We suggest ecosynomics as a name for the emerging science of abundance. By highlighting agreements based in abundance, it might seem to some that ecosynomics is in opposition to agreements based in scarcity. This is not accurate.
Ecosynomics suggests that there is a bigger game that one can find through the perspective of abundance, and that scarcity plays a special role within that bigger game. This means that when abundance is the starting point, one can find a special use for scarcity. This does not work the other way around — one does not start from scarcity and find a special case for abundance.
Maybe a brief tale of two scarcities might help. One scarcity is Nowhere. The other is Now Here. [Hat tips to Charles Dickens and Leslie Ritchie-Dunham for the inspiration and naming of this tale.]
The people of Nowhere assume scarcity is the ultimate truth. In Nowhere, they say, “Just look around you, and you can see that there is not enough for everyone.” They allocate resources based on systems designed from the sacred assumption of scarcity, which they call economics.
The people of Now Here assume abundance is the ultimate truth. In Now Here, they say, “When you look around, you see the infinite potential all around you, and how you can relate to it over time.” While they see infinite potential in what a resource could be, and a pathway for developing that potential over time, they also celebrate the sacred moment of the outcome, when the resource can be perceived as a scarce thing. For them, it is this specific moment of the outcomes that makes the resources seem to be scarce. Of all the possibilities that the energy could have been, in this moment it is that specific noun, that resource. This is why the specific outcome is so sacred.
While in one world there is nowhere for potential, in the other it is now here. The first assumes scarcity for everything all of the time. The second perceives scarcity in the sacred moment of the specific outcome. An assumption versus a perception — it makes all of the difference.