Want a fresh perspective on the future beyond doom and gloom? Discover the transformative potential of natural capital.

Dear reader, the goal of my newsletter is to uphold your right to be informed and to promote science. My perspective is neither pessimistic nor optimistic; I believe we can navigate any crisis together. Panic and rash actions are not effective in the long term; we need more. Developing a new resource—emotional capital—that fosters critical thinking and enables social change is a promising idea, which we explore here and you are warmly invited.

Inspired by: Consumption revolution: A call for change (Chapter 2)

I got you: you are tired of catastrophic and apocalyptic views on the future. I agree: we need a different one. The source for it?

Economists have traditionally focused on three key factors of production for economic development: land, labor, and capital. We have no limits on capital and abundant labor due to the large world population, but we lack sufficient land and other resources. Degrowth advocates clearly state that unlimited economic growth is impossible on a finite planet.

Resources are finite.

Or are they?

The truth is, we have both non-renewable and renewable resources.

There’s not much to be done with non-renewables, so the principles of reduce, reuse, and recycle apply to this type and all man-made capital (the stuff we have abundantly produced since the industrial revolution). However, recycling is a concept that is still evolving. It’s like a dream waiting to be made true, as no magic converts all our waste into great food, fresh from production’s polluted water and air, and new portions of cloth which will become waste next season.

However, something significant happens when thinkers like Daly and others, who can be united under the umbrella of ecological economists, challenge the traditional view on resources.

They propose that some resources might not be as limited as previously thought.

This pushed new understanding, which evolved with the introduction of socio-environmental systems and the concept of natural capital.

What is natural capital?

British economist Schumacher (Small Is Beautiful) introduced the idea of natural capital to distinguish it from man-made capital, including machinery, infrastructure, factories, and technology.

Unlike man-made capital, which is non-renewable, natural capital is renewable and plays a unique role in economic systems.

As ecological economists emphasize, natural capital includes various elements and processes within ecosystems. Douglas (Renewable Resources) highlights that contemporary literature often uses the term renewable resources interchangeably with renewable energy; however, water, soil, wildlife, forests, plants, and wetlands are also types of renewable resources.

Natural capital includes all abiotic and biotic components of ecosystems, as well as the ecosystems themselves, taking a broad, holistic view. A key feature of natural capital is its capacity for renewal.

What does “mama” have to do with natural capital?

Long before ecological economists, indigenous people understood something about nature, leading them to regard it as “mama.”

Techno-people challenge this belief by emphasizing real, wild nature’s harsh and raw aspects.

“Nature lacks any gentle “mama” feelings toward humanity, which remain unnoticed only behind the technological solutions we create,” techno-people say.

However, their argument rests on a flawed assumption.

Indigenous peoples, who survived within this wild nature, were aware of its harsh character. Yet, they still called Earth, the planet, “mama” or “pachamama.”

Why is this so?

Intricately linked to the fundamental natural principle of multiplication, this capacity is compellingly described in indigenous Quechua thought, as explored by Gary Urton in his work on Quechua ontology of numbers and arithmetic philosophy, “The Social Life of Numbers.”

Urton references two words: “mira, miray,” which denote reproductive force connected to the creative powers of “mama”—the origin of numbers and ordinal sequences, and “askhayay,” akin to multiplication, as in “from one, many appear,” such as the propagation of many plants from one seed or numerous potatoes from one, similar to numerical multiplication.

“Miray” refers to the pluralization characteristic of humans and animals—adult reproductive females—and serves as a base for indigenous ideas about nature as a maternal source.

Understanding natural capital has helped ecological economics expand traditional economists’ understanding of key factors in economic development, opening the door to new discussions.

Sustainable development, based on renewable resources, creates opportunities for new connections between natural, social, and economic systems.

Yet, to rely on natural capital, human activity must shift from focusing solely on maximizing profit to creating a balanced, regenerative relationship that benefits everyone.

What makes natural capital so unique?

Unlike non-renewable or man-made capital, natural capital can recover, regenerate, and multiply—but only if used within the limits of the system’s ability to renew and restore itself.

Do you get the difference?

Nonrenewable resources go through reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Renewable resources go through recovery, regeneration, and multiplication.

The main rule we must remember is that renewable capital could renew endlessly under specific conditions.

As Rockstrom et al. (A safe operating space for humanity) highlight, regeneration is not infinite. They pointed out “regenerative boundaries” and nine environmental ceilings defining the planet’s regenerating capacity.

Crossing these boundaries leads to severe environmental damage and potential tipping points in Earth’s systems. This is the possible point of no return.

Persson et al. note that humanity has already exceeded some of these boundaries, particularly with the amount of pollutants and “novel entities,” like plastics.

The real question is: can we find a way to restore balance?

This is where your understanding of the two types of resilience could save you.

To remind, the system’s view on sustainability enables both short-term and long-term resilience.

The early literature considers the pillars of sustainability—such as environmental, economic, and social—split broadly between those who view the three pillars of sustainability as inter-connected yet distinct perspectives and those who take a balanced systems approach.

The system’s view is rooted in the notion that sustainability represents interdependent parts in transitioning from an unsustainable state to a sustainable one. This refers to an important systemic characteristic called resilience.

The discussion on resilience types is crucial, covering environmental, economic, and social domains within the broader sustainability framework. A dichotomy exists between conventional and ecological economists’ perspectives, influencing the characteristics of sustainability systems and manifesting as two types: engineering and ecological resilience.

The discussion hinges on whether the state resisting change or transforming for a new order is fundamental for the ongoing global polycrisis. We touched upon this in the last newsletter, but I invite you to dive into the details here.

When examining the system’s single global equilibrium state, we must consider engineering resilience, which restores the system to its natural state after each intervention, regarded as a shock.

Gunderson (Ecological resilience – In theory and application) explained that this definition implies that the system exists near a single global equilibrium condition. Engineering resilience assumes only one regime and considers whether the system can resist at the very bottom of the regime. It is more about resistance, which allows the system to bounce back after each shock event.

Think of this ability as crucial for short-term change, which will pass by, and everything will come back to the norm. This type often relies on recovery based on additional external resources needed to bring the system to the same state again.

Holling (The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems) referred to resilience as a natural system’s ability, which is different from engineering resilience. It allows the system’s selfregeneration but does not necessarily keep it the same, allowing it to transform under new conditions. This type of resilience, known as ecological resilience, refl ects the system’s dynamics and refers to an alive ecosystem’s capacity to cope with change via the effect of “selforganization.”

It refers to the coping capacity in which the internal ability of the system allows a quick reorganization and resolves disruptions without external resources. Interactions between disturbances and resources in ecological resilience will reconfigure the existing system, eventually establishing a new and more optimal reference state that deviates from a steady equilibrium. That means old, well-known norms will no longer exist, and the system will establish the new norm, striving to find a new balance and reorganize itself.

Consequently, resilience can be viewed as comprising multiple equilibria, wherein the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system redefines its structure serves as a measure of resilience. Think of this ability as transformation, a result of adaptability needed for long-term change when a system needs to transform to fit a new reality.

As per Gunderson, this notion supports the system’s dynamic characteristics, which are influenced by manipulating the variables and processes governing its behavior and should be complemented by resource utilization, investment allocation, technological advancement, and institutional transformation.

Summary of engineering and ecological resilience

Tri et al. made a notable comparison between engineering and ecological resilience. There is a short summary based on their findings:

Engineering Resilience

·       presented by stability near one regime equilibrium returning after every shock,

·       resilience is the resistance and ability for recovery,

·       main characteristic: protect the existing configurations of the system,

·       main qualities: robustness, redundancy.

Ecological resilience

·       presented by multiple regimes, equilibria far from a single condition, where any changes are learning opportunities without a need to come back after every change,

·       resilience is the ability to adapt, transform, maintain tolerance, and reorganize,

·       main characteristic: explore modifications of the system,

·       main qualities: self-organization, adaptive capacity.

What if our resilience strategy could sustain life itself?

Fath and colleagues underlined that systemic ecological and economic health requires a balance of efficiency and resilience to be maintained within a particular “window of vitality.” As we discussed, this simply means we found it logical to remain part of the system after any changes, and we should not expect the system to thrive without human involvement.

Considering socio-ecological resilience when discussing long-term changes that apply to living systems is of utmost importance because it is an approach in which humans and nature are studied as an integrated whole, not as separated parts.

To Folke and colleagues, socioecological resilience is the capacity of the ecosystem to cope with change. According to Biggs et al. it is the ability to adapt to changes in socio-ecological systems, especially unexpected ones, in ways that continue to support human well-being.

The social and ecological systems are linked in coupled human-environment systems.

Research on human-made capital and engineering resilience for optimal profit maximization, alongside natural capital and socio-ecological resilience for renewable capacity regeneration and cooperative sustainability, underpins the development of two critical economic approaches to sustainability: weak and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability supports necessary quick fixes, and strong sustainability is a long-term strategy.

The source for a different future?

The secret lies in a realm beyond “right” and “wrong,” transcending polarized viewpoints into a new world I envision we could reach. The foundation of this new reality is long-term understanding (planning for future generations), ecological resilience, and the crucial role of life-supporting resources: natural capital.

We face a crucial decision: will we exploit our planet for mere economic growth, or will we commit to preserving its regenerative capacities and become stewards of life?

Thus, environmentalists and advocates urge us to look beyond immediate solutions, as these won’t suffice for the next level of change. We must monitor nature’s conditions, track trends, and align human actions with these changing times.

How can we progress?

We need to stop shifting responsibility and avoid the “one solution fits all” approach. Instead, integrate solutions into a framework that supports life in specific contexts without domination. This will alter our destiny and future.

In the meantime, we continue exploring nuances and details.

That’s all for today.

We’ll talk again in two weeks.

If these words were useful to you, please share your thoughts with Your Emotional Capital Newsletter readers: we are happy to hear from you!

---

Find me on LinkedIn or website. Send me professional inquiries at Kirkus ProConnect. Whenever you’re ready, there are 3 ways I can help you:

1. Your Emotional Capital Newsletter informs you with a mosaic of perspectives and insights on how emotional depth can fuel transformation, expedite learning, and activate greater cognitive capacities. Here, vulnerability meets strength, and sensitivity is recast not as a liability but as a potent asset.
2. Emotional Capital for the Triple Win: 50 Innovative Ways to Lead the Consumption Revolution reveals 50 innovative strategies to transform consumer behavior for a triple win: benefitting people, the planet, and universal prosperity. It is a groundbreaking guide for the next generation of business leaders, founders, and innovators. Available 24th June 2025.
3. The Gift of Sensitivity Book saves your precious time summarising 8 years of research & personal journey. Take a copy to discover your own sensitivity, transforming it into a superpower for a future with extraordinary faculties such as creativity, originality, innovation, intuition, flexibility, and inclusiveness in times of technological acceleration.

For nerds, free of charge from nights of searching for a light:

·       Schumacher EF. Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. London: Blond & Briggs. 1973.

·      Douglas AJ. Renewable resources. In: Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1999:512–517. 10.1007/1-4020-4494-1_279.

·       Urton G, Nina Llanos P. The social life of numbers: A Quechua ontology of numbers and philosophy of arithmetic. University of Texas Press; 1997.

·       Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature (London). 2009;461(7263):472–475.

·       Persson L, Carney Almroth BM, Collins CD, et al. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(3):1510–1521.

·       Gunderson LH. Ecological resilience – In theory and application. Annu Rev EcolSyst. 2000;31(1):425–439.

·       Holling CS. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. 1986;14:292–317.

·       Tri HC, Hens L, Phuoc PMT, Hung NT, Phuong TH. A systematic approach to the dilemma between fl ood vulnerability and resilience: Review and concepts. Vietnam Journal of Science and Technology. 2017;55(5): 620–636.

·       Fath BD, Fiscus DA, Goerner SJ, Berea A, Ulanowicz RE. Measuring regenerative economics: 10 principles and measures undergirding systemic economic health. Global Transitions. 2019;1:15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2019.02.002.

·       Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockström J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society. 2010;15(4).