Counter-questions for the asking

I was brought up on the belief that the world's long-term fundamental trend would always be bullish because humans are wired to build, and all building would be positive for economies, sectors and investors. I'm not so sure now because of the following questions I've had over the last few years.

If the world is depleting more rapidly than ever, and if all wealth truly comes from Earth, how can global market valuations increase y-o-y? If most products are likely to get cheaper (absolutely or relatively), their markets could widen and consumption could increase. Won't we then strip the world's finite resources faster? If we earn more and spend more, won't our incomes make the world unliveable?

As the urban world warms, more ACs are used, and the more the world warms further (heat island effect), creating this Catch-22 situation. Each time we use the smartphone, we set the world back as we consume finite energy and generate data for processing in energy-hungry data centres.

Despite climate change being the biggest universal challenge in living memory, it didn't figure prominently in any Indian election manifesto. Addressing climate change warrants moderated personal consumption and relatively austere lives. How many of us are prepared for that?

India's growing population, coupled with higher disposable incomes and consumption, has already begun to devastate our carefully constructed cocoons without our realising it. Competitive manufacturing (leveraging economies of scale, procurement, branding and digitalisation) may be enticing more people to consume more (double effect), accelerating planet-stripping.

Is our carbon accounting flawed, taking into account only what we can see (e.g., energy and water consumption), but not what we can't (upstream resource consumption)? Will political forces possess the courage to advocate lower mass consumption? There is a planet cost for RE, waste treatment and waste recycling. Who is accounting for that?

Use of AI could deepen unemployment, resulting in three-day weeks, lower incomes and declining populations because even a simple existence would be difficult to afford for most people. Should we celebrate that the world's 10 fastest cities are likely to come out of India? Or will someone actually sit up and say, 'This is a cause for alarm.'

Is it time to entertain the concept of 'planned degrowth', so that we may manage expectations of the next generation, especially since, in some ways, their world may not be getting better?

Are we likely to see the highest India temperature (52.3° C this summer) breach the 60° C mark a decade from now, transforming the affluent into seasonal climate refugees? Many of us suffering India's atrocious air quality may need to choose between suffering from respiratory illnesses here, and living in a cleaner developed country.

Is there a concerted global direction on how to moderate microplastic embedded in marine life (and even in human blood, as discovered recently) of oceans, the world's biggest sewer?

When will society mature to a point when individuals choosing and/or advocating a planned slowdown - lower incomes for all - will not be branded as 'anti-national'?

The declining use of fossil fuels could result in a number of countries and regions becoming economically irrelevant, with political and social instability. The world needs more low-cost RE generated considerably faster to feed the world's consumption engine that's likely to then grow even faster. Does it mean that environmental degradation will not just grow but accelerate?

Perhaps it's time to question the theory that digital is cleaner than paper. Virtually everything digital funnels into energy-hungry AI or data centres, while paper can, at least, be recycled.

Are we fretting more about what planet we will leave for our children, and not enough on what children we will leave for the planet?

The writer is CEO, Trisys