The social ecological model is a new way to think about inequality.
It has been proposed as a way to address global poverty and the challenges of climate change.
In particular, the model shows how a change in the distribution of wealth can affect social interactions and how a reduction in inequality can improve social interactions.
The social ecologists have proposed the social ecological hypothesis because they argue that a change to wealth distribution can lead to a change of social interactions among humans.
But is it true?
There is no definitive answer to that question.
What we know for sure is that the social ecologist’s hypothesis is based on a simple principle: if wealth is distributed unequally, then people will behave differently from one another.
It is the principle of marginal utility that is important.
It means that the more the wealth of a society is distributed, the more its people will act differently from each other.
This is because they will act more selfishly, less altruistically and more selfish in their pursuit of their own interests.
This means that their behaviour will not always follow the expected behaviour of the majority.
And this behaviour can change over time.
The social ecological approach is based partly on what social ecologies call social equilibrium.
In social equilibrium, the distribution between people is proportional to their level of wellbeing, or wellbeing per capita.
This implies that people in an egalitarian society will behave in a similar way to the majority, and vice versa.
The more people live in an equitable society, the less they will behave selfishly.
This in turn means that they will be less selfishly motivated and more altruistic.
In a recent paper, we examined this theory using a global sample of over 20,000 people.
We compared the level of the distribution on five dimensions of wellbeing (goodness per capita, welfare per capita and income per capita) to the level on four dimensions of social and economic wellbeing (equality of social interaction, economic well-being and social cohesion).
We also looked at the level and distribution of income and wealth inequality (the level of wealth in a given society) over time and examined the effects of changes in wealth distribution on social interaction.
We found that the distribution and level of income inequality are directly correlated with the level, and not the other way around.
These findings indicate that the relationship between inequality and social interaction is not causal.
There are two possible explanations for this finding.
One is that wealth inequality and inequality of social behavior are correlated in a sense because the more people have wealth, the worse their social interactions are likely to be.
This would explain why social interaction with wealthier people is more likely to improve the social welfare of those in the majority of society than those in a minority.
Alternatively, wealth inequality is correlated with inequality of income.
This might be because wealth inequality increases inequality of welfare.
And the more inequality of wealth, then, the greater the tendency for people to behave in an unfair way.
This explains why inequality of economic status and income, rather than wealth inequality, has a negative effect on social and financial interactions.
We conclude that wealth distribution is a powerful driver of social inequality, which could explain the effects on social interactions of income redistribution.
We also found that, when we controlled for income inequality, income inequality was not correlated with social interactions on these five dimensions.
It was only correlated with income inequality when we adjusted for wealth inequality.
This suggests that income inequality may not explain the association between wealth and social interactions at all.
This result also suggests that it is not possible to rule out the possibility that wealth distributions are not a causal factor for social interaction because income inequality could be the result of some other mechanism, such as income redistribution or income equality.
Income inequality may, however, affect social interaction if it reduces income equality and inequality in wealth inequality may have the opposite effect.
The second possibility is that income distribution is not a driver of inequality because wealth distribution affects social interaction in a more indirect way.
Wealth distribution is likely to have a positive effect on wealth inequality because it is a proxy for social welfare.
Wealth is wealth because it exists in the form of capital that can be traded, held and sold in the market.
This makes it an asset that can generate wealth.
In this sense, wealth is the most powerful indicator of social welfare, since it can be exchanged, owned and invested in other people.
This can have an impact on the amount of wealth that is held in a society.
If wealth inequality reduces social welfare in the absence of income distribution, then wealth inequality would not reduce social welfare because it would be equal to social welfare minus income inequality.
However, this is not what we found.
Wealth inequality has a positive and negative effect in the world of work, and a positive influence on social welfare as well.
Social ecologists believe that wealth inequalities can have a very negative effect.
They suggest that wealth and wealth distribution are not the primary cause of inequality and that wealth can be the sole cause.
They argue that the cause of social inequalities is a