**5. Conclusion**

Within the existing utilitarian framework, "there can be no overconsumption of goods of any kind, since by definition a good is simply something a consumer wants to buy" (see [2]) because it gives them well-being: the more, the better. On a macrolevel, this philosophy has been translated that more GDP brings more well-being, happiness, or welfare. This has led us to the current state we are in now: nation states with more unequal societies, that only pursue the paradigm of growth, with not attention to its distribution, and leading to excessive overconsumption patterns that are hurting our planet and putting in risk the lives of future generation.

The literature seen has showed us the necessity to overcome the automatic and positive relationship between growth and well-being and oblies us to reconfigure the way we measure well-being in our societies. Since the Easterlin Paradox published in 1974, where it was proven that up to a certain level more income it is not translated into more happiness, the corpus of Economics should focus on building a wider notion of happiness or well-being, accepting it involves more components than the material. Initiatives such as the Gross National Happiness (GNH) in Bhutan or the cosmovision of Buen Vivir in Latin America are an example of this large path the economic field needs to begin. The construct of well-being cannot be more associated with material growth: the good life and the human development as a whole is a much more complex phenomena that needs urgent attention.

The idea of human development must be opposed to the fetishism of numbers in order to resolve this challenge. The emergence of social wills that strive for participation, autonomy, and a fairer distribution of the available resources must be opposed to vertical management by the State and the exploitation of some groups by others. Hence, the implementation of alternative pathways to well-being in Economics, mentioned in this chapter, have gained unprecedented significance.
