The sharing economy is ultimately an economy for people and the planet: one that ensures prosperity for all while protecting the Earth as our common home, writes Rok Kralj.
Editorial note
This edition is not a complete translation of the 2018 Slovenian book Ekonomija delitve: uresničitev 25. člena v 21. stoletju. It is an abridged and revised English edition prepared for electronic publication. Several sections have been shortened, reorganised, updated, or stylistically revised, and a number of new texts have been added.
The central argument of the original work has nevertheless been preserved: the implementation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the foundation for the development of the sharing economy in the twenty-first century. By ensuring universal access to the essential goods required for a life of dignity, the sharing economy offers a practical means of translating the principles of Article 25 into economic and social reality.
The translation was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence. AI tools were used to support translation, language editing, terminology checks, and stylistic refinement. All passages were subsequently reviewed and edited by the author. Quotations and factual claims have been retained or updated where reliable sources were available; readers should consult the cited original sources for authoritative wording and context.
I sincerely thank Nika Kralj and Adam Parsons for carefully reviewing the text and offering valuable suggestions for its improvement.
To my great family—humanity—with whom I share our common home, the Earth, and with whom I hope one day to share, through cooperation and the sharing economy, its abundant gifts—the commons.
Contents:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. – Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, 1[2] After so many years of political inaction, only the massed goodwill of ordinary people can bring about an end to poverty in a world of plenty through enormous and continual protests across all countries. So let’s take the path of least resistance and jointly herald the long-agreed human rights of Article 25—for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all. This is the surest route for impelling our governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy. – Mohammed Sofiane Mesbahi[3] After two world wars, people began to think differently. Rather than focusing solely on their own countries, they started to consider humanity as a whole. They moved away from division and towards unity. They no longer spoke only of the individual, but also of the collective. People recognised that global problems could not be solved through war. Nuclear weapons made it clear that war could destroy everyone, not just a single country. To prevent such a catastrophe and to make it easier to address global problems, the United Nations was established in 1945, followed by the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and numerous other important international agreements. This laid the foundation for seeing humanity as one. The United Nations brings together countries to promote peace and cooperation and to solve global problems. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stresses that all people have the same rights and dignity, as shown in Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.[4] Modern society is built upon the foundations of the human rights enshrined in that venerable Declaration, although in everyday life it still falls far short of fully expressing them. Many nations, organisations, and individuals continue to perceive and behave as if they are somehow special, superior, and more advanced than others, having greater rights, and so forth. This is especially evident in the economy, where global wealth accumulates in the hands of a small minority, while the vast majority of people struggle to survive from day to day, if they can at all. For millions of people, poverty means hunger, preventable disease and death, despair and suffering, lack of education, and exploitation. Countless people are forced to leave their homes and seek refuge or opportunity in the so-called “promised lands”, where they are often unwanted and despised as migrants. Some may be driven into petty or more serious crime, while widespread deprivation contributes to social unrest and instability. Global inequality lies behind innumerable human tragedies and contributes to conflict, war, forced migration, and environmental destruction. It is therefore right that, among all the rights enshrined in the Declaration, we give special emphasis to those stated in Article 25, and finally put them into practice. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.[5] This means ensuring that every human being on Earth has access to basic goods. The current economic system, driven by the ideology of commercialisation, does not guarantee this. Meeting basic human needs is the foundation of social well-being and the practical expression of the recognition of the oneness of humankind. To implement Article 25, we must transform our economic system. Although it is highly efficient and already produces enough goods to meet the essential needs of all humanity, the problem is that these goods do not reach many people. What we need, therefore, is not more goods or greater economic growth, but a fairer distribution of the world’s goods and resources. If nations agree at the global level to share the key resources necessary for fulfilling basic human needs, then everyone will be guaranteed “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,” as stated in Article 25. On the foundations of cooperation and sharing, we can establish global peace and well-being for all. In 2003, when I presented my first book, Towards the Sharing Economy (K ekonomiji delitve[6]), a friend—one of the handful in the audience—kindly warned me that having the word economy in the title would not attract many readers. He was right. Yet after all these years, I still insist on using the word economy. For many, this word is synonymous with corruption, greed, and selfishness; with the shadowy workings of powerful financial institutions such as central banks; with a science understood only by “initiated” economists; and with the exploitation of people and the environment. Generally, they are right. But it does not have to be this way. The economy is something much simpler: it touches the life of every individual. In fact, all human beings are economists—and not only human beings, since all living creatures are subject to the law of economy. In the natural world, securing enough resources for survival is not easy. At first glance, nature may therefore appear to be governed by a struggle for survival, although numerous examples of instinctive cooperation and symbiosis can also be found in both the plant and animal kingdoms. Many people, including professional economists, therefore defend economic competition as a kind of “natural order.” Yet what truly distinguishes human beings from the animal and plant kingdoms is our conscious ability to cooperate and share goods with one another—the very foundation of everyday life. Today, we have almost forgotten these fundamental economic principles of modern society. As a result, we face difficulties that may threaten our future—a world in which a large part of humanity lacks even the most basic necessities, such as food, water, and medicine, while another part enjoys immense wealth cannot have a future. There is still time for us to take a simple path, one that we know in our hearts to be right: the path of cooperation and sharing. In recent years, especially through our growing awareness of the global climate crisis, we have come to realise that the Earth is our only home and that we share responsibility for it. This realisation brings with it another important insight: despite all our differences, we are one great, interdependent family—one humanity. It is therefore of the utmost importance that our economic thinking, and of course our actions, be aligned with these realisations: we are one great human family, sharing a common home, planet Earth, and its abundant gifts—our global commons. We must no longer place the selfish interests of individuals, corporations, or nations above the common interests of humanity and planet Earth. This means living in peace and prosperity, respecting one another, and preserving a healthy, unpolluted planet. To achieve these goals, the twenty-first-century economy must be a sharing economy. Our economic system must be organised so that the goods required to meet basic human needs—food, water, clothing, adequate shelter, health and social care, and education—are available to every person on the planet. At the same time, we must preserve the balance of the planetary environment by using no more resources than it can sustainably provide. The sharing economy can be organised immediately at the local, national, and global levels. With today’s productive capacity, information and communication technologies, artificial intelligence, and transport systems, such an economy is entirely feasible. What we still need is the will to act for the common good. When we speak of true love for one another, we may say that the sharing economy is the practical expression of such universal love—not merely in words, but in action. The future of humanity is uncertain. We have reached a turning point. We can continue on our current path, a destructive race for increasingly depleted and damaged planetary resources, and keep consuming them beyond the capacity of the global environment to sustain them. Yet only a portion of humanity takes part in this consumerist-commercial spectacle, while the majority lives in deep poverty, deprivation, and growing social conflicts that could, at any moment, erupt into wars. Alternatively, we can choose a different path—the path of well-being and peace. We need not launch another bloody revolution; instead, we must transform our economic system, primarily towards a fairer distribution of the planet’s goods and resources. To this end, we must establish more effective international mechanisms of cooperation and sharing, in which nations act not only in their own interests, but also, and above all, in the interests of humanity and the planet. The first step we must take begins within ourselves. We cannot bring about genuine change as long as we continue to think within the narrow frameworks defined by notions such as “me,” “my family,” “my village or city,” “my nation,” “my country,” “my religion,” and so on. Of course, we must care for ourselves, our families, and our countries—but never at the expense of others, humanity’s future, or the planet. Therefore, we must transcend these limitations and think holistically. For example, despite all our differences, we are first and foremost members of one great human family, which finds expression in the oneness of humanity. We live in a common home, planet Earth, for which we are all responsible. The planet’s resources belong to everyone; therefore, it is right that we share them, especially those goods that ensure the meeting of basic human needs—food, water, adequate shelter, healthcare, and education. With this understanding, we can take steps in the right direction and act as a whole while preserving our individuality and diversity, both as individuals and as nations. Through genuine international cooperation and sharing, we will create a planet of well-being and peace—and secure our future. If we wish to build a shared future in which every person on Earth can live in prosperity and peace, within a healthy natural environment, it is essential to understand the oneness of humanity. For if we continue along the path of division, selfishness, competition, exploitation, and domination, our future will be bleak—if we have a future at all. What is the oneness of humanity, and why is it so important that we understand it and live by it? Human beings are social beings by nature; we always belong to some form of community. Belonging to a community or group does not merely make life easier in a material or economic sense—it also brings other “gifts”: emotional, cultural, spiritual, and more. It is therefore easy, by following the path of least resistance, to identify with one’s family, a circle of friends, a school, or a local, political, religious, or other community. Today, belonging to a larger community—a nation-state or even a broader entity, such as Europe—is almost taken for granted. At this point, however, there is an abrupt break: only a small number of people are capable of thinking of humanity as a whole—as the oneness of humanity. Yet today we know that, both genetically and in terms of our common origins, we truly are members of one human family. Scientifically speaking, all people belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, within the genus Homo. Any two people on Earth share approximately 99.9 per cent of their DNA, and all living humans ultimately descend from common ancestral populations.[7] It is also a fact that we are different. These differences, however, are primarily linguistic, cultural, ideological, and political. They are shaped mainly by the characteristics of the environment into which we are born. Because human communities historically developed in relative isolation from one another, these differences became more pronounced over time. Today, however, in the age of the internet, global trade and tourism, and widely accessible transportation, we are becoming increasingly interconnected and discovering that, despite our differences, we are fundamentally very similar. Globalisation, which we so readily criticise, undoubtedly has many dark sides—such as the excessive power of global corporations and the world’s most influential states. At the same time, however, it is also a process of growing interconnectedness, of recognising our interdependence, of strengthening cooperation, and of coming together as a single global community. This does not mean that we must abandon our cultural, linguistic, or other identities. The oneness of humanity, therefore, means first and foremost recognising humanity as an interdependent and interconnected community with shared goals. Humanity’s key goals are the well-being of all people, a healthy planetary environment, and peace. These goals are enshrined in numerous international documents and agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Paris Agreement on climate change. They form the foundation upon which we must build humanity’s future. It is therefore irrelevant which race we belong to, which nation or state we come from, what religion we follow, or what political or other convictions we hold—unless those convictions are directed against other people. We are equal members of humanity, entitled to the same rights and united by our shared home, planet Earth, and by our common goals. If we truly understand and accept this, then we also understand the meaning of the oneness of humanity—a principle clearly reflected in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. To act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood means treating all people as members of one human family, which, in fact, we all are. From this perspective, it becomes clear that we should share goods and resources with one another, especially since the Earth’s wealth ultimately belongs to all its inhabitants. Why, then, should it belong only to some? In this way, we also come to understand that the sharing economy is a means of ensuring health and well-being for every person on Earth, as affirmed in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Understanding the oneness of humanity is therefore the first step towards living as a cooperative global community—one that shares resources, leaves no one behind, and ensures that no one suffers or dies for lack of the basic necessities of life. At its most basic level, the economy can be understood as care for the material conditions of life. Every human being has material or physical needs—also known as basic human needs—which are essential for survival and the development of human potential. The fundamental economic question, or the core economic problem, is how to provide the goods necessary to meet these needs. In this sense, we are all economists. In fact, this applies to all living beings and to every social community—families, local communities, states, and the global human community. For a larger social community to function successfully, it requires political leadership that coordinates all areas of social life for the common good of the community as a whole and of each individual member. One of these areas is the economy, which plays a particularly important role. Its central role and responsibility are to create the material conditions necessary for all members of society and to support the smooth functioning of other social domains—education, healthcare, public administration, the judicial system, local communities, culture, and others—that serve the needs of individuals and society as a whole. The fundamental objective of economic activity is well-being, which enables individuals not only to meet their basic needs but also to fully develop and express their potential. For this reason, the way the economy is organised, and the way its institutions—companies, banks, shops, and others—function, are of crucial importance. The two key domains of the economy are the production and distribution of goods. In terms of production, the economy has been extraordinarily successful. Today, enough goods are produced to meet the basic needs of every person on the planet. In other words, the economy has already solved humanity’s fundamental economic problem of producing enough for everyone’s survival. Yet this achievement has not ensured that everyone’s basic needs are actually met. The key economic problem of our time is not the production of goods, which is more than sufficient, but their distribution. In some parts of the world, there is an overwhelming surplus of goods, and economic systems are primarily concerned with the “problem” of stimulating consumption. In many other parts of the world, however, there is a severe shortage of even the most basic necessities, and the central economic problem is the very survival of hundreds of millions of people. When we speak about today’s economy, we must therefore focus primarily on transforming the way goods and resources are distributed. Distribution must be organised so that at least the goods needed to meet basic human needs reach every person on the planet, thereby preventing unnecessary suffering caused by a lack of food, water, medicine, and other essential necessities. The economic system does not need to increase production further or pursue constant economic growth—an obsession that creates social and environmental imbalances. Instead, it must organise a fairer distribution of the world’s goods. For this reason, the future economic system can be called the sharing economy. Let us also consider the role of money in today’s economic system and in society as a whole. The original purpose of money was to simplify the distribution of goods within the community. Instead, money has become the ultimate goal of economic life and the “arbiter” that determines who will survive and who will not. This may sound exaggerated, yet in some parts of the world, “having money” means living, while “not having it” means dying. Individuals, economic institutions, and even political systems are primarily concerned with accumulating wealth—often through fraud, manipulation, and speculation—rather than directing economic activity towards social well-being and the prosperity of society’s members. The result is extreme social inequality, visible everywhere: hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation on one side, and excessive wealth and overconsumption on the other. The economy is therefore by no means the “art” of accumulating wealth for a few at the expense of the majority of humanity and the planetary environment. It is a social domain whose primary task is to enable all people to meet their basic material needs and thereby develop their potential. The economy is responsible for the material foundations upon which the entire social community rests. In a certain sense, the economy has a maternal role: it nourishes us, supports our growth, nurtures us, and cares for our shared well-being. Its task is to serve the common good. The economy of the future is therefore the sharing economy—one that ensures universal access to the goods and services that all inhabitants of Earth need to meet their basic and broader social needs, thereby enabling them to fully develop and express their potential. We may thus say that the ultimate purpose and goal of all economic activity is the well-being of humanity. All human beings share the same basic needs. These needs are related to our physical bodies, which require certain conditions in order to grow, develop, and sustain vital life processes. In fact, all living beings have basic needs. Plants, for example, require sunlight as a source of energy, water, carbon dioxide, and certain minerals. Animals need food, which provides energy in various forms, as well as water, air, shelter or a suitable habitat, and, in the case of more highly developed species, basic survival skills—such as how to obtain food and find appropriate shelter. Basic human needs are even more complex. In addition to food, water, air, shelter, and basic survival skills, we also need clothing to protect us from excessive heat loss. Because the human body is not as adapted to the environment as the bodies of many animal species, and because we live in a far more complex social world, we also require healthcare and social protection. Furthermore, we need education, since life in human society demands far more than basic survival skills alone. The most fundamental economic task of every human being is to secure the goods necessary to meet basic physical needs. In summary, every person on Earth has the following basic needs: • food and safe drinking water, • clothing and adequate housing, • healthcare and social protection, • education. Having one’s basic needs met is therefore a fundamental right of every person on Earth, reflected particularly in Article 25 and, with regard to education, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (Article 25, paragraph 1)[8] Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (Article 26, paragraph 1) Consequently, the first and most important economic priority must be to ensure that the basic needs of all people on the planet are met. The well-being of humanity is a condition in which every person on Earth can meet their basic needs without hindrance while living in a healthy and peaceful environment that enables them to develop their full potential. This means that individuals can express themselves in areas that reflect their abilities and aspirations, including culture, sport, social engagement, environmental protection, philosophy, religion, education, and many others. The well-being of humanity does not mean that all people possess the same amount of wealth or the same goods, nor that they engage in the same activities. It does, however, mean that everyone has the opportunity to meet their basic needs and gain access to the goods and services that enable them to develop their potential. We cannot speak of the well-being of humanity as long as even one person on Earth lacks basic necessities such as food, safe drinking water, or medicine. The sharing economy is not a new concept; its foundations can be traced back to humanity’s earliest beginnings. Individual human beings would have found it extremely difficult to survive in a natural environment inhabited by dangerous predators. Humanity’s essential advantage, which enabled it to survive and eventually become the dominant species in its environment, was its capacity for cooperation and sharing. Competition was never the sole foundation of human society, even though economists and politicians today often seek to persuade us otherwise. Today, it is no longer sufficient to share goods only within families and small communities or, to a limited extent, at the national level. At the international level, sharing remains largely confined to occasional acts of charity, humanitarian assistance, and government aid. If we want all people to enjoy the well-being that forms the foundation of peaceful coexistence and environmental sustainability, we must adopt sharing and cooperation on a systemic level and develop them into the sharing economy. The sharing economy is therefore both an economic and a social system whose fundamental goal is to enable every person on Earth to meet their basic needs. To understand this system more fully, we must first clarify several key concepts: the commons, resources, and goods. The commons The commons comprise everything humanity has at its disposal to sustain life and promote human well-being. They constitute the material foundations of our existence and include the oceans, rivers, lakes, forests, the atmosphere, land, and the Earth’s natural wealth. In the broadest sense, the entire planet Earth, together with its natural environment, may be understood as our common home and common heritage—the commons. Humanity’s accumulated knowledge, skills, discoveries, and cultural achievements may also be regarded as part of the commons. They are not the work of isolated individuals alone but the result of the efforts and experiences of countless generations. In the broadest sense, human beings themselves may therefore also be regarded as part of the commons—not as resources to be used, but as members of the global community whose knowledge, labour, creativity, and achievements contribute to humanity’s common heritage. This broader understanding is related to the original meaning of the word economy. The ancient Greek term oikonomia,[9] from which the modern word economy derives, originally referred to the management of a household or family. It is traditionally understood as a compound of oikos, meaning house, home, or household, and nomos, meaning rule, custom, or order. The related word oikonomos, derived from the same root, means a household manager or steward. Oikonomia involved the administration and distribution of household resources and may also be understood in terms of stewardship:[10] the responsible care of people, property, and resources entrusted to one’s care. In a broader contemporary interpretation, humanity may be understood as one great family, the Earth as our common home, and the economy as the responsible stewardship of the global commons for the benefit of all. Other living beings should not be regarded merely as resources available for human use. Rather, they should be understood as part of the commons for which humanity bears a shared responsibility. They are members of the wider community of life with which we share the planet. Since humanity now exercises immense power over the natural world, it also has a duty to protect the well-being of other species and preserve the ecosystems on which all life depends. This is an essential part of the responsible stewardship of the commons. Resources Resources may be defined as those parts of the commons that are used in the production of goods and the provision of services. They therefore enter the realm of the economy as one of its fundamental categories. A problem arises when individuals, corporations, or states appropriate resources as their exclusive property, even though those resources originate in the commons and should, by their very nature, benefit humanity as a whole. Humanity should therefore act primarily as the steward and responsible manager of the commons and of the resources derived from them. This approach is consistent with the idea of oikonomia as the responsible management and stewardship of the household for the benefit of the whole community. Resources can generally be divided into natural and social resources, although both arise from the commons understood as a single, shared whole. Natural resources originate in the natural environment, while social resources arise from human knowledge, labour, skills, organisation, and accumulated achievements. Oil, for example, is a natural resource, whereas the knowledge, technology, and labour required to extract and process it are social resources. Today, both natural and social resources are increasingly subject to privatisation, commercialisation and exploitation. For example, new inventions and production processes undoubtedly involve individual creativity and effort, but they also build upon humanity’s accumulated knowledge and skills. When a new process is protected by intellectual property rights, the contribution of its creators should be recognised. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that no invention arises entirely independently of humanity’s shared intellectual heritage, which forms part of the commons. Capital, money, and financial assets may also be regarded as resources. They belong to the category of social resources, since they are essentially human creations intended to facilitate the production and distribution of goods. Unfortunately, today they are often used as instruments for accumulating wealth rather than promoting human well-being. Goods Goods include both material products and intangible services that enable people to meet their needs. Their production and provision require natural resources derived from the commons, as well as social resources, particularly human labour, knowledge and skills. Goods may therefore be divided into two broad categories: products and services. In practice, however, these categories are closely intertwined, since few products or services exist in a completely pure form. Bread, for example, is a product, but its sale and distribution involve a range of services. Transport is a service, yet it depends on material products and infrastructure such as vehicles, roads, railways, ports, and stations. The commons, resources, and goods in the sharing economy Why are the commons, resources, and goods important when discussing the sharing economy? Every product we purchase, every service we use, and every resource employed within the economic system ultimately originates in the commons or depends upon them. The natural and social foundations of these products, services, and resources do not belong exclusively to any individual, corporation, or state. Rather, they form part of humanity’s shared natural and social heritage—the commons. Human beings should therefore not regard themselves as the absolute owners of the commons, but primarily as their users, managers, and stewards. Applied to our common household, the Earth, this means managing its commons responsibly for the benefit of humanity as a whole. It follows that sharing, as a foundation of the economic system, is a rightful way of managing the commons for which we all bear responsibility. Companies and other organisations will, of course, continue to use resources to produce goods and provide services. However, sharing must be incorporated into the economic system to ensure that essential goods and services reach everyone on Earth. It is equally important for states to share natural and social resources through international cooperation. The sharing economy is therefore concerned both with the sharing of resources among states and with the fair distribution of the goods and services needed to meet people’s basic needs. The current economic order, in which the most powerful states, corporations, and wealthiest individuals control key natural resources and claim exclusive rights over social resources such as knowledge, technology, skills, and even human labour, is neither just nor sustainable. At its core, the sharing economy means sharing and responsibly managing that which, by its very nature, should benefit all: the commons of humanity. By putting this principle into practice, humanity can embark on a path of wise and just stewardship for the benefit of all people, other living beings, and the planet as a whole. This is also the deepest meaning and purpose of the economy itself. As discussed earlier, the central purpose of the sharing economy is to ensure universal access to essential goods and services, enabling everyone to meet their basic needs. This principle can be applied at every level of social organisation, although the sharing economy takes somewhat different forms at the family, local, national, and global levels. Its fundamental principles and goals nevertheless remain the same: cooperation, the sharing of goods and resources, the common good, and the well-being of all members of the community. Within the smallest social community—the family—the sharing economy functions almost as a natural economic model. Goods, responsibilities, and care are generally shared among family members according to their needs and abilities. At the local level, many familiar forms of sharing already exist, including libraries, cooperatives, neighbourhood initiatives, and other organisations that pool resources and work for the benefit of the community. At the national level, the sharing economy is reflected in various features of the social or welfare state. Resources are pooled through taxation and other forms of public revenue and redistributed among citizens through public education, healthcare, social protection, infrastructure, transport, communications, and other public services. At the global level, however, sharing remains poorly developed. International economic relations are still largely shaped by competition, the pursuit of national interests, the exploitation of weaker countries, and economic conflict, all of which may contribute to political and military tensions. For this reason, the development of a global sharing economy is of vital importance to the future of humanity and the planet. Relentless economic growth, ruthless competition for resources, and widening inequality contribute to social and environmental destruction. When we also consider the political, military, and migration pressures arising from deprivation, conflict, and environmental degradation, it becomes clear that continuing along the same path will lead to an increasingly unstable future. Common sense therefore requires us to begin thinking and acting differently. Placing cooperation and sharing at the centre of international relations is neither idealistic nor naïve. If we place the interests of humanity—the well-being and peace of all people—at the forefront, cooperation among states becomes both logical and necessary. This does not mean neglecting legitimate national interests. On the contrary, the long-term well-being of every country depends on the well-being, stability, and peace of humanity as a whole. If each country acts solely in pursuit of greater power, influence, and wealth, it inevitably does so, at least partly, at the expense of others. Yet when other countries suffer, even wealthy and powerful states are ultimately affected. Economic deprivation, armed conflict, environmental destruction, and the loss of livelihoods contribute to displacement and migration, whose consequences cannot be confined within national borders. We should therefore speak plainly: much of today’s global economy is based on the unequal appropriation and control of resources. Wealthy industrialised states and corporations obtain large quantities of natural resources from poorer countries through economic arrangements reinforced by political power, legal structures, and financial influence. No country is entirely self-sufficient, and some form of international exchange is necessary. The problem is not exchange itself, but the deeply unequal conditions under which it often takes place, disproportionately benefiting the most powerful countries. In a world of more than eight billion people, humanity must develop a fairer system for managing and distributing global resources and essential goods. The institutional framework for international cooperation already exists in the form of the United Nations. Within this global organisation, states could agree on mechanisms for sharing the resources and goods required to meet basic human needs. A specialised international agency could be established to coordinate a common pool of essential goods and resources. Countries could contribute agreed surpluses to this pool and receive goods that they temporarily or permanently lack. Particular attention would be given to food, safe drinking water, medicines, medical equipment, clothing, housing materials, agricultural resources, and support for healthcare and basic education. The agency’s central task would be to coordinate the exchange and distribution of resources and essential goods among countries, based on a comprehensive overview of global supplies and needs. In some cases, exchanges could take place directly on a goods-for-goods basis (barter), while other mechanisms could be used depending on the circumstances. Such a proposal may appear ambitious. Yet it is far more unrealistic to assume that the existing competitive global economy will, by itself, produce justice, sustainability, peace, and a viable future for humanity and the planet. How the sharing economy could be implemented was explored in greater detail in the book Meditations on the Sharing Economy.[11] The main ideas may be summarised as follows. The three phases of implementing the sharing economy Once humanity recognises that cooperation and sharing are essential for addressing poverty, conflict, and environmental degradation, a new economic paradigm can begin to emerge: the sharing economy. Its implementation may be understood in terms of three interconnected phases. Although they may overlap in part, the first priority must be to save human lives and alleviate severe deprivation. Phase 1: Saving lives and alleviating human suffering caused by the lack of essential goods (the New Global Marshall Plan) The first task is to ensure universal access to food, clean water, adequate housing, healthcare, and basic education. The immediate priority must be to save the lives of millions who suffer because essential goods and services are unavailable to them. Charitable organisations already provide vital assistance, but their work is limited by insufficient and uncertain funding. A far greater and more coordinated effort is therefore required, involving governments, international institutions, humanitarian organisations, businesses, the public, and, where appropriate, the logistical and transport capacities of armed forces. The Marshall Plan remains an important example of large-scale government-led international assistance. Beginning in 1948, the United States provided approximately $13.3 billion (equivalent to about $185 billion, or €162 billion, in June 2026 values) to support the economic recovery of Western European countries after the Second World War. The programme helped rebuild war-damaged economies, modernise industry, increase productivity, and promote greater European economic stability and cooperation.[12] Today, the world has sufficient resources to meet everyone’s basic needs. The main obstacles are political and economic rather than material. Hunger, migration, instability, and environmental destruction are closely connected with extreme inequality. A new Global Marshall Plan could rapidly reduce hunger, poverty, and preventable suffering. It would also help build trust among nations and establish a stronger foundation for peace. Once the most urgent suffering had been alleviated, humanity could develop lasting mechanisms for sharing global resources. Phase 2: Establishing the international agency to coordinate global sharing and regional emergency centres The next phase would establish a permanent international system for sharing essential resources and goods. Its purpose would be to prevent shortages caused by climate change, natural disasters, conflict, or unequal development. Countries could report their surpluses and shortages to a specialised United Nations agency for global sharing. The Agency would maintain an overview of available resources and coordinate the direct transfer of these resources between countries, prioritising food, drinking water, medicine, clothing, sanitation supplies, and other essential goods. This system would concern surplus national resources and would not involve the redistribution of personal wealth. Countries would retain responsibility for transport, while the Agency would provide recommendations based on its global overview of needs and available supplies. Advanced communication systems, transport networks, logistics, artificial intelligence, and the capacities of humanitarian and military organisations could support rapid and efficient distribution. Regional emergency centres could also be established in different parts of the world. They would maintain reserves of food, water, medicine, temporary shelter, and other necessities, enabling a rapid response to disasters without having to organise aid from the beginning each time. Such a system could permanently reduce shortages of essential goods, save lives, strengthen international trust, and reduce migration by ensuring that people have access to the basic conditions necessary for survival. Phase 3: Transforming the global economic system with an emphasis on sharing—an economy for people and the planet After urgent deprivation had been reduced and a permanent system of international resource sharing established, the gradual transformation of the wider economic system could begin. This new system, based on sharing and cooperation, would place meeting basic human needs and promoting the well-being of humanity at the centre of economic life. Economic activity would no longer be judged primarily by profit and growth, but by its contribution to human dignity, social justice, peace, and environmental sustainability. Many existing international organisations, agreements, and forms of cooperation already demonstrate humanity’s ability to act for the common good. The transition to the sharing economy would require political, social, economic, and personal change, but the foundations of such a future may already be in place. The sharing economy would ultimately be an economy for people and the planet: one that ensures prosperity for all while protecting the Earth as our common home. At the national level, the sharing economy is already reflected, to some extent, in the social or welfare state. The state pools resources from citizens, businesses, and institutions—primarily through taxation and other public revenues—and uses them for the benefit of all. Public education, healthcare, social protection, public administration, infrastructure, social housing, environmental protection, public transport, and similar services are financed from this common pool. Through these systems, resources are redistributed according to social needs rather than solely on the basis of individual purchasing power. However, the extent and quality of such systems vary greatly from country to country. In a period of rapid social, economic, environmental, and technological change, new forms of sharing may be needed, as traditional welfare systems often struggle to respond to growing insecurity, precarious employment, ageing populations, automation, and increasing inequality. Proposals such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Universal Basic Services (UBS) may represent steps towards a fairer distribution of material and social wealth. UBI involves providing every person with a regular, unconditional income, while UBS focuses on guaranteeing universal access to essential goods and services, including healthcare, education, housing, food, water, transport, information, and social protection. As automation, robotics, artificial intelligence, and digital technologies increasingly transform or replace certain forms of human labour, societies must reconsider how to ensure the well-being of all people, regardless of traditional employment patterns. Universal access to essential goods and services could also transform our relationship with work. People would no longer be compelled to accept insecure, poorly paid, or exploitative employment merely in order to survive. Work could increasingly become a source of meaningful contribution, creativity, cooperation, and personal development. If each state ensures that the basic needs of its population are met while also contributing to international sharing mechanisms, strong foundations can be laid for well-being and peace at both the national and global levels. At the local level, the sharing economy is truly at home. Families, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities have practised various forms of sharing for centuries, and many of these practices are now experiencing a revival. Libraries, associations, cooperatives, voluntary organisations, schools, neighbourhood groups, and public institutions are long-standing examples of how goods, resources, knowledge, and services can be pooled for the common good. Alongside these traditional forms, digital technologies and social networks are enabling new sharing initiatives. Local communities can organise the shared use of bicycles, cars, tools, household items, clothing, seeds, equipment, workspaces, community rooms, gardens, parking spaces, and many other things that would otherwise remain underused. People can also exchange knowledge, skills, and services through tutoring, childcare, care for older people, minor repairs, transport assistance, and many other forms of mutual support. However, the pervasive influence of commercialisation poses a risk. Initiatives that begin as genuine forms of cooperation and sharing may gradually be transformed into conventional profit-oriented services. The fact that several people have access to the same product does not, in itself, make an activity part of the sharing economy in the deeper social sense. Its purpose, ownership structure, accessibility, and contribution to the common good must also be taken into account. The possibilities for sharing goods, knowledge, and services at the local level are almost unlimited. Local authorities can support such initiatives by providing suitable spaces, digital platforms, funding, legal frameworks, and organisational assistance. Cities can, for example, reduce congestion and pollution through shared transport systems, make better use of underused parking spaces and public buildings, support the exchange of children’s clothing and equipment, establish tool libraries, promote community gardens, and facilitate the temporary use of vacant spaces. At the local level, the sharing economy can involve individuals, neighbourhood groups, associations, cooperatives, schools, businesses, municipal authorities, and many other institutions. Particularly in densely populated urban areas, it is becoming increasingly clear that urban life will become socially, economically, and environmentally unsustainable unless resources such as transport, space, energy, tools, infrastructure, and essential goods are used more efficiently and shared more widely. The same fundamental logic applies at the national and global levels. The forms and mechanisms may differ, but the goal remains the same: to manage and distribute resources and goods in ways that serve the entire community and ensure that no one is deprived of the essentials of life. We can therefore reaffirm that the sharing economy is an economy for the twenty-first century—one founded on cooperation, universal access to essential goods, responsible stewardship of the commons, the well-being of humanity, and the health of the planet. Society is not merely a collection of individuals but a web of relationships among people, communities, states, corporations, and institutions. Its quality therefore depends on the quality of these relationships. Yet many are still shaped by selfishness, greed, competition, and divisions based on nationality, race, religion, wealth, social status, or ideology. In politics, this is reflected in the pursuit of narrow national interests; in the economy, it is reflected in competition for resources, markets, wealth, and power, while millions remain deprived of the necessities of life. The alternative begins with recognising the oneness of humanity. Despite all our differences, we belong to one human family and share one common home, the Earth. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expresses this principle clearly: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. To act in a spirit of brotherhood means treating others as members of our wider human family. Within families, people care for one another, share responsibilities and goods, respond to need, and maintain a common home. What we already practise within our own families should now be extended to the whole human family and our common planetary home, and expressed at the political and economic levels through cooperation and sharing. Sharing may therefore be regarded as a fundamental social principle, alongside justice, freedom, equality, and solidarity. It arises from the recognition that the Earth’s natural and social wealth constitutes the common heritage of humanity: the commons. The commons and the resources derived from them should be managed responsibly and used for the well-being of humanity and the wider community of life. Sharing is already familiar to us. Within families and communities, people share food, knowledge, care, responsibilities, and other goods according to their needs and abilities. At the local and national levels, this principle is expressed through libraries, cooperatives, public services, healthcare, education, social protection, infrastructure, and welfare systems. Resources are pooled through taxation and other forms of public revenue and used for the benefit of society as a whole. At the international level, however, sharing remains poorly developed. States and corporations continue to compete for resources, productive capacity, technology, markets, and political influence. Resources originating in the commons are frequently appropriated by powerful actors and used mainly for private profit rather than for the common good. Sharing must therefore become a central principle of international economic relations. Through cooperation and the fair distribution of essential goods and resources, humanity could eliminate extreme poverty and hunger, reduce tensions, and strengthen the foundations of peace. The fundamental purpose of the economy should be to create the material and social conditions necessary for the well-being of every person and society as a whole. This begins with meeting basic human needs: food, safe drinking water, clothing, adequate housing, healthcare, social protection, and education. When these needs are met, people can develop their abilities and contribute more fully to culture, science, education, art, politics, and social life. In the broader sense used here, goods include both material products and services. The purpose of the sharing economy is to ensure universal, reliable, and sustainable access to the goods and services needed to meet basic human needs, while respecting the planet’s environmental limits. This purpose may be pursued through giving and exchange, including barter, shared use, public services, common funds, universal basic services, universal basic income, international agreements, and coordinated systems for sharing essential goods and resources among states. The forms may differ according to local traditions, cultures, needs, and circumstances, but their underlying purpose remains the same. The sharing economy may therefore be understood as an umbrella term for socio-economic models that ensure access to essential goods and services; promote the sharing and responsible use of natural and social resources; strengthen cooperation and solidarity; conserve resources through repair, reuse, shared use, and longer product lifespans; and support the responsible stewardship of the commons for both present and future generations. In its deeper social meaning, the sharing economy stands in contrast to excessive commercialisation. Money, trade, markets, and entrepreneurship are useful elements of economic activity, but problems arise when commercial principles dominate areas whose primary purpose should be human and social well-being. Healthcare, education, social protection, housing, care services, culture, and environmental protection should not be organised with profit as their primary objective. Commercialisation turns nature, labour, knowledge, healthcare, education, and even people themselves into commodities and market opportunities. It divides society into those with sufficient purchasing power and those without. The sharing economy is founded on a different principle: access to essential goods must not depend solely on the ability to pay. Human needs, justice, human rights, and the common good must also guide the distribution of essential goods. The political and moral foundation for this already exists. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises everyone’s right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, necessary social services, and social security. Article 26 further affirms the right to education. In an age of advanced technology, global communications, modern transport, scientific knowledge, and extraordinary productive capacity, humanity can no longer justify allowing millions to remain deprived of the necessities of life. The principal obstacle is not a lack of resources or knowledge, but their unjust distribution, reinforced by commercialisation, narrow national interests, indifference, and political inaction. Humanitarian organisations perform indispensable work, but charity alone cannot eliminate poverty and hunger. These challenges require permanent cooperation among states and international mechanisms for sharing resources and essential goods. Implementing Article 25 is therefore not merely an act of generosity but a responsibility of the international community and a practical expression of human rights, justice, and the oneness of humanity. The sharing economy does not require the abolition of markets, money, trade, private enterprise, or individual initiative. It requires them to operate within a broader framework of social responsibility, human rights, environmental limits, and the common good. Humanity already possesses the resources, knowledge, technology, and organisational capacity needed to build such a system. What is still required is political will and the recognition that the well-being of every person, community, and state ultimately depends on the well-being of humanity as a whole. The sharing economy is therefore an economy for the twenty-first century: a practical expression of cooperation and the oneness of humanity, and a path towards a more humane, just, peaceful, and sustainable world in which every person has a place in the sun. Let us imagine the society of the future—not the dystopian society so often portrayed in films, books, and the media; not a world of extreme wealth and poverty, scarcity, violence, technological control, and hopelessness. Let us imagine a different future: one in which all people live in peace, prosperity, and a healthy environment. A society in which humanity embraces a simple yet powerful principle: the goods of the Earth belong to everyone and should therefore be shared; cooperation is a more natural path than competition. Such a future is not a utopia in the negative sense of the word. We can already glimpse it today in many ideas, movements, and initiatives around the world. Yet it still seems distant because we remain guided by old patterns of thought, habits, and deeply rooted beliefs. These teach us that life is a struggle, that the economy is a competition, that everyone must look after themselves first, and that the accumulation of wealth is a sign of success. But perhaps now is precisely the time to ask ourselves: has this way of thinking truly brought us happiness, peace, and security? A dignified life for all The society of the future would be based on a different understanding of the human being and the world. Its starting point would be the recognition that every person has the right to the essential goods required for a dignified life. Food, water, adequate housing, healthcare, and education would not be privileges dependent on place of birth, nationality, wealth, or market conditions, but fundamental rights of every human being. This would not mean that everyone must live in the same way or conform to a uniform model, as is often encouraged by today’s commercially driven globalisation. On the contrary, such a society would respect the diversity of cultures, languages, customs, ways of life, and spiritual paths. Equality does not mean that we are all the same or that we all possess the same amount of wealth. It means that everyone has the opportunity to live a dignified, secure, and creative life. Once basic needs are met, people can truly develop their abilities, talents, and inner potential. Work, technology, and the common good In such a society, our understanding of work would also change. Because of automation, robotisation, and artificial intelligence, working hours could be reduced. People might work three days a week and devote the rest of their time to education, culture, sport, family life, volunteering, creativity, spirituality, or simply rest. Work would no longer be primarily a means of survival, but a contribution to the community and a form of personal expression. Today, we often fear that technology will take away our jobs. But the real question is not whether technology will replace some forms of human labour, but who will benefit from this progress. If the benefits of automation and robotisation belong only to the owners of capital and a small group of the wealthiest people, technology will deepen inequality even further. If, however, we understand these advances as a common achievement of humanity—since they are based on the accumulated knowledge, skills, and experience of many generations—they can become the foundation for shorter working hours, better public services, and a higher quality of life for all. Democracy, enterprises, and public services In the future society, our understanding of democracy would also change. It would no longer be based primarily on a deep left–right divide that often separates people and narrows the space for cooperation and long-term planning. Democracy should be founded on responsibility, knowledge, experience, and service to the common good. Candidates for political office and leadership positions should undergo a thorough selection process that considers their expertise, education, experience, knowledge, previous contributions to society, ethical integrity, absence of serious criminal convictions, and ability to cooperate. Leading a community should not be a reward for ambition, visibility, or membership of a particular political party, but a responsible task entrusted to people who have shown that they can act for the good of the whole. Enterprise governance should likewise become more democratic. Companies would no longer be understood merely as private property intended to generate profit for their owners, but as important parts of the wider community. Employees, local communities, and, where appropriate, the state should therefore have a greater role in their ownership and governance. Representatives of employees, owners, local communities, consumers, and the public interest could participate in key decision-making processes within companies. Such an arrangement would limit arbitrary decision-making, encourage responsibility towards people and the environment, and help ensure that companies serve the life of the community and reinvest in it rather than merely accumulating profits. With such an understanding of the economy, public services—the foundation of a dignified life—would also be strengthened. Healthcare, education, childcare, and care for older people should not depend on individual wealth, market profitability, or austerity measures. They should be universally accessible, high-quality, and adequately funded. These services are not costs that burden society, but common investments in health, knowledge, security, solidarity, and the future of all generations. A significant proportion of workers no longer required in manufacturing because of automation and robotisation could move into these fields, where human presence, care, compassion, and responsibility cannot be replaced by machines. Cities, security, and shared life The cities of the future would be designed around people rather than cars, profit, and endless consumption. Public transport would be accessible, reliable, high-quality, and free of charge. Streets would be greener, safer, and more welcoming to pedestrians, cyclists, children, older people, and people with disabilities. Energy would come from clean sources. Housing policy would be shaped by people’s needs rather than market speculation and the unchecked expansion of tourist accommodation. Cities would not merely be places of work and consumption, but spaces for meeting, culture, learning, creativity, and shared life. Security should also be understood more broadly. It is not merely the absence of crime or war. Security also means knowing that one will not go hungry tomorrow; that illness will not lead to poverty; that every child can attend school; that no older person will be abandoned; and that the community will care for those in distress. In the narrower, conventional sense, police forces would protect people within individual countries, while international security would be supported by strengthened and shared United Nations forces. War would no longer be regarded as an acceptable means of resolving disputes. The United Nations would become a true centre of global cooperation—not a world government, but a forum in which all countries have a voice and can participate in achieving humanity’s common goals: the well-being of all people, the protection of the global environment, security, and peace. The environment as humanity’s common concern In the society of the future, the environment would be understood as humanity’s common concern. Forests, the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, lakes, groundwater, and fertile soil would not be treated primarily as economic resources to be exploited, but as the foundations of life on Earth. Their protection would not be left solely to individual countries, market interests, or short-term political decisions, but would become the shared responsibility of all nations. Special care would be devoted to forests, which protect the climate, soil, water, and countless forms of life. The atmosphere would be understood as a common good that no one has the right to pollute at others’ expense. Oceans would no longer be treated as spaces for ruthless extraction, pollution, and waste disposal, but as a shared living environment upon which the balance of the entire planet depends. Fresh water would likewise be recognised as one of humanity’s most important commons, for without clean water there can be no health, food, a dignified life, or peace. Such an understanding of the environment would also transform the economy. Economic development would no longer mean the destruction of natural systems, but their restoration, protection, and responsible use. Humanity would act as the guardian of the Earth, not as its owner. Only when we understand nature as our commons rather than merely as an economic resource will we be able to speak of a truly secure and dignified future for all. Global sharing One of the key foundations of such a future would be a system for the global sharing of goods and resources. The world already has enough food, knowledge, technology, and productive capacity for every person to live with dignity. The problem is not scarcity, but unjust distribution, selfish interests, greed, and the absence of genuine cooperation among nations. A global system of sharing would enable surpluses of food, medicines, energy, knowledge, and other essential resources to be directed to places where they are lacking, especially in times of natural disaster, drought, flooding, poor harvests, or other crises. Sharing would also take place at national, regional, local, and community levels. Yet global sharing is crucial to the common future of the great human family. Such a system would not mean charity from the rich to the poor. It would mean recognising that humanity is one community, one family, and that access to basic goods is a right shared by all. The Earth is not the property of individual states, corporations, or a single generation. Its gifts are the common heritage of humanity. The commons such as water, the atmosphere, oceans, seeds, knowledge, and technological achievements should be managed responsibly and for the benefit of all people and future generations. Sufficiency instead of accumulation At the heart of such a society would be the principle of sufficiency. Sufficiency means that, at some point, we can say: “We have enough.” Enough for a good life, though not for endless accumulation. Enough food, housing, security, healthcare, education, culture, free time, and meaningful human relationships. Sufficiency is not poverty, nor does it mean renouncing a good life. On the contrary, it is a condition for genuine prosperity because it frees us from constant competition, comparison, and fear of scarcity. A vision of the future based on sharing and cooperation is therefore not an unrealistic utopia. It may be the most realistic response to the crises of our time. Climate change, wars, hunger, migration, inequality, and social disintegration are not isolated problems. They arise from a mistaken understanding of our role in the world, of the commons, and of humanity’s interdependence. If we continue to compete for resources, accumulate wealth, and resolve disputes by force, we will only deepen these crises. But if we embrace the principle of sharing, we can begin to address their underlying causes. A future for all The future is not predetermined. It does not have to be dystopian. It can be more just, peaceful, creative, and humane. But such a future will not arise by itself. It must begin in our thinking, our values, our politics, our economy, our education, and our everyday lives. It must begin with the simple realisation that we are, first and foremost, human beings—members of one human family sharing the same planet. That is why we may and must imagine a better future. Such a future is possible if humanity takes a decisive step: from accumulation to sufficiency, from competition to cooperation, and from greed to sharing. Perhaps this is where the simplest and, at the same time, the deepest wisdom of the future lies: the goods of the world are meant for all people. Only when we truly accept this will we be able to begin living as one humanity. To help us imagine the society of the future described in the previous article, a society based on sharing, cooperation and sufficiency, let us picture one day in the lives of three people. They live in different parts of the world: in Slovenia, Palestine and Sudan. Their cultures, languages, customs and landscapes are different, yet they are connected by something fundamental: none of them lives in fear of hunger, poverty, war or insecurity. All have access to the basic goods that make a dignified life possible. Maja, Slovenia Maja lives in Kamnik, in a small apartment near the town centre. It is not luxurious, but it is bright, pleasant and energy-efficient. The building has shared spaces and a small rooftop garden. In the neighbourhood, there is a small workshop where residents repair and exchange bicycles, household appliances, tools and other useful items. Sometimes it seems strange to her that people once simply threw away most things rather than repair or share them. Maja works three days a week as a teacher at a local education centre. She teaches the economy of the common good, the basics of cooperative entrepreneurship and practical skills for living in community. Her students learn not only about markets, money and production, but also about how to distribute goods fairly, how local cooperatives work, how to make collective decisions and why sufficiency is more important than endless accumulation. Today is her day off. In the morning, she cycles to the market. Most of the food comes from local farms, while some also comes from the wider European system of goods exchange. Basic food prices are no longer subject to speculation and commercial pressures, because food is recognised as one of the essential goods necessary for a dignified life. After lunch, Maja visits the community centre. A music workshop is taking place there; in the room next door, an Arabic class is under way, while in the large hall, young people are preparing an exhibition on rivers as part of the commons. Public transport is free, so people can easily get around. Cities are no longer overcrowded with cars, the air is cleaner, and the streets are quieter. In the evening, Maja reads a report from the International Agency for the Sharing of Goods and Resources. This year, parts of Africa have had poor harvests, so grain surpluses from several regions will be sent to the regions where they are needed. This is not presented as charity, but as a matter of course. Just as no one in a family questions the need to help a hungry child, humanity, too, is slowly coming to understand that the Earth is the common home of the human family and that sharing is therefore something entirely natural. Before going to sleep, Maja thinks about how differently her parents lived. They worked almost the whole week; they worried about expenses, health, housing, pensions and their children’s future. Today, life is not perfect, but the fundamental fears have receded. People have more time for one another. And to her, this seems the greatest change of all. Jusuf, Palestine Jusuf lives in Gaza, in a restored coastal city where a good quality of life is slowly but steadily returning. Long decades of war, blockades, destruction, and humiliation have left deep wounds. No one denies them. In schools, children learn history, including its difficult and painful chapters, not so that hatred may be passed on, but so that the suffering and violence of the past may never be repeated. Jusuf is an architect. Three days a week, he helps rebuild residential neighbourhoods. Construction is no longer based on quick profit and expensive private projects, but on the needs of the community. Every family has the right to safe housing, clean water, electricity, green spaces and access to school and healthcare. A large share of energy comes from solar panels installed on rooftops, along roads and in community energy parks. His work is not only technical. Together with residents, he designs courtyards, playgrounds, outdoor classrooms and spaces for people to meet. Older people say where trees once stood, where the shops used to be and where children used to play. Young people add their own wishes: a library, a music studio, a sports field, a place for learning languages. The city is emerging as a shared memory and a shared future. In the Palestine of the future, no one lives behind walls or checkpoints. International security is ensured by strengthened United Nations forces, whose task is not to control people, but to prevent violence, protect human rights and assist in the peaceful resolution of disputes. The police are local, accountable to the community and trained to protect people, not to oppress them. In the afternoon, Jusuf has time for his family. He and his daughter go to the sea. On the beach, people of different nationalities and religions meet. Some speak Arabic, others Hebrew, English or French. This does not mean that all differences have disappeared. Memories are still painful, and distrust does not dissolve overnight. But life has taken a new direction. Children are growing up in an environment where cooperation is an everyday experience, not a distant political ideal. In the evening, Jusuf participates in an online meeting of cities from the eastern Mediterranean. They discuss water, agriculture, soil restoration and the exchange of knowledge. In the past, states competed over resources; now they try to manage them together. Water is no longer a weapon. Food is no longer a means of pressure. Energy is no longer a reason for war. All these are goods that make life possible, and therefore, they must be accessible to all. When Jusuf looks at the city glowing in the evening light, he does not think it is paradise. There has been too much suffering for easy words. But he knows that something great has happened: the world has finally recognised that no nation can be free if another lives in humiliation and deprivation. Amira, Sudan Amira lives in Sudan, in a community beside a restored area with irrigation systems. Her family once had to move several times because of drought, conflict and food shortages. Today, her village is part of a broader African and global system for sharing water, seeds, knowledge, food, technical equipment and medical assistance. This does not mean that problems have disappeared. The climate remains harsh and unpredictable. Droughts, floods and poor harvests still occur. But no community is left to fend for itself anymore. Amira is a healthcare worker and the coordinator of a local food security centre. She works three days a week, devoting the rest of her time to study, spending time with her family and caring for the community garden. The health centre has medicines, basic equipment, a telemedicine link with larger hospitals and a team that regularly visits remote settlements. Healthcare does not depend on how much someone can pay. Every morning, the centre receives data on food stocks, crop conditions, family needs and weather conditions. If a shortage risk arises, a regional support system is activated, followed, if necessary, by a global one. Grain, medicines, pumps, solar panels, or water filters arrive in time to prevent the crisis from turning into famine. The world has learned that preventing suffering is far less costly than responding to disasters after they occur. In Amira’s community, people often speak about sufficiency. It is not a foreign word, but something very concrete. It means that every family has enough food, clean water, a roof over their heads, and access to a doctor, school and energy. It also means that the land is not exhausted to the limit and that water is used with respect. People know that abundance lies not in endless consumption but in balance. In the afternoon, Amira visits the school. The children learn English, local languages, mathematics, history, farming, computing and climate literacy. In the schoolyard, trees planted by previous generations of pupils grow. Each tree has a name. The children learn that the future grows from what we care for today. Sometimes Amira listens to the stories of older people who remember times when help came too late, or not at all. When wealthy countries debated, the poor waited. When natural resources were exported, people remained without basic goods. Today, not everything is easy, but the fundamental rule has changed: people’s needs first, then profit. Life first, then trade. In the evening, Amira joins a community meeting. They discuss a new cooperative, the repair of the road to a neighbouring village and the exchange of seeds with other regions. Decisions are not always easy, but people cooperate because they know that their own security is linked to the security of others. No one is truly safe alone. As Amira watches the children playing beneath the trees, she thinks that the greatest change is this: the future is no longer a threat. It is no longer something to fear. It has become a space of responsibility, work, trust and hope. One human family Maja, Jusuf and Amira live in different environments. Their stories are not the same. Slovenia, Palestine and Sudan have different historical experiences, different wounds and different paths. Yet in the society of the future, they are connected by a shared principle: the goods of the world are meant for all. In such a society, no one claims that all problems have disappeared. People are still different, nature is still unpredictable, and communities still face challenges. But the starting point has changed. Instead of asking how much each person can gain for themselves, the central question becomes how all people can live well and with dignity. This is the essence of sharing and cooperation. It is not an abstract theory, but a tangible reality: a full pantry, an open school, access to a doctor, safe housing, clean water, shorter working hours, calmer cities, restored nature, and the feeling that everyone matters. Perhaps it is precisely in these everyday images that we can most easily understand the future we desire. Not as a perfect world, but as a world finally built on the right foundations: cooperation instead of competition, sufficiency instead of accumulation, sharing instead of greed. If we can imagine such a future, we can begin to truly build it. “Above all nations is humanity” is a statement associated with the British historian and political thinker Goldwin Smith (1823–1910), who joined Cornell University in 1868 and became one of its earliest prominent scholars. The words remain inscribed on a stone bench in front of Goldwin Smith Hall on Cornell’s campus in the United States. The hall, named in his honour, opened in 1906.[13] Its meaning is clear and timeless: above the interests of nations, states, and ideologies, humanity must stand as the community of all people. It is a simple yet radical statement, emphasising that compassion, justice and responsibility towards all people must not be limited by national borders, but should form the foundation of our thinking and action. In an age of increasingly self-centred international relations, the idea that humanity stands above all nations is crucial. Today, power and force often replace treaties, agreements and ethical principles. Although the United Nations, founded in 1945, set humanity on a course of cooperation and shared responsibility, these essential values are increasingly under threat. The United Nations was created from the hard lessons of two world wars, which showed how national power, selfishness and the sense of superiority can lead to conflict and destruction. Today, policies that emphasise national greatness and exceptionalism risk repeating these mistakes. No nation rises above another. What matters most is our shared humanity. Every person counts. Each is equal to every other. Everyone has the right to health, well-being, peace, justice and a healthy environment. Today, the rise of selfishness, greed and violence threatens our common future. Cooperation, sharing, and respect for every human being are essential for our common future, for above all nations stands humanity. We are human beings first, before we are members of any nation, state, religion, ethnic background, political group, etc. “I think, therefore I am”[14] (Cogito, ergo sum) is the famous statement of the philosopher René Descartes. Our purpose here, however, is not to examine this well-known philosophical proposition, but to consider an economic variation: “I share, therefore I am.”[15] This phrase has already been in use for some time. Yet sharing is never an entirely individual act; it always involves others. It is therefore more appropriate to say: We share, therefore we are. Sharing is a simple principle that we know well within families and, to some extent, within wider communities. Family members share most goods with one another, and it is difficult to imagine living together in any other way. Parents share with their children, relatives care for one another, and when someone becomes ill, other family members support them both materially and emotionally. Nations also apply the principle of sharing to varying degrees, primarily through taxation. Public revenues are used to finance services such as healthcare, social protection, education, infrastructure, and public administration. Today, however, the principle of sharing is increasingly threatened by commercialisation, which weakens social bonds based on compassion, cooperation, and mutual support. Compassion is one of the foundations of sharing and cooperation. It arises when we recognise another person’s suffering or deprivation and feel moved to help. Compassion is an expression of love—not love limited to an individual or a particular group, but universal love. We can exist within a community only because we share with one another. Human beings cannot live entirely outside society. We may spend some time alone, but we cannot survive independently of others. Indeed, we cannot fully develop as human beings unless we grow up and live within a community. Today, especially through certain economic and political ideas, we are often encouraged to rely solely on ourselves and to believe that society can progress only through competition and self-interest. In reality, no society can survive on these principles alone. We can already see how communities begin to disintegrate when competition and selfishness become their dominant values. If we cultivate sharing not only within families, local communities, and nations, but also at the global level, humanity can live in greater prosperity and peace. If compassion is a foundation of love, and if love is expressed within families through the sharing of goods, then universal love can find practical expression through the global sharing of resources and essential goods. For more on this, see A Proposal for the Global Sharing of Basic Goods[16] and Meditations on the Sharing Economy.[17] Without sharing and cooperation, communities weaken and may eventually become societies governed by the ruthless law of the strongest. Let sharing therefore become our motto, our guiding principle, and our way of life. Human beings cannot exist without cooperation and mutual support. We can therefore say without hesitation: We share, therefore we are. It is no exaggeration to say that we are at war today. Wars and conflicts are taking place across the globe. International economic relations often resemble a struggle of everyone against everyone, while humanity is also waging war against the natural environment and, ultimately, against itself. If war is being fought in even one country, no one can claim that humanity is living in peace. Yet wars are taking place in many parts of the world. If even one person is starving or living in severe deprivation, no one can claim that humanity lives in prosperity or that our economic system is successful. Yet hundreds of millions of people suffer from hunger and a chronic lack of the most basic necessities. If we destroy even one part of the global environment, carefully tended gardens and protected parks are not enough to prove that we are caring for the planet. Environmental destruction is taking place worldwide. We share a single atmosphere, while water systems, soils, forests, and other ecosystems are globally interconnected and interdependent. We are also at war with ourselves, living under constant stress, uncertainty, conflict, and fear. External conflicts are reflected within us, while inner conflicts are projected outward, creating a vicious circle. If even one person suffers because of war, deprivation, or environmental destruction, humanity as a whole cannot be truly at peace. Today, millions—and indeed billions—of people are suffering. We are deeply interconnected and interdependent in many ways. We are connected with one another, with the natural environment, and with the wider community of life. External transformation is therefore impossible without inner transformation. Recognising that all people belong to one great human community—one human family—and that we share a common home, planet Earth, is the first step towards resolving the world’s accumulated problems. Our actions must arise from this understanding. We must cooperate with others and share our goods and resources, whether with our neighbours or with people living in the most distant parts of the world. When no one is deprived of the essentials of life, the mistrust and fear that fuel conflict, selfishness, and greed will begin to diminish. We will then be able to establish right human relations, a more responsible attitude towards the environment, and a more peaceful relationship with ourselves. The sharing economy, therefore, provides an essential foundation for transforming society and our relationships with other people, the natural world, and ourselves. “Throughout the world there are men, women and little children who have not even the essentials to stay alive; they crowd the cities of many of the poorest countries in the world. This crime fills Me with shame. My brothers, how can you watch these people die before your eyes and call yourselves men?” (Maitreya, Message No. 11, 5 January 1978[18]) According to the latest comprehensive United Nations estimates, approximately 645 million people experienced hunger in 2025, representing 7.8 per cent of the world’s population. Although this was a slight improvement on the previous two years, hunger continued to increase in much of Africa and western Asia. An even broader measure reveals the true scale of the problem. Approximately 2.1 billion people, or 25.8 per cent of the global population, experienced moderate or severe food insecurity in 2025. This means that they did not have regular access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food.[19] These figures are all the more difficult to comprehend because the world already produces enough food to feed everyone. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has stated[20] that sufficient food is produced to feed the global population, while emphasising that the central problems are access to and the availability of nutritious food. An often-cited article published in the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture estimated[21] that global agriculture was already producing enough food to feed approximately ten billion people. Yet hunger persists because access to food is profoundly unequal, large quantities are lost or wasted,[22] and millions of people lack sufficient income or other means to obtain adequate and nutritious food. This contradiction is especially striking when we remember that the world’s population stood at approximately 8.3 billion people as of July 2026.[23] The figures for drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene are similarly alarming. According to the latest joint report by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, published in August 2025 and based on data for 2024: Among those without access to safely managed drinking water were 106 million people who still obtained their drinking water directly from untreated surface sources.[25] In a world where sufficient basic goods exist to meet everyone’s needs, the fact that billions of people lack reliable access to food, clean water, and sanitation represents a profound social, political, and moral failure. In this sense, we can understand why Maitreya calls it a crime. The deliberate denial of food or water can, under certain circumstances, constitute a violation of national or international law. More broadly, when people are systematically deprived of the basic conditions required for life and dignity, their fundamental human rights are being violated. The right to food and water The right to food is recognised in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[26] adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The article recognises everyone’s right to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services. The Declaration itself is not a treaty and is therefore not legally binding in the same manner as an international convention. Nevertheless, it has become the foundation of modern international human rights law, and many of its principles have been incorporated into legally binding agreements and national constitutions. One of the most important of these agreements is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[27] It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 3 January 1976. Article 11 of the Covenant recognises: This final provision is particularly significant for the idea of the sharing economy. It recognises that freedom from hunger cannot be guaranteed solely through action within individual states. It also requires international cooperation and a fairer distribution of available food supplies according to human need. In this sense, Article 11 provides an important legal foundation for a global system of sharing essential goods, beginning with food. The meaning of the right to adequate food was further clarified by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in General Comment No. 12, adopted on 12 May 1999. It is also summarised and explained in the United Nations publication The Right to Adequate Food, Fact Sheet No. 34.[28] States that are parties to the Covenant are legally obliged to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to adequate food. They must not interfere with existing access to food, must protect people against actions by companies or other third parties that threaten such access, and must take concrete steps towards ensuring that everyone can obtain adequate food. Although the full realisation of this right may be achieved progressively, states have immediate obligations to take action, guarantee its exercise without discrimination, and adopt the measures necessary to prevent and alleviate hunger. As of August 2026, 173 states were parties to the Covenant and were therefore legally bound by its provisions. The right to water was further explained by the Committee in General Comment No. 15, adopted in 2002.[29] It defines the right to water as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible, and affordable water for personal and domestic use. On 28 July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognised the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right essential for the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights.[30] A question of our humanity Access to food and clean water is therefore not an act of charity. It is a fundamental human right and an essential condition of human dignity. Yet laws and international agreements express only one aspect of the issue. There is also an ethical and moral dimension: the question of our humanity. How can we accept a world in which hundreds of millions of people are hungry, more than two billion lack safely managed drinking water, and billions lack adequate sanitation, even though humanity possesses sufficient knowledge, productive capacity, resources, and technology to meet these needs? The persistence of hunger is not simply the result of an absolute global shortage of food. It is closely connected with poverty, inequality, armed conflict, climate disruption, economic instability, inadequate public services, and the failure to share available resources more equitably. We should therefore remember Maitreya’s words: “My brothers, how can you watch these people die before your eyes and call yourselves men?” These words are not merely an accusation. They are also a call to awaken our compassion, recognise our shared responsibility, and organise the world’s resources so that every human being may live in dignity. When we observe today’s intolerant politicians and the groups that follow them, raising their arms in the manner of the most horrific regimes of the twentieth century, we can only wonder whether they are merely pretending not to understand the world or whether they are truly so ignorant. They would like to rid society of all the “wrong” people: migrants, foreigners, members of various social minorities, and marginalised groups. Understanding this issue requires at least a measure of reason and a willingness to reflect. Emotions and prejudices, however, are very easy to inflame. A little manipulation and a few simple slogans, such as “Foreigners out!”, are enough. Let us therefore try to explain as simply as possible what is really at stake. The neoliberal economic system that dominates today’s world, to which politics is largely subordinated, places the free market at the centre of its ideology. According to this idea, resources and goods should cross national borders as freely as possible, avoiding obstacles such as tariffs, taxes, environmental regulations, and other costs. This is supposed to promote global trade and thereby increase human prosperity. But this is mainly theory—or, more accurately, a way of throwing dust in people’s eyes. In reality, on a global scale, such a system is a continuation of colonialism, through which wealthy and powerful countries—first the European powers, and later the United States and Japan—exploited their colonies. The classical colonial system largely collapsed after the Second World War, and many colonies gained political independence. Yet the colonial exploitation of natural resources and people did not end. It merely continued in a more sophisticated and concealed form, primarily through various economic mechanisms. The free market thus became largely open in only one direction, meaning it was never truly free. Cheap natural resources, goods, and labour flow almost unhindered from poorer countries—the former colonies—to wealthy countries, including former and newer colonial powers. At the same time, borders are closed to “unproductive” people who are forced to flee by deprivation, conflict, and the consequences of this neocolonial system. Where are they going? Paradoxical as it may sound, they are following “their” resources. The extraction and transfer of those resources from their home countries create wealth elsewhere, mainly in richer countries. It is therefore in those countries that people seek opportunities for survival and a more dignified life. This explanation may be somewhat simplified, but it describes the basic workings of the modern world. The solution does not lie in building walls against people fleeing poverty and deprivation for wealthier parts of the world. It lies in creating a fairer economic system that enables countries to retain control over their own goods and resources, while complementing this with mechanisms for sharing goods and resources internationally. Such a system would ensure universal access to essential goods, including during natural disasters, other emergencies, and temporary shortages. When people have the opportunity to live safely and with dignity in their own countries, large-scale migration would also be likely to decline. Neoliberalism is, in essence, a form of neocolonialism and one of the principal causes of modern migration. It allows goods and resources to move almost without restriction, while seeking to close every path to poor people. Let us not be blind defenders of this profoundly unjust system. As we have seen, all goods, whether products or services, ultimately depend on natural and social resources derived from the commons. The central economic question is therefore not only how these resources are transformed into goods, but also how the resulting goods are distributed. If the commons constitute humanity’s shared natural and social heritage, then the essential goods produced from them should be accessible to everyone, at least to the extent necessary to meet basic human needs. This principle may be described as universal access to essential goods. It brings together various proposals and economic models whose common purpose is to ensure that every person can obtain the products and services necessary for a secure, healthy, and dignified life. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is one such proposal. It involves providing every person with a regular and unconditional cash payment, regardless of income or employment status. UBI has been proposed as a possible response to poverty, economic insecurity, automation, and growing inequality. Numerous basic-income and related guaranteed-income pilot projects have been conducted in different countries and communities, producing a range of results that continue to inform public and academic debate.[31] Universal Basic Services (UBS) offer a related but different approach. They seek to guarantee universal access to publicly funded essential services, which may include healthcare, education, housing, transport, information, social protection, food, and legal services. Advocates argue that direct access to essential services can provide a level of security that cash payments alone may not guarantee, particularly when purchasing power is reduced by inflation or rising prices.[32] UBI, UBS, and other proposals for a fairer distribution of material and social wealth may therefore be brought together under the broader principle of universal access to essential goods. The sharing economy provides a practical path towards this goal. It encompasses different economic models and organisational forms at the local, national, and global levels. Through various mechanisms, these models enable people to access the goods required to meet their basic needs, including food, safe drinking water, clothing, housing, healthcare, social protection, and education. The purpose of the sharing economy is not to ensure that everyone possesses the same amount of wealth or identical goods, but to ensure that no one is deprived of the essentials of life. Individual countries, however, cannot always guarantee such access through their own resources alone. Some lack sufficient natural resources, productive capacity, knowledge, technology, or financial means. Natural disasters, conflict, climate change, and other crises may further limit their ability to meet the needs of their populations. National systems must therefore be complemented by an international mechanism for sharing resources and essential goods—a global sharing economy. Through international cooperation, countries could identify available surpluses and direct them to regions where they are urgently needed. These could include food, water, medicines, medical equipment, agricultural resources, technology, knowledge, and other forms of material and social wealth. Such a system would differ from conventional international aid. Humanitarian organisations perform indispensable work, but they are often underfunded and usually provide temporary assistance. A global sharing mechanism, by contrast, would make cooperation and the fair distribution of essential goods a permanent responsibility of the international community. Its purpose would not merely be to alleviate poverty and hunger, but to prevent them by ensuring continuous access to the necessities of life. Universal access to essential goods would also create one of the foundations of lasting peace. A world in which millions of people lack food, water, medicine, housing, education, and basic security cannot be stable or peaceful. Fairer access would reduce the inequality, fear, desperation, displacement, and conflict caused by severe deprivation. The relationship between the commons, resources, goods, and the sharing economy may therefore be summarised simply: the commons constitute humanity’s shared natural and social heritage; resources are drawn from the commons and used to produce goods and provide services; and the purpose of the sharing economy is to ensure that essential goods reach every person on Earth. The central message is clear: the sharing economy seeks to guarantee universal access to essential goods, enabling all people to meet their basic human and social needs—the foundation of human well-being and international peace. Is compassion possible in economic life? Many claim that there is no place for compassion in the economy. Yet compassion cannot be regarded as appropriate in one sphere of human relationships and irrelevant in another. Like the love from which it arises, compassion is universal—or it is not compassion at all. Compassion may be understood as the ability to feel with others, to understand their experience, and to be moved by their suffering. It encourages us not only to recognise hardship, insecurity, and deprivation, but also to act to alleviate them. We already know how a compassionate economy works within families. Family members share goods, cooperate, care for one another, and seek to ensure the well-being of everyone. Can we imagine parents accumulating abundance for themselves while leaving their children only crumbs—or nothing at all? Ensuring that all family members can meet their basic needs is regarded as entirely natural. The sharing of goods according to needs and circumstances is therefore the foundation of the family economy. In this sense, the family economy is compassionate and loving. If we consider it natural to provide materially for every member of our immediate family, why should we not extend the same principle to our wider family—humanity? We belong to one species and one great human family. An international system for sharing essential goods, designed to ensure that the basic needs of every person on Earth are met, would be a practical expression of universal compassion and love. We cannot truly describe ourselves as compassionate and loving if we show care only towards our closest relatives while remaining indifferent, hostile, or exploitative towards others. Compassion cannot be divided in this way: either it is universal, or it is not compassion at all. Today’s highly competitive economic system often treats compassion as irrelevant or even as a weakness. The wider consequences of this highly competitive economic system, however, are frequently hidden from us. We rarely see the direct connection between the decisions of corporations, governments, institutions, and consumers on the one hand, and poverty and suffering elsewhere on the other. Where there is excessive abundance on one side, there is often severe deprivation on the other. Hunger is only the most visible expression of this imbalance. Many people also lack safe drinking water, medicines, healthcare, education, adequate housing, sanitation, and other essentials of life. A compassionate economy would therefore place the common interest of humanity at the centre of economic life. Every person should be able to live in peace and dignity, in a healthy environment, with their basic needs met and their fundamental rights protected. Humanity already possesses sufficient resources, knowledge, productive capacity, and technology to meet everyone’s basic needs. The central problem is not absolute scarcity, but profoundly unequal access to these resources and capacities. We should not accept that people suffer or die because they lack food, safe drinking water, essential medicines, adequate shelter, sanitation, healthcare, or education. The sharing economy is therefore compassionate—one founded on cooperation, care, responsibility, and the sharing of goods and resources. It is the economy of the human family—humanity. In the run-up to elections, politicians feverishly prepare and publish their programmes. Almost all promise prosperity for their citizens. Unfortunately, for most of them, prosperity reaches only as far as the borders of their state—or even much sooner. Even when politicians look beyond national borders, they speak almost exclusively in terms of national interests: protecting our country, our citizens, our territory, our environment, and even our air—as though these could be separated from the rest of the world. Consider the environment and the atmosphere. No matter how much we invest in electric vehicles, renewable energy, and waste separation, our efforts will remain Sisyphean unless climate change and environmental degradation are addressed globally. The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, reflects the recognition that climate change is a common concern requiring coordinated international action. The same applies to the economy. Creating an “island of prosperity” is futile if large parts of the world remain deprived of the basic necessities of life. We may surround ourselves with fences and walls, but the consequences of global poverty, inequality, conflict, and environmental destruction will not pass us by. Politicians frequently speak of national interests. Yet the world contains roughly 195 states, each with its own interests. Within them are numerous political parties and ideological, economic, religious, and social groups, all pursuing their particular goals. We are therefore confronted with thousands of competing and often conflicting interests. Diversity of views and beliefs is essential; it is one of the foundations of freedom and democracy. Yet on the most fundamental issues, we must also begin to think in terms of shared interests—the interests of humanity as a whole. In one area, we have already recognised such a common interest: the protection of the global climate. Today, it is widely understood that climate change is not merely a national problem but a challenge facing all humanity. But what about the economic sphere? As early as 1948, the international community recognised that the well-being of every person is a shared human concern. This principle was expressed in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the right of everyone to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services. Although the Declaration is not itself a legally binding treaty, it has become a foundational standard of international human rights and has influenced numerous binding international agreements. Yet the rights expressed in Article 25 continue to be violated on an immense scale. Hundreds of millions of people still experience hunger, while billions lack secure access to adequate food, safe drinking water, healthcare, housing, sanitation, social protection, or other essentials of life. Article 25 therefore remains one of the most urgently unfulfilled commitments in modern human history. We should remember this whenever politicians or wealthy and powerful individuals speak loudly about the violation of their own rights while ignoring the systematic denial of the most basic rights of others. If politicians were sincere in their promises of prosperity, they would adopt a remarkably simple political and economic programme: the implementation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This would mean ensuring that every person on Earth could meet their basic needs reliably, sustainably, and with dignity. Achieving this goal would require genuine cooperation among nations and the sharing of global resources and essential goods. Once the rights set out in Article 25 are guaranteed to everyone, the pressures driving forced migration will be greatly reduced, many conflicts will diminish, and humanity will be better able to address its shared environmental challenges. So, dear politicians: include Article 25 in your programmes and work towards its implementation, regardless of your political colours or convictions. And we, the citizens of the world, must insist that our political representatives do so. As Mohammed Sofiane Mesbahi writes in presenting his book Heralding Article 25: A People’s Strategy for World Transformation:[33] “After so many years of political inaction, only the massed goodwill of ordinary people can bring about an end to poverty in a world of plenty through enormous and continual protests across all countries. So let’s take the path of least resistance and jointly herald the long-agreed human rights of Article 25—for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all. This is the surest route for impelling our governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy.” If we wish to envision a truly different economy—one that is both just and sustainable—we must consider it in close connection with ecology and ethics. These three “E’s”—economy, ecology, and ethics—are inseparable dimensions of a single whole whose purpose is the well-being of humanity and, in the broadest sense, the future of planet Earth. Today, our collective knowledge is divided into separate disciplines or isolated “gardens,” cultivated by narrowly specialised experts—politicians, economists, sociologists, ecologists, and others. This fragmentation leads to an equally divided approach to the complex challenges facing humanity, including hunger and poverty, armed conflict and terrorism, climate change, and environmental pollution. As a result, each field tends to focus primarily on its own concerns. For many economists, development is synonymous with continuous economic growth; for ecologists, it means environmental protection; for sociologists and social activists, social justice; and so on. Yet these seemingly separate fields are deeply interconnected and cannot be addressed in isolation. This does not mean that every individual must deal with all the world’s problems at once. It does mean, however, that we must address them collectively, guided by shared challenges and common goals: meeting the basic needs of all people, ensuring the well-being of humanity, and preserving the planetary environment and natural resources for future generations. This is the essence of truly sustainable development. Should not the simple recognition that we all live on one shared planet provide sufficient grounds for genuine cooperation among nations, religions, communities, and individuals? The same principle applies to the economy, which is fundamental to our survival and well-being. The economy cannot and must not be separated from ecology and ethics. Its central task is to enable all people to meet their basic needs and live with dignity. Yet this cannot be achieved without justice, which belongs to the sphere of ethics. Economic justice means ensuring that everyone has access to the goods and services required to meet basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, adequate housing, healthcare, social protection, and education. Even if we succeed in meeting the basic needs of all people, however, our efforts will ultimately fail unless we do so sustainably and within the limits of the planetary environment. Otherwise, we will destroy the Earth, our common home. This is where ecology becomes essential. Economy, ecology, and ethics are therefore inseparable parts of a single whole. A just and sustainable economic system must take all three dimensions into account. They converge in one simple but powerful principle: sharing, which finds its practical expression in the sharing economy. The sharing economy therefore offers a path towards a world in which all people can live in well-being and peace, while the Earth and its resources are protected for present and future generations. Although the statement “Above all nations is humanity” expresses an ideal of human solidarity beyond national borders, Smith’s wider legacy remains complex, as some of his views on race, religion, and women were discriminatory and exclusionary. The phrase “I share, therefore I am” has been used in various contemporary contexts, particularly in discussions of social media, communication, and identity. Its use in this article demonstrates that the expression was already established by 2013, although it should not be attributed to a single clearly identifiable author. United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Article 11). E/C.12/1999/5, 12 May 1999. https://docs.un.org/en/E/C.12/1999/5 United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Right to Adequate Food, Fact Sheet No. 34. Publication Information Title: The Sharing Economy: Implementing Article 25 in the Twenty-First Century Author: Rok Kralj Abridged English translation Original Slovenian edition: Ekonomija delitve: uresničitev 25. člena v 21. stoletju, self-published, Kamnik, 2018. ISBN 978-961-91995-4-1. Proofreading: Nika Kralj, Adam Parsons Original cover photograph: Rok Kralj Publisher: self-published electronic edition Place and year of publication: Kamnik, 2026 Copyright © Rok Kralj, 2018 and 2026. All rights reserved. Source edition: https://www.ekonomijadelitve.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/139784417/ekonomija_delitve.pdf Image credit: Casey Horner, unsplash
Article 25 – The cornerstone of humanity’s common future
Part l: The sharing economy: The economy of the twenty-first century
The uncertain future of humanity
The oneness of humanity
Economy and care for the well-being of humanity
Basic human needs
The commons, resources, and goods
The sharing economy at different levels
The sharing economy at the global level
The sharing economy at the national level
The sharing economy at the local level
The sharing economy: An economy of the twenty-first century
Part ll: Selected writings on the sharing economy
The society of the future
Three people in the society of the future
Above all nations is humanity
We share, therefore we are
One humanity on Planet Earth
How can we watch these people die?
Goods yes, people no
Universal access to essential goods
A compassionate economy
Article 25 as the political-economic programme of the twenty-first century
The sharing economy: A path to well-being and peace
Resources
https://www.ekonomijadelitve.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/139784417/ekonomija_delitve.pdf
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living-worldwide
https://www.ekonomijadelitve.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/139784417/meditations_on_the_sharing_economy.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23992473/
https://www.ekonomijadelitve.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/139784417/proposal_for_global_sharing.pdf
https://www.ekonomijadelitve.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/139784417/meditations_on_the_sharing_economy.pdf
https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/un-report–global-hunger-levels-ease-for-third-consecutive-year-as-regional-disparities-persist/en
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-food/international-standards
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet34en.pdf