Beyond Global Justice: Toward a Life-Coherent Architecture of Universal Provisioning

The 2026 Global Justice Report offers one of the most ambitious quantified programmes yet developed for reconciling global equality, material sufficiency and planetary habitability. It integrates income convergence, wealth compression, shorter working time, expanded public services, rapid decarbonization, global taxation, shared ownership and international monetary reform. This paper accepts that achievement while arguing that distributive equality and aggregate ecological compatibility remain necessary but insufficient conditions of justice.

A life-coherent extension is developed around four principles. Universal life necessities establish the conditions that every person must be able to access securely, shifting the objective from income convergence toward effective life-capacity convergence. Non-sacrifice rejects the systematic deprivation of less powerful populations, future generations or ecosystems for aggregate economic, geopolitical or environmental benefit. Regenerative provisioning reconceives the economy as the organized reproduction of bodily, social, institutional and ecological life rather than as an autonomous system for generating monetary value. The enlargement of living capacities defines prosperity through health, knowledge, care, relationship, participation, creative contribution, temporal autonomy, ecological integrity and adaptive agency.

These principles are translated into an institutional architecture comprising a universal civil-commons floor, ecological and power ceilings, life-capacity dividends, non-sacrifice review, regenerative public finance, shared stewardship of productive assets, multidimensional accounting and nested democratic governance. The Global Justice Report’s Global Justice Fund, World Sovereign Fund and proposed monetary institutions are reconstructed as organs of a life-coherent commonwealth. The paper concludes that global justice cannot be completed by distributing income, wealth and environmental burdens more equitably within an unchanged economic grammar. Justice requires institutions recursively answerable to their living consequences: securing universal necessities, preventing displaced harm, repairing damaged relations and enlarging present and future possibilities without treating any people or place as disposable.

Read More

Life-Coherent Politics: From Power-Struggle to the Governance of Shared Life-Capacity | ChatGPT-5.5 Thinking and NotebookLM

Modern politics is increasingly organized around competition for power, management of scarcity, identity conflict, institutional control, market growth, and crisis response. Yet these dominant frames often fail to ask the prior question upon which all political legitimacy depends: whether the political order protects, repairs, and expands the conditions of life. This white paper develops the concept of life-coherent politics as a framework for re-grounding political thought and practice in the shared life-capacity of persons, communities, ecosystems, and future generations.

Drawing on Humberto Maturana’s biology of coexistence and world-bringing, John McMurtry’s life-value onto-axiology and civil commons, Johan Galtung’s analysis of direct, structural, and cultural violence, Elinor Ostrom’s commons governance, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, and ecological frameworks such as the planetary boundaries and Doughnut models, this paper argues that politics becomes life-coherent when it conserves the conditions by which living beings can meet life necessities, develop capacities, participate meaningfully, transform conflict without domination, and remain within ecological limits (Maturana, 1988; McMurtry, 2011; Galtung, 1969, 1990; Ostrom, 1990; Sen, 1999; Nussbaum, 2011; Rockström et al., 2009; Raworth, 2012, 2017).

The central claim is that politics is not first the struggle to control society, but the collective practice of governing the conditions of shared viability. A life-coherent political order must therefore be judged not by partisan victory, ideological purity, economic growth, national power, or procedural formalism alone, but by whether it reduces life-capacity suppression, regenerates civil and ecological commons, preserves social and ecological margins, expands real options for participation, and corrects institutional patterns that normalize harm.

The paper proposes a diagnostic grammar of life-coherent politics organized around seven functional questions: What life-ground is being protected or degraded? Whose necessities are unmet? What forms of violence are being normalized? Which commons are being enclosed or regenerated? Who participates in shaping the worlds that shape them? Where are margins being exhausted? What forms of repair restore life-capacity without imposing new domination? The paper concludes that the future of democratic, ecological, legal, constitutional, and peace-oriented governance depends on a shift from life-blind politics to politics as the art of conserving and repairing the worlds in which life can continue.

Read More