As I tried to show in my earlier book, resource- and capital-intensive industrialization was structurally based not only on the invisibility of many resources, natural processes and ecosystem services, but also on the invisibility of certain kinds of work. In particular, there was the work of women, who were identified with the home and spheres of consumption and reproduction. This was essentially people-oriented service work, the very kind of work which is so important to eco-community development today. But the remedy to patriarchal economics is not necessarily to absorb women into the market, just as our environmental dilemmas will not be solved simply by commodifying all resources and ecosystem services. Certainly markets need to recognize previously unvalued services, both human and ecological, but translating all value into monetary value is not the answer. We need wayslike indicatorsto let social and ecological values speak for themselves, and we need to find other forms of support and recognition for regenerative services that do not corrupt their qualitative goals. In fact, sustainability may require that markets themselves be subordinated to larger values than profit and accumulation. This means not just imposing protectionist limits on industrial growth. Limiting development is not the answer, but rather redefining it: from a narrow focus on production and accumulation to a direct focus on peoples needs, on service, and on regenerating natural systems. It is a movement from quantity to quality. This has tremendous relevance to underdeveloped countries and international development, and for women, who have long been specialists in non-material development. It also has great relevance for the labour movements in the developed countries who are finding that the social contracts attained after WWII are under attack as the costs of materials-