A lot of people have probably heard of 'Maslow's hierarchy' - it's based on the idea that as human beings, we have different 'levels' of need, and until we can satisfy one, we can't progress to the other (i.e. if we're homeless, it's hard to commit to a course of learning or securing a job).
In recent years, there's also been the emergence of 'donut economics' - the idea that because we live in a closed ecosystem (aka a planet revolving around the sun, and all we've got is what's already on it), we need to try and balance how we consume with how we live, and the donut creates a visual representation of this:
But I've been thinking recently about where these 2 models might/can/should overlap with each other - Maslow designed his model on the assumption that we should all be encouraging ourselves and each other us to be striving to reach the top of the pyramid, and that there would always be enough resources available for everyone to do this in ways that they determined were right for them. But maybe we need to be slightly more nuanced in this 'race to the top'? - not everything that's good for us is good for everyone else.
Could encouraging ourselves to work out what our 'personal doughnut' should be, and then thinking about where we are/want to be (in Maslows' hierarchy) allow us to more sustainably (and so better) achieve and set our personal ambitions, through recognising and understanding how our ambitions and choices affect others, and theirs, us?
(To work out your personal doughnut = https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools-and-stories/118)
Could this 'Maslow doughnut' be a better model for how we think about our personal development in the 21st century?
No comments:
Post a Comment