[yor_on]

looking a little more closely on it " What our research has shown is that the value of natural capital per person tends to rise with income."

So with people getting a decent paycheck they don't need to go out to cut down woods for their tea? Or do they mean that we should do as in Japan, buying back nature lost to industrialization? If I remember right that was a extremely cost some project  and a feat no poor country can afford, also ignoring what it did to those country's selling.

how do you get 'rich'?

[yor_on]

Let's see, they might mean that the richer you become the more value will you set on the nature around you? Like here in Sweden where oaks are incredibly 'valuable' compared to all other trees?

[yor_on]

Ahh wait, 'fisheries' is it? Do they mean that the reason to why we set a higher value on the fish left is due to a higher paycheck? Maybe I should regret my first statement calling it 'some good ideas'?

And here I though the reason for us 'valuing it up' was the fishing stocks disappearing?

[yor_on]

I totally agree to this though " This contradicts traditional wisdom that development necessarily entails depletion of natural resources." In some circumstances it's still true though. When the oil is gone it will be gone, and then you have stuff like platina, not too much of that around. And if we don't repossess it if possible, recycling , then we will have to go digging again.

As for the sentence quoted any hunter gatherer would agree, although he would not get why they connect that to a bigger paycheck.
=

syntax

[yor_on]

It somehow seems connected to this idea of the world population meeting a peak 2100, by which all countries will be 'equally developed' more or less. As that should be the meaning of that fatter paycheck.

[yor_on]

Sorry world bank

Capital  f a i l.

[yor_on]

pipe dreams of how it could be, also called eating the cake while keeping it. It's all about preserving the system.

[yor_on]

the 'traditional wisdom' she seem to refer to is what built up our developed countries, not a God stepping down to earth presenting workers with a fatter paycheck. The reason it grew was discontent, strikes, workers uniting in protest. That some industrialists was smart enough not to press the last drops of sweat out of them isn't enough for arguing that theory.

[yor_on]

A little like Sweden, after the Russian revolution a lot of things got better for the working class here. The reason was simply that industrialists (and government) became afraid of those ideas spreading.

[yor_on]

They on the other tentacle handled it a lot wiser than USA did. There they tried to forbid unions.

[yor_on]

Ah well, slightly disappointed there :) You can't rewrite history just because you have a dream world bank.

[yor_on]

" Human capital accounts globally for two thirds of global wealth; produced capital accounts for a quarter of wealth. Natural capital accounts for one tenth of global wealth, but it remains the largest component of wealth in low-income countries (47 percent in 2014) and accounts for more than one-quarter of wealth in lower-middle income countries."

Let us translate this, shall we?

[yor_on]

" Natural capital accounts for one tenth of global wealth, but it remains the largest component of wealth in low-income countries (47 percent in 2014) and accounts for more than one-quarter of wealth in lower-middle income countries."

Exploitation

[yor_on]

I'll stand by inequality being the engine for our current system.

[yor_on]

So what can I say?

It's the 'Emperors new clothes' all over.

[yor_on]

And it's to make you stay inside the game

[yor_on]

Do you really like this game?

[yor_on]

I say we need a new one.
Earth does the same

[yor_on]

You need to change

[yor_on]

This is probably one driver for why the insect population has gone down, but I would say that hygiene, towns etc also has a point there. And at the same time it's slightly embarrassing

" “We strongly believe artificial light at night – in combination with habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change – is driving insect declines,” the scientists concluded after assessing more than 150 studies. “We posit here that artificial light at night is another important – but often overlooked – bringer of the insect apocalypse.” "

to strongly believe is the same as me saying that the insect population has gone down in Sweden too. I do strongly believe that but the evidence are lacking.  We don't have them. doesn't mean it's wrong , but 'i would like a study over it. It could easily prove to be a major part of it but it also seem to whitewash pollution insecticides etc. It's like me telling you that you only have to sort your garbage and global warming will disappear, and yeah, buy that vegetarian bicycle.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/22/light-pollution-insect-apocalypse