There is now considerable research interest in the topics of ‘health’ and ‘wellbeing’, yet these have been the focus of much debate and criticism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘health’ as ‘the state of being free from illness or injury’, and ‘wellbeing’ as ‘the state of being comfortable, healthy, and happy’, yet these definitions do not fully capture the meanings of these terms, nor their overlap or distinguishing features. For instance, researchers have argued that wellbeing is not simply health and happiness, and by treating it as such will compromise the concept, as well as the wellbeing of future generations \cite{Dooris_2017}. The World Health Organisation \cite{constitutionconstitution} defines ‘health’ as complete mental, physical and social wellbeing, thus, according to this definition wellbeing is subsumed by an overarching concept of ‘health’, spanning multiple domains of functioning. While ambitious in scope, this definition has also been criticised as being an unrealistic outcome. Petr Skrabanek, a Professor of Medicine and sceptic reportedly joked that according to WHO’s definition, health is only achievable at ‘the moment of mutual orgasm’ \cite{bmj}. Considering that chronic conditions and disease now outstrip the burden of acute conditions \cite{2015}, a critical observer might query whether it is possible for people living with long-term disabling conditions such as common mental disorders, diabetes and cardiovascular disease will have opportunities to experience wellbeing once again. Positive psychology has approached the construct of wellbeing from a different perspective, emphasising life satisfaction \cite{Pavot_2008,Diener_1984}, psychological wellbeing \cite{Ryff_1995,Ryff_2014} and flourishing \cite{Diener_2009,seligman2011,Seligman_2018}. In contrast to the study of ‘pathogenesis’, others have proposed the need to study ‘salutogenesis’ \cite{ANTONOVSKY_1996}, a word based on the Latin term ‘salus’ (health, well-being) and the Greek word ‘genesis’ meaning emergence or creation. This salutogenic concept emphasises a role for a ‘sense of coherence’ for managing and overcoming stress reflecting feelings of confidence that the environment is comprehensible, manageable and meaningful. Others have focused on the relevance of ‘resilience’, which the \citet{association} uses to describe the process of adapting well in the face of adversity or tragedy, and ‘bouncing back’ from difficult experiences. However, it is interesting to observe that this psychological definition conflicts with those from other disciplines (e.g. engineering), which highlight ‘stability’ and ‘efficiency’ \cite{Quinlan_2015}. Psychological theories of wellbeing has been criticised for their individualistic focus, ignoring wider systemic issues such as loneliness, inequality, environmental degradation and climate change \cite{Carlisle_2009,b2010,Frawley_2015}. However, these criticisms are somewhat disingenuous, ignoring developments in conservation and environmental psychology, which explicitly link psychological science to some of these challenges. These developments include the positive psychology of sustainability \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2015,Corral_Verdugo_2012}, sustainable happiness \cite{2010,O_Brien_2012,obrien2016} and sustainable wellbeing \cite{Kjell_2011}. Given the considerable research interest in the constructs of ‘health’ and ‘wellbeing’, and associated criticism, it is perhaps time to take stock, to reconsider what is meant by these terms and to determine whether it might be possible to develop a model of wellbeing that spans the individual, community and environmental wellbeing (Fig \ref{881013}). This is the job of the present paper. The aims of the present paper are threefold: 1) to briefly review our previously proposed GENIAL (genomics, environment, vagus nerve, social interaction, allostatic regulation, and longevity) model of wellbeing , a life-course model that lays a theoretical framework within which pathways to premature mortality versus health and wellbeing may be better understood, 2) to expand the focus of our GENIAL model to explicitly encompass individual, community and environmental wellbeing, highlighting a key role for individual wellbeing as a foundation to build community and environmental wellbeing, and their respective bidirectional impacts on the wellbeing of individuals, 3) to consider the implications of our updated model (GENIAL 2.0) for people living with chronic conditions, the burden of which has now outstripped acute conditions, placing excessive demands on a healthcare sector that remains driven by the acute medical model, which is focused on returning patients to full health, rather than supporting patients to manage their condition.