One of the oldest and most important questions humanity keeps returning to is about progress. But progress towards what?
Probable answers that invariably arise point to over-dependency at the cost of humanity, the environment, ecological balance, and the overall well-being of mankind. Another equally important question is: What kind of future global system is this so-called progress actually building?
The modern world often measures progress by metrics that are easy to count—GDP, stock prices, computing power, productivity, life expectancy, internet speeds, etc. There have been regular discussions on the GDP metric itself, questioning its wisdom. However, that is a separate debate.
By these measures, humanity has undoubtedly made extraordinary advances. Many diseases are now treatable, child mortality has fallen dramatically, billions have gained access to education and information, and technology has solved problems that would have been unimaginable a century ago.
Yet these measures do not capture everything that truly matters.
Alongside these achievements, several worrying trends continue to raise legitimate concerns:
Climate change and biodiversity loss.
Pollution of air, water, and soil.
Overconsumption of finite resources such as water and energy.
Mental health challenges despite material abundance.
Loneliness, polarisation, and the erosion of community life.
A growing disconnect from natural ecosystems.
In that sense, technological or financial progress is not automatically human progress. They are merely tools. Whether they improve life depends entirely on how they are used and the goals they are meant to serve.
A growing concern today is whether everything around us is becoming increasingly inorganic.
Not literally, of course, but many aspects of modern life are becoming more artificial:
More time spent indoors than outdoors.
More interaction through screens than face-to-face conversations.
More processed products than locally grown food.
More built environments than natural surroundings.
This does not mean technology itself is the problem. A solar panel, a vaccine, or a clean water system is also "artificial," yet each significantly improves human well-being. The problem begins when technology replaces, rather than supports, our relationship with nature, community, and health.
The real question, therefore, is: What is the right balance?
A useful principle is that technology should help us live well within Earth's ecological limits—not help us exceed them faster by consuming natural resources at a menacing pace driven by greed.
There is a need to draw a line, and that time has already arrived.
That desired balance should include:
Using renewable energy while protecting ecosystems.
Designing products that can be repaired and recycled instead of discarded.
Building cities with parks, trees, and walkable neighbourhoods.
Measuring success not only by wealth but also by health, education, environmental quality, affordable justice, and social trust.
Encouraging innovation while constantly asking: What are its long-term consequences?
The next question that naturally arises is: What should mankind do?
Perhaps the challenge is not to stop progress but to redefine it.
Real progress should compel us to ask:
Are future generations inheriting a healthier planet?
Are people healthier in both body and mind?
Are communities becoming more resilient?
Is technology reducing suffering without creating greater harm?
Are we preserving the diversity of life on Earth?
Financial systems should ideally reward activities that regenerate forests, soils, and oceans—not merely those that maximise short-term profits driven by greed. Scientific advances should always be accompanied by ethical reflection. Likewise, economic growth should be evaluated alongside ecological sustainability.
A broader understanding of how Mother Nature has sustained life for billions of years—through cycles rather than endless accumulation—should become essential knowledge, especially for schoolchildren. The objective should be to educate and prepare future generations to take corrective action.
Human economies, by contrast, often assume perpetual expansion.
One of the defining questions of this century is whether we can build economies that function more like ecosystems—where waste becomes a resource and growth is balanced by renewal. This idea resonates with the famous scientific principle that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed.
In that sense, the goal should not be to choose between technology and nature, but to make technology an ally of nature rather than its competitor.
The philosopher and environmental thinker E. F. Schumacher wrote that the real question is not simply how much we produce, but what we produce, how we produce it, and for what purpose.
That idea remains profoundly relevant today.
Perhaps real progress can be expressed simply:
A civilisation is truly progressing if it leaves its people wiser, healthier, and kinder, while leaving the Earth more capable of supporting life than it found it.
If technology, finance, and public policy move us towards that outcome, then it is genuine progress. If they move us away from it, then it is merely an advancement in capability without an advancement in wisdom.
The enduring challenge for humanity is to ensure that the two grow together.
James Gustave Speth observed that the greatest environmental problems confronting mankind are selfishness, greed, and apathy. To overcome these, he argued, humanity requires a profound spiritual and cultural transformation.
Sadly, that spiritual and cultural consciousness is missing from the vocabulary of many Western nations that are often considered progressive. Equally, India is not immune to blindly chasing the same model of so-called progress.
If we continue on the present path, the consequences are likely to be far more destructive.
Therefore, while there is still time, we must embrace a meaningful mid-course correction. That will require understanding, due diligence, and above all, the courage to swim against the current in order to reach the right destination.
Views expressed are personal