We are now heading down a centuries-long path toward increasing the productivity of our natural capital - the resource systems upon which we depend to live - instead of our human capital.
Paul HawkenRead
At present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it gross domestic product.
Interpretation
The quote critiques how current economic practices prioritize short-term gains over sustainable future development.
Paul Hawken's quote highlights a significant flaw in modern economic systems, suggesting that we are exploiting future resources and benefits for immediate financial profit, labeled as gross domestic product (GDP). This perspective encourages a re-evaluation of how we measure economic success, advocating for a balance that considers long-term sustainability and the well-being of future generations.
In practice
During a business seminar focused on sustainable practices, this quote can emphasize the need for a forward-thinking approach.
We are now heading down a centuries-long path toward increasing the productivity of our natural capital - the resource systems upon which we depend to live - instead of our human capital.
Inspiration is not garnered from the litanies of what may befall us; it resides in humanity's willingness to restore, redress, reform, rebuild, recover, reimagine, and reconsider.
We can no longer prosper by increasing human productivity. The more we try to do, the more poverty we will create.
How much harm does a company have to do before we question its right to exist?
We have the capacity to create a remarkably different economy: one that can restore ecosystems and protect the environment while bringing forth innovation, prosperity, meaningful work, and true security.
You are Brilliant and the Earth is Hiring.
We must first note that economic factors are taken into account in a world in which ignorance, prejudice, and mental confusion, encouraged rather than dispelled by the political organization, exert a strong influence on policy making.
When people from organizations like the World Bank descended on Third World countries, they always tried to remove obstacles to development, to reduce economic anxiety and uncertainty.
Some degree of inequality in income and wealth, of course, would occur even with completely equal opportunity because variations in effort, skill, and luck will produce variations in outcomes.
What brought mass innovation to a nation was not scientific advances - its own or others' - but 'economic dynamism': the desire and the space to innovate.
On the market, all is harmony. But as soon as intervention appears and is established, conflict is created, for each may participate in a scramble to be a net gainer rather than a net loser - to be part of the invading team instead of one of the victims.
Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.