The Manfred Max-Neef Thinking: A Deep Economy Rooted in the Eco-philosophical Perspective of the Deep Ecology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we advance preliminary theoretical reflections on Manfred Max Neef’s thoughts related to the human scale development. From an and transdisciplinary perspective, we argue that Max-Neef moves beyond the field of Ecological Economics towards developing a Deep Economic framework, linked to the Deep Ecology framework outlined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss. We elaborate our argument around two dimensions: a) Biocentrism, based on the conviction that ecology is not limited to reflections and actions toward a balanced and healthy environment to achieve humans´ well-being, but involves all forms of life and ecosystems. b) The intrinsic value of life, a complex idea that Max-Neef expressed in his conviction that the “reverence for life” cannot be solely subjected to human economic activity or interest. Biocentrism and the intrinsic value of life must be approached from a transdisciplinary and organic perspective that demands a dialogue between science-academics, non-combining reason with intuition, ethics, and beauty. this way, these two dimensions become principles that articulate Max-Neef´s Deep Economy, different to other critical approaches in the field of economics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it