For most of human history, survival was a gamble. Half of all children never reached puberty. Life expectancy hovered around 40. Poverty was the norm. Then, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, everything changed.
Over the past two centuries — and especially in the 70 years since the end of the Second World War — humanity has engineered an extraordinary ascent. Child mortality has plunged from 40% in 1900 to just 5% today. Life expectancy has stretched to 70 years. Extreme poverty has collapsed from three-quarters of the global population to around one-tenth. Despite stubborn and growing inequality, most people on Earth live better lives than their great-grandparents could have imagined. We can confidently say that there’s never been a better time for humans.
This progress has been mirrored by explosive population growth. It took Homo Sapiens some 300,000 years to reach the first billion people. The second billion arrived a century later. The third, just 50 years after that. When I was born, there were less than three billion of us. Since then, we’ve added roughly a billion people every decade. In my lifetime, the global population has nearly tripled. This was the Great Rise of Humanity fuelled by astonishing technological advances that improved the health and life expectancy of many.
But it came with a hidden cost — one we ignored, downplayed or conveniently overlooked: the Great Decline of Nature.
The same forces that drove humans’ great rise and the explosion of the neoliberal economic model — demographic growth, technological acceleration and surging consumption — also unleashed an unprecedented assault on the natural world. Since 1950, global GDP has grown from $9 trillion to over $100 trillion. In parallel, annual human-caused CO₂ emissions have quadrupled, atmospheric concentrations have surged to levels unseen in more than ten million years, and global temperatures have climbed beyond 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels, frequently breaching the 1.5°C threshold or “danger zone.” Ocean acidification, global warming’s “evil twin” in our seas, has risen by 30%. Meat production has increased nearly 700%. Plastic production has soared from two million to 400 million tonnes a year.
Our Great Acceleration of production and consumption has altered the planet. We have cut and burned half the world’s trees, drained 80% of wetlands and bleached half of all coral reefs. In just 50 years, wildlife populations have fallen by two-thirds.
The most sobering statistic of all: humans and the livestock we raise for food now account for 96% of the planet’s mammal biomass. Wild mammals, from elephants and deer to mice and rats, make up the remaining mere 4%. A reverse picture of what must have been the ratio just a century or two ago.
In half a century — a heartbeat in planetary time — we have altered more than two-thirds of Earth’s ecosystems and destabilized the global climate system itself.
And yet, our dependence on nature has never changed. Nature underpins our food systems, our economies, our health and our survival. Still, we have treated her as an infinite, free input — resilient beyond limits, immune to collapse, absent from our balance sheets.
We are now consuming resources faster than the planet can regenerate them, while simultaneously destroying the ecosystems that do the regenerating. The result is a world that is hotter, more polluted and increasingly empty of life.
This is the defining paradox of our time, the Development Paradox: an economic model that generates prosperity by eroding its own foundations, the natural systems.
This is not environmental alarmism. It is scientific consensus. And the threat is accelerating. Entire ecosystems — tropical forests, coral reefs — are approaching tipping points. So are critical systems such as seasonal rainfall patterns and ocean currents. Cross those thresholds, scientists warn, and the world may shift abruptly into a state that is less stable, less predictable and far more hostile to human civilization.
Yet, in all this there is a positive side.
For the first time, we know. We are the most environmentally aware generation in history. Climate change and nature loss are no longer fringe concerns; they are recognized by an increasing number of people as economic, security and development risks. This growing awareness marks a Great Awakening — and within it lies the seed of transformation.
That Great Transition has a name: a Nature Positive future.
Nature Positive is not a slogan. It is both a vision — of a future with more nature, not less — and a measurable global goal: to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, a commitment adopted by nearly 200 nations in 2022. At its heart is a radical proposition and a deep cultural and systemic shift: human development does not have to depend on the destruction of nature.
The path forward is clear. To stabilize and regenerate natural systems and derisk our future, we must protect what remains of the natural world and restore what we can of what we have damaged. Key economic sectors must shift from nature-negative to nature-positive practices. Above all, financial flows — public and private — must be redirected to support this transition.
Everyone has a role to play: governments, cities, businesses and citizens alike. But because so much environmental harm is embedded in how we produce and invest, businesses and investors hold particular responsibility — and power.
Now that the imperative for a nature-positive transition direction is recognized and the global goal agreed, its implementation requires a clear way to measure progress. Companies and financial institutions must start with identifying and quantifying how they impact nature, to understand how nature loss threatens their own productivity and resilience as well as the negative externalities their impacts cause to society.
This principle of “double materiality” represents one of the most profound paradigm shifts in recent years. For companies, climate and nature are no longer just compliance issues or reputational risks; they are fundamental business risks turning quickly into financial losses, affecting supply chains, access to water, raw materials and long-term value.
Related Articles
Here is a list of articles selected by our Editorial Board that have gained significant interest from the public:
Unlike climate — where progress towards net zero can be tracked with a single metric — biodiversity is complex. But complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction. Perfection must not become the enemy of progress. What is needed is a practical, science-based set of indicators that are credible yet usable, comparable and affordable.
Today, more than 600 nature metrics exist. While incredibly exciting — we have never been able to measure so many different dimensions of nature — this abundance has bred confusion and paralysis, particularly in companies at the start of their nature journey. Agreeing on a common set of “state of nature” metrics is essential to determine whether our actions are actually helping nature recover. These metrics are the backbone of any serious nature positive strategy and are a necessary complement to the impact and response metrics.
That is why the Nature Positive Initiative has convened a global, consensus-building effort to define such metrics. Already piloted by companies across sectors and regions, they are expected to be finalized in early 2026 — providing the world with a credible way to measure progress toward net-positive outcomes for nature.
We are living in extraordinary times: times of paradox and peril, but also of choice and opportunity. And we have entered an era of consequences.
We are the generation holding the pen. The next chapter in humanity’s story is ours to write — and the moment to write it is now. The choice is unmistakable. The only way to secure a future that is positive for people is to embrace one that is positive for nature. It is as logical as it is intuitive — and we know it to be true. A different future is not only possible; it is necessary. The knowledge is in our hands; the moment is upon us. What matters now is the courage to act, and to act together.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of impakter.com — Cover Photo Credit: Andreas Gücklhorn.
