The idea of planetary well-being proposed by researchers at the University of Jyväskylä is also based on values: namely, the idea expressed by many authors that all living things have an absolute right to exist. Thus, organisms have the right to live their lives to meet their species-specific needs. This does not mean that people have a duty in every situation to safeguard the well-being of every non-human individual in the wild. Illness, predation, and death are also part of nature. Instead, we must ensure the stability and functioning of the ecological and physical systems essential for the survival of ecosystems and species. And, after all, the stability and functionality of these systems are vital to human existence also. Thus, the concept of planetary well-being does not distinguish between humankind and other nature but considers both to be valuable in themselves.

So what is ‘well-being’ in planetary well-being? It means the ability of living things to live in their natural habitat and to meet their species-specific needs produced by evolution. For plants, these needs may include, for example, adequate rainfall and the presence of suitable pollinators in the environment. Fish need clean water, suitable breeding grounds, and sufficient freedom from disturbance that could threaten the viability of the species or populations.

However, it is impossible to list the specific needs of each species and then work to ensure that they are met, as we do not even know the vast majority of species on Earth. Even though we do not know the exact needs of all species, we can monitor the viability of species and populations by observing changes in population sizes. Suppose the size of a population decreases so that there is reason to fear that a species or population is endangered. In that case, we can be sure that the needs of that species are not met to a sufficient degree.

For many species, the causes of endangerment are known with enough precision to be addressed if desired. As we saw at the beginning of the course, the leading causes of endangerment are man-made changes in ecosystems (including deforestation and converting ecosystems for farmland and development of cities and infrastructure) and direct exploitation (including overfishing). Environmental pollution and alien species that have spread to new areas with humans are also significant threats to biodiversity.

There is also a moral obligation to ensure the viability of species and populations. Individual organisms, such as fish or humans, are mortal and ephemeral, but species are long-lived with millions of years of past history. Each extinction irrevocably destroys a unique part of life’s history and diversity. Let’s think, for example, of felling Amazon rainforests for cattle pastures. It is worth considering what is the value of affordable beef in contrast to the survival of countless unique life forms that have evolved over millions of years on this only planet we know to have life on it.

Extinctions are tragedies and new ruptures in the network of ecological processes on which human well-being also rests. Therefore, activities that pose a threat of extinction are both morally and ecologically unsustainable.

Humans in planetary well-being

What about human well-being, what does that mean? There is no agreed scientific consensus on the nature of human well-being. The prevailing view in economics for example is that people have an unlimited number of individual preferences and desires that they satisfy by buying goods and services from the market. In economics, well-being is thus the maximum fulfillment of individual desires. Psychologists often interpret well-being as the subjective experience of satisfaction and happiness. Many philosophers, on the other hand, hold the view that well-being is related to the breadth of capabilities individuals have in order to do and achieve various things they find valuable.

However, based on these perceptions of well-being, it is difficult to outline a fair and sustainable future. Studies show that rising living standards and increased consumption only increase happiness to a certain extent. Fulfilling desires by consuming does not produce sustainable well-being. The unlimited satisfaction of desires is not good for people, let alone for the planet. And as we cannot perceive what the desires of future generations will be (desires being unlimited), the perception of well-being based on desires does not provide any guidance on how to guarantee the well-being of the people of the future.

Psychologists’ perception of well-being as an experience of happiness and satisfaction allows for a more detailed analysis of the factors that increase or decrease perceived happiness. However, individual experiences of well-being cannot be easily generalized to universal ones that would apply to all people, as perceptions of happiness vary from culture to culture and also within cultures. Therefore, perceived happiness is not a good way to measure well-being when the goal is general well-being. The view of well-being as broad freedom and ability to realize oneself is also difficult to turn into action for sustainability. Indeed, we need ways to combine human experiences of a meaningful life and well-being with broader planetary well-being.

In the concept of planetary well-being, human well-being is approached through needs. As is the case of all living organisms, also human well-being is determined by species-specific needs and their fulfillment. The first UN Sustainable Development Report of 1987 defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. However, the report did not define what those needs are.

Social scientists and psychologists who have studied human needs agree that people have a set of universal needs that apply to all people in all places and at all times. Needs are, therefore, not just individual experiences of the meaningfulness of life, for example. Precisely what these needs are, and how they relate to each other, is a subject of ongoing research. Although researchers’ views on basic human needs differ in detail, all have in common a need for physical and mental health and meaningful interpersonal relationships, as well as the ability to realize oneself. Meeting these needs requires, among other things, adequate nutrition, physical and psychological security, health care, and education and training appropriate for life in the community.

Because basic human needs are common to all, they can be used to guide societal development so that people’s well-being now and in the future is safeguarded as well as possible. When you think about the basic needs more closely, it is clear that material needs are mainly related to nutrition and security. Other needs are primarily social and psychological. From this point of view, a high material standard of living is not necessary for human well-being. If a person has a high material standard of living but lives and works in a community where she cannot realize herself, or does not feel as belonging to the community, she is not well because her basic psychological and social needs are not met. Material things can not fulfil psychological or social needs, nor vice versa.

By identifying basic needs, it is possible to pursue reconciliation between the well-being of people and nature by seeking to give up unnecessary consumption that reduces the well-being of nature. Human well-being can be improved by investing more time and resources to fulfil the social and psychological needs of oneself and those of others. Acting for the well-being of nature can also be serve to meet social and psychological needs and give experiences of meaningfulness – and, of course, directly help nature as well. Thus, the well-being of nature and people are not fundamentally contradictory, but can support each other. The great challenge is to change the structures of society and the economy so that they support, not undermine, planetary well-being.

As we have learned in the course, planetary well-being requires extensive changes in the various systems of society. Therefore, achieving planetary well-being also requires the input and cooperation of different disciplines – the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. Multidisciplinary approaches will be discussed more in the follow-up courses on planetary well-being. Welcome!

For reflection: what are the essential needs for your well-being, and are they being met? And is there something in your activities or consumption that does not contribute to the well-being of yourself, other people or the planet? Could you give up such activities/consumption?  You can share your reflections and discuss with other course participants on the page linked below.

Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.