Buckminster Fuller and Laotse share a primordial concern with our economic well-being. Just as our economies are our value transactions, our governance, of self and others, is our ordering of values, which may be either positive and confluent, bringing contentment and just peace, or negative and dissonant, bringing entropy, decay, and cognitive dissonance.

The economies of natural systems, including humane natural systems, follow an explicated Yang-convex-Positive AND gravitationally implied Yin-concave-Negative ecological principle of balance. This is not so much a static place of stasis; more of a dynamic spacetime of diastatic mutual enculturation. Evolution unfolds a generative economy of Positive YangPolynomial and Negative No-Longer-and-Not-Yet YinPolynomial balancing mutual prehension. Economic disvalues are counter-evolutionary, irrational, and dissonant. Natural systemic values enjoy prime relationship ecologic between physical gravity and metaphysical gratitude, between our body’s intuitive sense of balance, correctness, rightness, and our mind’s sense of balance, correctness, rightness, truth, equity, beauty, goodness, and logically optimizing value.

Where Fuller and Laotse differ is in their contrasting historical relationship to the Industrial Revolution. Laotse would not have recognized a distinction between ecological value and economic value. His wisdom roots back toward a shamanic sensory baptism in the flow and force and function of natural waters and winds and seasons and light and dark voices. Logic was ecologic and analogically cognized and incarnated. A fully optimized economic life is a life lived in contented harmony with Earth’s natural systems, including mutually subsidiary relations within the family and community.

Fuller, on the other hand, has a more prophetic mission, to reconnect economies of optimized design and regeneration with natural logic discerned through observing biometrics, and analyzing their implied geometrics of natural system development. Fuller also had a post-Darwinian arsenal of symbiotic relationships to draw from. While Laotse has at least been interpreted to dwell on predator v. prey competitive natural economies, Fuller’s enculturation permits keeping this competitive assumption in play with cooperative host-parasite relationships. The relationships of primal and primary and prime interest to Fuller are Earth as host and humans as parasites, and perhaps body-physical information as natural host and mind-metaphysical universe as analogically and ecologically derivative of natural energy, metric development, and oppositional balance. Not so much consciousness as parasitical but nature’s intelligent comprehension as ectosymbiotic design.

Fuller wanted to prove global nutrient sufficiency to move away from a competitive economic culture of predator v. prey, in a world assumed to struggle without inclusive bounty. Since the 1970s, according to his analysis, there have been no ecological barriers to moving away from Win-Lose competitive economic assumptions, in favor of more sustainable, peaceful, and mutually grateful Win-Win cooperation; an emergent post-millennial ecological foundation for our species’ inclusive  and life-sustaining economic regeneration.

As our cells have learned a cooperatively supplemental subsidiarity within their mutually parasitic economy, so too human egos can learn a cooperative mutually subsidizing ecologic for sustaining life and more regenerative economic trends for Earth’s evolving ground of all being. Fuller and Laotse both frame a natural systemic positive teleology, systemic understanding of ecological meaning and purpose, without invoking a systematic theology. God becomes Universal Ecological Intelligence discovered through observing the flow and function of natural form, the evolution and devolution of information.