The world has no shortage of economic theories. From capitalism to socialism, neoliberalism to welfarism, every paradigm attempts to decode and direct the complex choreography of human behaviour through markets, incentives, and institutions. Yet most of these frameworks, for all their differences, share one peculiar blind spot: they treat life itself as a secondary concern. Growth is pursued in abstraction, wealth is measured in aggregates, and progress is celebrated in GDP charts — even as the lived experience of millions remains one of anxiety, precarity, and exclusion.
Lifeconomics was born out of this paradox.
It does not seek to patch or polish existing paradigms. It starts with a more fundamental question: What is the economy for? The answer, simple yet radical, is this — the economy exists to support life, not the other way around. In its truest form, Lifeconomics is an epistemic reorientation. It challenges the very lens through which we understand economic behaviour and insists on viewing every transaction, policy, or plan through the prism of human purpose. And that purpose begins with life.
From Scarcity to Sentience
The discipline of economics traditionally arises from a premise of scarcity — limited resources, infinite wants. Lifeconomics reframes this foundation. It suggests that the central axis of economic organisation should not be scarcity, but sentience. That is, how do conscious beings experience their needs? How do these needs evolve? And how can a society organise itself to serve not just the body, but the full spectrum of human existence?
Sukant Kumar, the originator of this framework, breaks down human needs into three concentric triads — Essential, Existential, and Eternal. Each triad is not just a list of desires, but a philosophical map of how individuals relate to themselves, to others, and to the cosmos.
The Essential Triad begins where most economic systems begin: with food, sex, and danger. These are the drives that fuel markets, wars, industries, and institutions. They are the substrate of commerce, the terrain of survival and reproduction. But unlike classical theories that glorify endless consumption, Lifeconomics insists on boundaries. Commerce must remain confined to this realm. Once markets expand into higher domains — into health, education, or faith — they cease to serve life and begin to exploit it.
The Existential Triad turns inward. It speaks of the body, mind, and consciousness. This is where the human being moves from surviving to becoming. Health systems, educational infrastructures, and cultural institutions arise from the recognition that a society must nurture its people not just biologically but existentially. Yet when these systems are handed over to profit-driven entities, the result is not empowerment but alienation. A child’s mind becomes a target for brands; a patient’s body becomes a unit of revenue. Lifeconomics warns against this distortion and calls for collective, publicly anchored models of tertiary care and learning.
The Eternal Triad transcends all systems. It is composed of life, truth, and God — not as theological impositions but as symbols of humankind’s infinite curiosity. This triad lies beyond the reach of governance, and rightly so. No economic model should attempt to regulate the spirit. Yet, the pursuit of the eternal is deeply dependent on the stability of the essential and existential. When people are hungry, unwell, or unheard, their capacity to seek truth or contemplate the divine is compromised. Here, too, Lifeconomics asserts its purpose: to build conditions where the eternal can flourish — unregulated but protected.
Rethinking Governance Through Economic Sentience
The implications of Lifeconomics for governance are profound. It argues that modern states, while structurally democratic, are economically feudal. Resources are extracted from the many and allocated by the few. Budgets are written at the top and trickle downward — often so diluted by the time they reach the ground that they fail to serve even basic needs.
Lifeconomics proposes a reversal — not just in the flow of funds but in the flow of attention. Governance must begin where life begins: in local communities, in everyday needs, in direct accountability. This is not about romanticising village life or demonising cities. It is about ensuring that the economy functions as a servant of life, not a sovereign over it. When governance is local, life is visible traditionally in affluence.
Lifeconomics and traditional economics
Traditional economics is fundamentally rooted in the logic of scarcity: it assumes finite resources and infinite wants, focusing on the allocation of these resources through the mechanisms of markets, prices, and incentives. Its principal aim is to drive growth, accumulate wealth, and measure success through abstract aggregates like GDP or national income, often elevating these metrics above the actual lived experience of citizens. Human needs and well-being become secondary concerns, addressed only insofar as they contribute to overall economic productivity or expansion. As a result, important aspects of life—such as health, education, mental well-being, and spiritual yearning—are either commodified or marginalized if they cannot be easily quantified and priced.
Lifeconomics, by contrast, represents a radical epistemic shift. Instead of focusing on scarcity, it centers the economy around “sentience”—the lived and evolving needs of conscious beings. Where traditional economics is content to tolerate the commercial expansion into all aspects of life (sometimes exploiting vulnerability for profit), Lifeconomics draws a boundary: markets have a legitimate domain (the “Essential Triad” of food, sex, and danger), but must be prevented from colonizing higher realms (the “Existential” and “Eternal” triads, covering body, mind, consciousness, life, truth, and God). Lifeconomics demands that education and healthcare should not be arenas for profit, but shared public responsibilities grounded in dignity and collective well-being. It treats commerce as the servant of life—not its master—and urges governance structures to be accountable first to the needs of local, living communities.
In summary:
Traditional economics pursues aggregate growth, often at the expense of life’s qualitative and existential dimensions, treating people as variables in models. Lifeconomics insists that the economy’s sole legitimate purpose is to serve life—first by ensuring survival, then by nurturing personal and social flourishing, and ultimately by protecting the freedom to pursue meaning and wonder. Where conventional frameworks measure success in monetary terms, Lifeconomics proposes a new metric: the vibrancy, security, and potential of human lives. It is less an “alternative theory” and more a new moral foundation—reclaiming the rhythm of public policy for the pulse of life itself.
An Invitation to Re-Imagine
This chapter is not the conclusion of a theory. It is the beginning of a conversation. Lifeconomics does not claim to have all the tools, formulas, or policies. It offers instead a mirror. It invites us to ask, with sincerity: What kind of economy would we design if life — not profit, not prestige, not power — was our primary metric of success?
As we move into the next chapters, we will explore how this theory animates real structures. From the Rainfall Model of economic decentralisation to the design of Ihloktantra and the vision of Public Pālikā, each idea will attempt to give practical form to this philosophical starting point.
In an age of climate breakdown, social fragmentation, and digital overload, we cannot afford to keep fixing the old machine. We must reimagine it altogether. Lifeconomics is not an alternative school of economics. It is a return to first principles — where the pulse of life, in all its hunger and wonder, becomes the rhythm of public policy.
With this lens in place, we now turn to the structures that can embody this vision.