ECOLOGICAL DOMAIN AND DOMAIN OF PROSPERITY AS PART OF QUALITY OF LIFE

. Quality of life becomes an overused word in the public discourse. In relation to quality of life especially in the public and political sphere are used terms as increasing or growth of quality of life. These terms are illogical. Quality of life cannot be increased and thus it cannot grow. It can be improved or worsened by improving or worsening of its indicators. Increasing values of “positive” indicators, i.e. indicators for which it is desirable to increase their numeric al value, e.g. life expectancy, is beneficial, although it does not mean an automatic positive correlation between life expectancy and quality of life. Likewise, reducing the values of “negative” indicators for which it is desirable to decrease their numerical value, e.g. unemployment, is beneficial, but it does not mean that there is automatically positive correlation of low unemployment rate and quality of life in areas with low unemployment rate. The reason why this is so is the fact that quality of life is not a mechanical sum of its indicators, but a multidimensional and complex set of indicators with internal causal link. The use of terms like growth or increasing means equation of quality of life with prosperity or other economic indicators, like the average salary or gross domestic product, which is nonsense

. Section Ecology and Environmental Protection Qualtity of life is an ideational construct, therefore does not have a physical form, it cannot be quantified. What can be precisely quantified are its variables – indicators, domains as groups of indicators or dimensions as two basic components of quality of life. Just like all the other current concepts, quality of life does not have a steady research methodology, generally valid definition or terminology. One of the few generally accepted facts is the knowledge that it consists of two dimensions – subjective and objective. Each dimension is divided into domains, consisting of groups of related indicators. The domains include the ecological domain and the domain of prosperity. The paper aims to analyze the position of both domains within the concept of quality of life and to answer the question whether their contradictions can be solved through the form of ecological economics. ECOLOGICAL DOMAIN Whether we identify the establishment of ecology as a science with the founding of British Ecological Society in 1913 and the first issue of The Journal of Ecology in the same year or with the first use of the term by Ernest Haeckel in 1866, in the 20 th century this science went through a turbulent development, ideologization and also turning into blind alleys. It is often identified with the protection of nature; in the 50ties, the term “environment” began to replace the previously prevailing term “nature”. Indisputable fact is that it became a part of the public, academic and politic discourse. Ecological domain is a part of measuring quality of life at all hierarchical levels

. In academic and public understanding, the terms ecology, environment, sustainable development or nature conservation are equated. Regarding quality of life they are synonymously included in the ecological domain. In this context, it is surprising that EU, which regulatory measures are accepted in public often reluctantly or even with resistance, has so far failed to fulfill the stated objective of developing one synthetic indicator, respectively domains of the state of environment. We base our perception of ecology on its Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian understanding, i.e. we see it as a question of human attitudes, perception and understanding of nature and man’s place in it. This perception is usually referred to as ecological ethics

. Crucial for this understanding is asking questions on meaning by the Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, in this case, on meaning and evolution development

. This thinking has nothing to do with environmentalism as ideology, which became a part of the policy of the new left. The close link between quality of life and ecology is mutual. In ecology, quality of life h as come to the fore since the beginning of the 21 st century in relation to the knowledge of lacking valuation of socio-economic aspects of sustainable development as one of the four pillars of sustainable development. This is confirmed by

, which state s Reviewed List of European Sustainable Development Indicators (theme /level 1 indicators) (i) Socio-economic development / Growth rate of GDP per inhabitant, (ii) Sustainable consumption and production / Resource productivity, (iii) Social inclusion / At-risk -of-poverty rate after social transfers, (iv) Demographic changes / Employment rate of older workers, (v) Public health / Healthy years and life expectancy at birth, (vi) Sustainable development / Total greenhouse gas emissions, (vii) Sustainable transport / Energy consumption of transport, (viii) Natural resources / Common bird index, Fish catches outside safe biological limits, (ix) Global partnership / Official Development Assistance. 14th SGEM GeoConference on Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation In the relationship between quality of life and ecology is crucial an equal value basis based on the rejection of consumption as the meaning of human existence

. This relationship naturally reflects also understanding of ecological crisis as an inevitable clash of the finite world and the infinite demand for infinite growth. According to

, adoring of consumption takes in the contemporary consumer society the form of “affluenza epidemic”. This is based on the idea that the only meaning of life and almost a moral duty of every person is to accumulate and consume more and more tangible assets. Is the desire for “more” natural , the author asks and answers: It is not, but it comes from the principles of consumer society, which the fashion thinkers like to refer to as postmodern – distrait, unstable society always longing for something new and leaving it again. This is reality, but not an acceptable standard. Ecological ethics is an ecological theory of value. Finding sustainable ways of life makes sense only in the context of assessment of good and evil. Meaning is crucial also in other contexts: Ecological effort is meaningful only if we do not approach nature only from the objective scientific aspect, but also from the human and evaluating view. Trying to protect, not to devastate, makes sense only if nature, the whole system of life on Earth, is considered as something good, meaningful and valuable – and meaning and value are not seen only as human impressions, but as a fabric and an outline of reality. Thus, simply said, world is worth preserving only if it is good. This understanding of ecology is closely related with the eudaimonic quality of life, their intersection is the same value basis. The output of this intersection is “quality of place”, in the terminology of quality of life a locality (region) with a certain value of its objective dimension. The term “quality” is logically related to the evaluation good, high quality, or vice versa, poor, low quality. When talking about quality of place we are interested how good the life there is. A place with high value of the objective dimension of quality of life has to include an excellent condition of its environmental indicators. High (positive) values of ecological indicator or ecological domain are therefore a necessary condition for high quality of life. However, ecology and quality of life are not the same and are not interchangeable. Ecology is and always will be “only” one of the indicators or domains of quality of life. This is confirmed by the fact that a place which is ecologically valuable is not automatically a place with high quality of life, if there is except ecological quality also, for example, high unemployment rate, and phenomena of social pathology or oppression. On the other hand, due to the same value basis of quality of life and ecology

, it is “more” than a mere domain. It can be concluded that ecology understood as ecological ethics and eudaimonic quality of life are naturally intertwined and complementary. DOMAIN OF PROSPERITY The desire for security of material needs belongs, along with the desire for health, to the archetypal human desires; in Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs it is possible to satisfy higher needs only after satisfying the basic ones. Prosperity in the form of indicator or domain is included the majority of measurements of quality of life. The problem is that the material growth measured by the GDP growth has become the meaning of human endeavor and it aims to fetishize profit. The world’s most famous is the assessment of countries in terms of human development, annually processed by the UNDP. HDI in which human development is equal to quality of life is based on three domains: GDP per capita in purchasing power parity, life expectancy and literacy rates. If at the Section Ecology and Environmental Protection beginning of the formulation of the concept of quality of life stood the knowledge that growth of welfare does not increase life satisfaction, then gradually GDP began to be denied as a universal success rate of growth, respectively social and economic development. The milestone in the criticism of GDP was establishment of Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, generally referred to as the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission by the French president in 2008 and its report

. Its essence is the change in the key economic paradigm as a measurement of production (GDP) into a measurement of well-being (the subjective dimension of quality of life). The report contains a number of recommendations, while in our context we can consider three to be major. The first is Recommendation 1: “When evaluating material well-being, look at income and consump tion rather than production ”, the second Recommendation 10: “Measures of both subjective and objective well -being provide key information about people´s quality of life . Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture people´s life -evaluations, hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey.” The third is Recommendation 12: “The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow-up based on a well-chosen set of physical indicators. In particular there is a need for clear indicator of our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)”. According to

, the purchasing power of the French mi ddle class has almost doubled in the last three decades, while at the same time, the number of cases of depression increased seven -fold. Eleven percent of French sixteen year old teenagers have attempted suicide. Depression, anxiety and existential problem s grow in the society. Data of French sociologists are confirmed also by the published cases of suicides of employees of the French telecommunications company Orange. We can ask a rhetorical question, whether these symptoms are symptoms of the doubled happiness of the French middle class. The far side of the orientation of society on performance and profitability is documented also by other data. According to a three -year research in all EU countries, 32% of the population suffers from mental disorder s. Their health care costs and indirect losses due to sick leaves represent € 797.7 milliard a year for the European economies, more than cancer, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes combined. Calculated for one EU citizen this represents € 1550. The most expensive, 113 milliards, are affective disorders (depressions and mania), f ollowed by dementia (105 milliards). The cost for mental disorders is on the one hand determined by increasing life expectancy and also the fact that they are not mortal

. The argument that the growth of prosperity does not increase life satisfaction, i.e. the Easterlin paradox, is criticized

. Correlations in 14 graphs

demonstrate that wealthier people are more satisfied with their lives than poorer people. Their comparisons of different countries is based on Gallup World Pool, World Values Survey a Pew Global Attitudes Survey. We can consider the correlation at the p. 2 appendices – pictures, showing the development in four seasons between years 1981 – 2004 be one of the correlations with highest informative value. In all, the correlation between satisfaction expressed on a scale 0-10 and GDP per capita reached values of 0.57, 0.74, 0.72 a 0.72.

. They respond with twenty one graphs, original and reproduced, with correlations valid for the USA or several countries, proving the original Easterlin paradox. One of the most serious may be the correlation in the fig. 20. During the 20 year period from 1971 to 2002, the level of happiness changed from 2.16 to 2.19, while the highest reached value was about 2.22. GDP per capita at constant 14th SGEM GeoConference on Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation prices from the year 1996 increased from the value approximately $ 17 700 in 1972 to $33 000 in 2002

. How is this possible The truth is probably closest to the statement that happiness and well-being are two distinct phenomena. It is difficult to solve the validity or invalidity of the Easterlin paradox. One of the key problems is chaotic terminology. The shift from the civil understanding of economics to its understanding as a social science entails the serious matter in a form of taking terminology from psycho logy or sociology and their “economization”, for example, happiness and well-being. This path cannot bring any meaningful results in a form of expected information value, if the basic premises are not defined exactly. We can state a hypothesis that economic growth does not increase life satisfaction (and thus satisfaction, or the subjective dimension of quality of life) but increases well-being, manifested by improving of material conditions of the external environment (i.e. the objective dimension of quality of life). DOMAIN OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS In the late 60ties and especially in the 70ties of the last century, a concept of ecological economics formed as a result of a series of events, particularly the oil shock and the transition of a part of economic mainstream from the growth paradigm and the related consumption to the paradigm of acceptance of sustainable development. As all current concepts, ecological economics does not have a settled methodology or terminology, so we synonymously identify ecological economics with economic ecology, environmental economics and economics of sustainable growth. We can say that the prevailing direction in the research of the connection between economics and ecology is the neoclassical environmental economics. The essence of ecological economics is accepting the premise that ecological values have economic expression. Its objective can be simply described as a search for the optimum between economic activities of people and their impact on environment, in a concentrated form, between GDP and environment. Ecological economics is a connection of two previously conflicting human activities. This connection of economics and ecology takes a number of forms within the concept of quality of life. Americans economist Herman Daly and theologi an John B. Cobb in 1989 constructed an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), including financial evaluation of the environmental and economic entry in terms of sustainability. Here, GDP is adjusted for inequality in income distribution, household work, damage to natural capital, social and environmental “defense” spending.

formulated the Wellbeing Index, composed of two dimensions - Human wellbeing with 36 indicators and Ecosystem wellbeing with 51 indicators.

lists 8 known measurements of quality of life. Prosperity or a related concept is included in seven of them, ecology in two. According to the same author, OECD uses in the Social health assessment nine domains including incomes and environment.

informs about the theory of human need by authors Doyal and Gough. They state that the eleven basic human needs include as 3. non-hazardous physical environment and 10. economic security.

used in the analysis of the objective dimension of quality of life in Slovakia 21 indicators, including the Produced value and CO emissions. It is evident from this overview that the domain, respectively the indicator of prosperity is present for almost all authors; its absence is rare

. The most common is the inclusion of prosperity and ecology in the concept of quality of life. The domain, respectively the indicator of ecological economics is not used. Section Ecology and Environmental Protection CONCLUSION The aim of this paper was formulated as an analysis of the status of ecological and economic domains within the concept of quality of life and to answer the question whether their contrariety can be solved in a form of ecological economics. Our perception of ecology is based on its Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian understanding, i.e. we see it as a question of human attitudes, perception and understanding of nature and man’s place in it. This perception is usually referred to as ecological ethics

. Crucial for this understanding is asking questions on meaning by the Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, in this case, on meaning and evolution development

. This thinking has nothing to do with environmentalism as ideology, which became a part of the policy of the new left. The close link between quality of life and ecology is mutual. In ecology, quality of life has come to the fore since the beginning of the 21 st century in relation to the knowledge of lacking valuation of socio- economic aspects of sustainable development as one of the four pillars of sustainable development. In the relationship between quality of life and ecology is crucial an equal value basis based on the rejection of consumption as the meaning of human existence

. According to

, adoring of consumption takes in the contemporary consumer society the form of “affluenza epidemic”. This is based on the idea that the only meaning of life and almost a moral duty of every person is to accumulate and consume more and more tangible assets. Is the desire for “more” natural , the author asks and answers: It is not, but it comes from the principles of consumer society, which the fashion thinkers like to refer to as postmodern – distrait, unstable society always longing for something new and leaving it again. This is reality, but not an acceptable standard. Ecological ethics is an ecological theory of value. Finding sustainable ways of life makes sense only in the context of assessment of good and evil. Prosperity in the form of indicator or domain is included the majority of measurements of quality of life. The problem is that the material growth measured by the GDP growth has become the meaning of human endeavor and it aims to fetishize profit. If at the beginning of the formulation of the concept of quality of life stood the knowledge that growth of welfare does not increase life satisfaction (Easterlin paradox), then gradually GDP began to be denied as a universal success rate of growth, respectively social and economic development. The milestone in the criticism of GDP was the establishment of the commission led by Joseph Stiglitz, which elaborated its report. Its essence is the change in the key economic paradigm as a measurement of production (GDP) into a measurement of well-being, i.e. the subjective dimension of quality of life

. The statement that the growth of prosperity does not increase life satisfaction, i.e. Easterlin paradox, is criticized

. It is difficult to solve the dilemma of validity or invalidity of the Easterlin paradox. One of the key problems is chaotic terminology. We can state a hypothesis that economic growth does not increase life satisfaction (the subjective dimension of quality of life) but increases well-being, manifested by improving of material conditions of the external environment (the objective dimension of quality of life). A concept of ecological economics formed in the late 60ties and especially in the 70ties of the last century. Its essence is accepting the premise that ecological values have economic expression. The objective of ecological economics can be simply described as a search for the optimum between economic activities of people and their impact on environment, in a concentrated form, between prosperity and environment. 14th SGEM GeoConference on Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation From the overview of works of authors

, i t is evident that the domain, respectively the indicator of prosperity is present for almost al l authors; its absence is rare

. The most common is the inclusion of prosperity and ecology in the concept of quality of life. The domain, respectively the indicator of ecological economics is not used and its introduction does not seem to be meaningful.

. Quality of life becomes an overused word in the public discourse. In relation to quality of life especially in the public and political sphere are used terms as increasing or growth of quality of life. These terms are illogical. Quality of life cannot be increased and thus it cannot grow. It can be improved or worsened by improving or worsening of its indicators. Increasing values of “positive” indicators, i.e. indicators for which it is desirable to increase their numeric al value, e.g. life expectancy, is beneficial, although it does not mean an automatic positive correlation between life expectancy and quality of life. Likewise, reducing the values of “negative” indicators for which it is desirable to decrease their numerical value, e.g. unemployment, is beneficial, but it does not mean that there is automatically positive correlation of low unemployment rate and quality of life in areas with low unemployment rate. The reason why this is so is the fact that quality of life is not a mechanical sum of its indicators, but a multidimensional and complex set of indicators with internal causal link. The use of terms like growth or increasing means equation of quality of life with prosperity or other economic indicators, like the average salary or gross domestic product, which is nonsense

. Section Ecology and Environmental Protection Qualtity of life is an ideational construct, therefore does not have a physical form, it cannot be quantified. What can be precisely quantified are its variables – indicators, domains as groups of indicators or dimensions as two basic components of quality of life. Just like all the other current concepts, quality of life does not have a steady research methodology, generally valid definition or terminology. One of the few generally accepted facts is the knowledge that it consists of two dimensions – subjective and objective. Each dimension is divided into domains, consisting of groups of related indicators. The domains include the ecological domain and the domain of prosperity. The paper aims to analyze the position of both domains within the concept of quality of life and to answer the question whether their contradictions can be solved through the form of ecological economics. ECOLOGICAL DOMAIN Whether we identify the establishment of ecology as a science with the founding of British Ecological Society in 1913 and the first issue of The Journal of Ecology in the same year or with the first use of the term by Ernest Haeckel in 1866, in the 20 th century this science went through a turbulent development, ideologization and also turning into blind alleys. It is often identified with the protection of nature; in the 50ties, the term “environment” began to replace the previously prevailing term “nature”. Indisputable fact is that it became a part of the public, academic and politic discourse. Ecological domain is a part of measuring quality of life at all hierarchical levels

. In academic and public understanding, the terms ecology, environment, sustainable development or nature conservation are equated. Regarding quality of life they are synonymously included in the ecological domain. In this context, it is surprising that EU, which regulatory measures are accepted in public often reluctantly or even with resistance, has so far failed to fulfill the stated objective of developing one synthetic indicator, respectively domains of the state of environment. We base our perception of ecology on its Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian understanding, i.e. we see it as a question of human attitudes, perception and understanding of nature and man’s place in it. This perception is usually referred to as ecological ethics

. Crucial for this understanding is asking questions on meaning by the Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, in this case, on meaning and evolution development

. This thinking has nothing to do with environmentalism as ideology, which became a part of the policy of the new left. The close link between quality of life and ecology is mutual. In ecology, quality of life h as come to the fore since the beginning of the 21 st century in relation to the knowledge of lacking valuation of socio-economic aspects of sustainable development as one of the four pillars of sustainable development. This is confirmed by

, which state s Reviewed List of European Sustainable Development Indicators (theme /level 1 indicators) (i) Socio-economic development / Growth rate of GDP per inhabitant, (ii) Sustainable consumption and production / Resource productivity, (iii) Social inclusion / At-risk -of-poverty rate after social transfers, (iv) Demographic changes / Employment rate of older workers, (v) Public health / Healthy years and life expectancy at birth, (vi) Sustainable development / Total greenhouse gas emissions, (vii) Sustainable transport / Energy consumption of transport, (viii) Natural resources / Common bird index, Fish catches outside safe biological limits, (ix) Global partnership / Official Development Assistance. 14th SGEM GeoConference on Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation In the relationship between quality of life and ecology is crucial an equal value basis based on the rejection of consumption as the meaning of human existence

. This relationship naturally reflects also understanding of ecological crisis as an inevitable clash of the finite world and the infinite demand for infinite growth. According to

, adoring of consumption takes in the contemporary consumer society the form of “affluenza epidemic”. This is based on the idea that the only meaning of life and almost a moral duty of every person is to accumulate and consume more and more tangible assets. Is the desire for “more” natural , the author asks and answers: It is not, but it comes from the principles of consumer society, which the fashion thinkers like to refer to as postmodern – distrait, unstable society always longing for something new and leaving it again. This is reality, but not an acceptable standard. Ecological ethics is an ecological theory of value. Finding sustainable ways of life makes sense only in the context of assessment of good and evil. Meaning is crucial also in other contexts: Ecological effort is meaningful only if we do not approach nature only from the objective scientific aspect, but also from the human and evaluating view. Trying to protect, not to devastate, makes sense only if nature, the whole system of life on Earth, is considered as something good, meaningful and valuable – and meaning and value are not seen only as human impressions, but as a fabric and an outline of reality. Thus, simply said, world is worth preserving only if it is good. This understanding of ecology is closely related with the eudaimonic quality of life, their intersection is the same value basis. The output of this intersection is “quality of place”, in the terminology of quality of life a locality (region) with a certain value of its objective dimension. The term “quality” is logically related to the evaluation good, high quality, or vice versa, poor, low quality. When talking about quality of place we are interested how good the life there is. A place with high value of the objective dimension of quality of life has to include an excellent condition of its environmental indicators. High (positive) values of ecological indicator or ecological domain are therefore a necessary condition for high quality of life. However, ecology and quality of life are not the same and are not interchangeable. Ecology is and always will be “only” one of the indicators or domains of quality of life. This is confirmed by the fact that a place which is ecologically valuable is not automatically a place with high quality of life, if there is except ecological quality also, for example, high unemployment rate, and phenomena of social pathology or oppression. On the other hand, due to the same value basis of quality of life and ecology

, it is “more” than a mere domain. It can be concluded that ecology understood as ecological ethics and eudaimonic quality of life are naturally intertwined and complementary. DOMAIN OF PROSPERITY The desire for security of material needs belongs, along with the desire for health, to the archetypal human desires; in Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs it is possible to satisfy higher needs only after satisfying the basic ones. Prosperity in the form of indicator or domain is included the majority of measurements of quality of life. The problem is that the material growth measured by the GDP growth has become the meaning of human endeavor and it aims to fetishize profit. The world’s most famous is the assessment of countries in terms of human development, annually processed by the UNDP. HDI in which human development is equal to quality of life is based on three domains: GDP per capita in purchasing power parity, life expectancy and literacy rates. If at the Section Ecology and Environmental Protection beginning of the formulation of the concept of quality of life stood the knowledge that growth of welfare does not increase life satisfaction, then gradually GDP began to be denied as a universal success rate of growth, respectively social and economic development. The milestone in the criticism of GDP was establishment of Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, generally referred to as the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission by the French president in 2008 and its report

. Its essence is the change in the key economic paradigm as a measurement of production (GDP) into a measurement of well-being (the subjective dimension of quality of life). The report contains a number of recommendations, while in our context we can consider three to be major. The first is Recommendation 1: “When evaluating material well-being, look at income and consump tion rather than production ”, the second Recommendation 10: “Measures of both subjective and objective well -being provide key information about people´s quality of life . Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture people´s life -evaluations, hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey.” The third is Recommendation 12: “The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow-up based on a well-chosen set of physical indicators. In particular there is a need for clear indicator of our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)”. According to

, the purchasing power of the French mi ddle class has almost doubled in the last three decades, while at the same time, the number of cases of depression increased seven -fold. Eleven percent of French sixteen year old teenagers have attempted suicide. Depression, anxiety and existential problem s grow in the society. Data of French sociologists are confirmed also by the published cases of suicides of employees of the French telecommunications company Orange. We can ask a rhetorical question, whether these symptoms are symptoms of the doubled happiness of the French middle class. The far side of the orientation of society on performance and profitability is documented also by other data. According to a three -year research in all EU countries, 32% of the population suffers from mental disorder s. Their health care costs and indirect losses due to sick leaves represent € 797.7 milliard a year for the European economies, more than cancer, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes combined. Calculated for one EU citizen this represents € 1550. The most expensive, 113 milliards, are affective disorders (depressions and mania), f ollowed by dementia (105 milliards). The cost for mental disorders is on the one hand determined by increasing life expectancy and also the fact that they are not mortal

. The argument that the growth of prosperity does not increase life satisfaction, i.e. the Easterlin paradox, is criticized

. Correlations in 14 graphs

demonstrate that wealthier people are more satisfied with their lives than poorer people. Their comparisons of different countries is based on Gallup World Pool, World Values Survey a Pew Global Attitudes Survey. We can consider the correlation at the p. 2 appendices – pictures, showing the development in four seasons between years 1981 – 2004 be one of the correlations with highest informative value. In all, the correlation between satisfaction expressed on a scale 0-10 and GDP per capita reached values of 0.57, 0.74, 0.72 a 0.72.

. They respond with twenty one graphs, original and reproduced, with correlations valid for the USA or several countries, proving the original Easterlin paradox. One of the most serious may be the correlation in the fig. 20. During the 20 year period from 1971 to 2002, the level of happiness changed from 2.16 to 2.19, while the highest reached value was about 2.22. GDP per capita at constant 14th SGEM GeoConference on Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation prices from the year 1996 increased from the value approximately $ 17 700 in 1972 to $33 000 in 2002

. How is this possible The truth is probably closest to the statement that happiness and well-being are two distinct phenomena. It is difficult to solve the validity or invalidity of the Easterlin paradox. One of the key problems is chaotic terminology. The shift from the civil understanding of economics to its understanding as a social science entails the serious matter in a form of taking terminology from psycho logy or sociology and their “economization”, for example, happiness and well-being. This path cannot bring any meaningful results in a form of expected information value, if the basic premises are not defined exactly. We can state a hypothesis that economic growth does not increase life satisfaction (and thus satisfaction, or the subjective dimension of quality of life) but increases well-being, manifested by improving of material conditions of the external environment (i.e. the objective dimension of quality of life). DOMAIN OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS In the late 60ties and especially in the 70ties of the last century, a concept of ecological economics formed as a result of a series of events, particularly the oil shock and the transition of a part of economic mainstream from the growth paradigm and the related consumption to the paradigm of acceptance of sustainable development. As all current concepts, ecological economics does not have a settled methodology or terminology, so we synonymously identify ecological economics with economic ecology, environmental economics and economics of sustainable growth. We can say that the prevailing direction in the research of the connection between economics and ecology is the neoclassical environmental economics. The essence of ecological economics is accepting the premise that ecological values have economic expression. Its objective can be simply described as a search for the optimum between economic activities of people and their impact on environment, in a concentrated form, between GDP and environment. Ecological economics is a connection of two previously conflicting human activities. This connection of economics and ecology takes a number of forms within the concept of quality of life. Americans economist Herman Daly and theologi an John B. Cobb in 1989 constructed an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), including financial evaluation of the environmental and economic entry in terms of sustainability. Here, GDP is adjusted for inequality in income distribution, household work, damage to natural capital, social and environmental “defense” spending.

formulated the Wellbeing Index, composed of two dimensions - Human wellbeing with 36 indicators and Ecosystem wellbeing with 51 indicators.

lists 8 known measurements of quality of life. Prosperity or a related concept is included in seven of them, ecology in two. According to the same author, OECD uses in the Social health assessment nine domains including incomes and environment.

informs about the theory of human need by authors Doyal and Gough. They state that the eleven basic human needs include as 3. non-hazardous physical environment and 10. economic security.

used in the analysis of the objective dimension of quality of life in Slovakia 21 indicators, including the Produced value and CO emissions. It is evident from this overview that the domain, respectively the indicator of prosperity is present for almost all authors; its absence is rare

. The most common is the inclusion of prosperity and ecology in the concept of quality of life. The domain, respectively the indicator of ecological economics is not used. Section Ecology and Environmental Protection CONCLUSION The aim of this paper was formulated as an analysis of the status of ecological and economic domains within the concept of quality of life and to answer the question whether their contrariety can be solved in a form of ecological economics. Our perception of ecology is based on its Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian understanding, i.e. we see it as a question of human attitudes, perception and understanding of nature and man’s place in it. This perception is usually referred to as ecological ethics

. Crucial for this understanding is asking questions on meaning by the Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, in this case, on meaning and evolution development

. This thinking has nothing to do with environmentalism as ideology, which became a part of the policy of the new left. The close link between quality of life and ecology is mutual. In ecology, quality of life has come to the fore since the beginning of the 21 st century in relation to the knowledge of lacking valuation of socio- economic aspects of sustainable development as one of the four pillars of sustainable development. In the relationship between quality of life and ecology is crucial an equal value basis based on the rejection of consumption as the meaning of human existence

. According to

, adoring of consumption takes in the contemporary consumer society the form of “affluenza epidemic”. This is based on the idea that the only meaning of life and almost a moral duty of every person is to accumulate and consume more and more tangible assets. Is the desire for “more” natural , the author asks and answers: It is not, but it comes from the principles of consumer society, which the fashion thinkers like to refer to as postmodern – distrait, unstable society always longing for something new and leaving it again. This is reality, but not an acceptable standard. Ecological ethics is an ecological theory of value. Finding sustainable ways of life makes sense only in the context of assessment of good and evil. Prosperity in the form of indicator or domain is included the majority of measurements of quality of life. The problem is that the material growth measured by the GDP growth has become the meaning of human endeavor and it aims to fetishize profit. If at the beginning of the formulation of the concept of quality of life stood the knowledge that growth of welfare does not increase life satisfaction (Easterlin paradox), then gradually GDP began to be denied as a universal success rate of growth, respectively social and economic development. The milestone in the criticism of GDP was the establishment of the commission led by Joseph Stiglitz, which elaborated its report. Its essence is the change in the key economic paradigm as a measurement of production (GDP) into a measurement of well-being, i.e. the subjective dimension of quality of life

. The statement that the growth of prosperity does not increase life satisfaction, i.e. Easterlin paradox, is criticized

. It is difficult to solve the dilemma of validity or invalidity of the Easterlin paradox. One of the key problems is chaotic terminology. We can state a hypothesis that economic growth does not increase life satisfaction (the subjective dimension of quality of life) but increases well-being, manifested by improving of material conditions of the external environment (the objective dimension of quality of life). A concept of ecological economics formed in the late 60ties and especially in the 70ties of the last century. Its essence is accepting the premise that ecological values have economic expression. The objective of ecological economics can be simply described as a search for the optimum between economic activities of people and their impact on environment, in a concentrated form, between prosperity and environment. 14th SGEM GeoConference on Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation From the overview of works of authors

, i t is evident that the domain, respectively the indicator of prosperity is present for almost al l authors; its absence is rare

. The most common is the inclusion of prosperity and ecology in the concept of quality of life. The domain, respectively the indicator of ecological economics is not used and its introduction does not seem to be meaningful.