frequently (x₅), and the animals grew thirsty (x₆). When Adam and Eve calculated N, it was alarmingly high, indicating a significant deviation from the ideal balance.

Once again, Adam and Eve took immediate action: They implemented water-saving techniques, such as mulching around plants to retain moisture and creating shaded areas to reduce evaporation. They dug new wells to tap into underground water and created rainwater harvesting systems. They set up water stations throughout the Garden to ensure all creatures had access to fresh water.

To prevent future imbalances, Adam and Eve even implemented several proactive measures. They diversified their planting to include a variety of crops and plants that were more resilient to different weather conditions, ensuring that some plants would thrive regardless of the climate. They adopted sustainable practices, such as crop rotation, composting, and natural pest control, to maintain soil health and reduce reliance on external inputs. They set up simple monitoring systems to more effectively track weather patterns, soil moisture, and animal behavior. This helped them anticipate potential issues before they became serious problems.

Summation :

Adam and Eve would add up all the deviations from the ideal balance. The absolute value of each deviation (so it didn’t matter if it was above or below the ideal) showed how far each aspect was from the perfect state.

This part of the equation calculates the total relative deviation of each data point from the reference value. The absolute value ensures that deviations are considered regardless of direction (whether they are above or below the baseline). Essentially, this measures how much each data point differs from the optimal or desired state.

Through this continuous process of observation, calculation, and action, Adam and Eve learned to maintain the perfect balance in the Garden of Eden. They understood that monitoring their surroundings, recognizing deviations from the ideal, and taking appropriate actions were essential for preserving harmony. Additionally, they understood the importance of preparing for and adapting to changes in their environment. They realized that maintaining balance required not just reactive measures but also proactive planning.

The Snake

One afternoon, as Adam and Eve were diligently tending to the Garden of Eden, they encountered a viper coiled around the Tree of Knowledge. This viper, however, was no ordinary snake; he was an emblematic figure of eco-neoliberalism, known for his enticing yet deceptive promises.

The viper approached Eve with a cunning smile. “Why toil so hard, dear Eve?” he hissed. “Why struggle with endless measurements and adjustments? I have a solution that will make your life easier and the Garden more perfect without all the hard work.”

Eve, curious but cautious, inquired, “What is this solution you speak of Serpent?”

The snake unveiled a beautifully packaged potion called “NatureGuard Carbon Solutions™.” “This elixir,” he claimed, “is made from the finest ingredients and imbued with the secrets of nature’s true value. One sip, and you will gain the knowledge to make the Garden self-sustaining. No more daily measurements, no more adjustments. Just eternal harmony.”

Intrigued yet wary, Eve asked, “How does it work?”

The snake explained, “NatureGuard Carbon Solutions™ taps into the latent powers of the Garden, optimizing every aspect of it. Plants will grow abundantly, animals will be happier, and the streams will flow cleaner than ever. It’s a quick fix to all your problems, bypassing the need for constant effort.”

Sensing their hesitation, the crafty snake proposed an even more enticing offer. “Why not let me manage the Garden for you? I have extensive experience and know exactly how to maintain and even enhance its beauty. You can relax and enjoy the fruits of your labor without the daily grind.”

Adam, still suspicious, asked, “And what’s the catch?”

The viper, slithering closer, replied, “There is no catch. We have a 30-year plan, and I will ensure the Garden thrives. All you need to do is sign this agreement, granting me the authority to manage the Garden. In return, I will streamline the equation and make exclusive areas where only the best plants grow and the purest water flows. These areas will be managed to ensure their protection and optimal use.”

Adam pondered the offer. The idea of having a perfectly managed Garden without their constant efforts was tempting. But Eve recalled the lessons they had learned about balance and hard work. They turned to each other, sharing their concerns. “What if this leads to exclusion and inequality among the creatures of the Garden? What if the harmony we’ve worked so hard to maintain is disrupted by privatization and exclusion?”

Adam and Eve decided to seek counsel from the Intemerate Apple. They measured the current state of the Garden and recalculated N, the special value representing their balance. They saw the progress they had made through their efforts and the true equilibrium they were achieving. They realized the Intemerate Apple’s glow was a testament to their diligence and dedication.

Rejecting the Serpent’s offer, Eve said, “We appreciate your offer, but we trust in the guidance we’ve received and the efforts we’ve put in. True equilibrium cannot be bought or taken lightly. It must be earned through continuous care and respect for the Garden.”

The snake slithered away, hissing in frustration, while Adam and Eve continued their work. They understood that the path to true balance and harmony was not through quick fixes or easy solutions, but through ongoing diligence, learning, and adaptability.

This version of Adam and Eve illustrates that achieving and maintaining harmony requires more than mere effort—it demands the wisdom to recognize and reject false promises of easy solutions. The eco-neoliberal viper symbolizes the allure of shortcuts and the perils of forsaking sustainable practices for immediate gains.

By regularly assessing their environment, understanding deviations, and taking proactive and thoughtful steps to address issues, Adam and Eve created a sustainable and resilient world. Their journey reminds us that equilibrium is a continuous process, one that necessitates commitment, respect, and a mutual connection to the natural balance around us. Rejecting privatization and exclusion, they embraced the values of inclusivity and stewardship, ensuring that the Garden of Eden remained a paradise for all its inhabitants.

This equation provides a useful summary measure of how well current conditions align with desired goals, whether in terms of social well-being or environmental health. By averaging the relative deviations from a baseline, it offers a clear, interpretable metric for assessing progress and identifying areas needing improvement.