"We assume that everything's becoming more efficient, and in an immediate sense that's true; our lives are better in many ways. But that improvement has been gained through a massively inefficient use of natural resources"
About this Quote
Efficiency is the sacred language of modern progress, and Hawken’s move is to expose it as a kind of comforting lie. He grants the obvious up front: yes, day-to-day life has gotten smoother, cheaper, faster. That concession matters because it disarms the reflexive “anti-technology” dismissal. Then he flips the frame: what we’re calling “efficiency” is often just local optimization, achieved by pushing costs offstage onto forests, oceans, minerals, and the atmosphere.
The subtext is an accounting scandal. We celebrate streamlined supply chains, energy-dense convenience, and frictionless consumption because the bill is paid somewhere else, later, by someone else. Hawken’s phrase “massively inefficient use of natural resources” is deliberately jarring: it treats extraction and waste not as collateral damage but as a design choice baked into the economy. The line also hints at a moral inversion. We pat ourselves on the back for better appliances and smarter logistics while accepting a system that burns ancient carbon to produce disposable goods, calling it rational because the prices look right.
Contextually, this sits in the late-20th/early-21st century environmental critique of “externalities” and growth-at-all-costs economics, but it’s pitched in plain language rather than academic code. Hawken isn’t rejecting improvement; he’s questioning the metric. The intent is to force a redefinition of efficiency that counts ecological throughput and long-term resilience, not just immediate human convenience.
The subtext is an accounting scandal. We celebrate streamlined supply chains, energy-dense convenience, and frictionless consumption because the bill is paid somewhere else, later, by someone else. Hawken’s phrase “massively inefficient use of natural resources” is deliberately jarring: it treats extraction and waste not as collateral damage but as a design choice baked into the economy. The line also hints at a moral inversion. We pat ourselves on the back for better appliances and smarter logistics while accepting a system that burns ancient carbon to produce disposable goods, calling it rational because the prices look right.
Contextually, this sits in the late-20th/early-21st century environmental critique of “externalities” and growth-at-all-costs economics, but it’s pitched in plain language rather than academic code. Hawken isn’t rejecting improvement; he’s questioning the metric. The intent is to force a redefinition of efficiency that counts ecological throughput and long-term resilience, not just immediate human convenience.
Quote Details
| Topic | Nature |
|---|
More Quotes by Paul
Add to List



