 So we've got resource pressure, population pressure, and growth slowing down. And how do we adjust to this? And I don't think capitalism is designed to handle it. It doesn't handle the finiteness of resources. There isn't a single economic theory which contains that idea. In all economic theories, you just reach outside and take the resources that you need, regardless of the fact that they may be running out. This is a shocking deficit in our economic thinking. And in terms of the environment, my view is 80% at least of what you do to be efficient in a world of resource pressure, economizing on resources, will be beneficial to the environment. And some of it will not, but 80% plus is something I'll accept right now. How well do you think the broader investment sector understands this dynamic? I think they really are willing to consider resource limitation. And how willing they will be to take part two, which is the consequence slowing down of GDP in the developed world. And then eventually in the developing world, I'm not sure. They'll be less eager. That is very much built into our bones, isn't it? That we'll grow forever. And my thesis, of course, is that we can't grow physically indefinitely. We have to slow down rapidly. We have to concentrate on qualitative improvements. You can have a perfectly fine life and, incidentally, a perfectly successful company and a perfectly high-return portfolio without growth. You need profitability, but you can have a stable output and make good money. And I'm not sure that people are aware of that. Despite the fact that they have slowly but surely been reconciled to the fact that high-growth countries do not necessarily make you a fortune in the stock market, high-growth companies, they really understand now. They used to think that they would naturally win. They now know that, in fact, they have underperformed for as long as we can measure them. So they've got that connection. Growth does not equal automatic return in the stock market. Therefore, they're prepared, one would hope, to accept the general thesis that you do not need economic growth to have a decent economic return. CPSL, the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, focuses really on how individuals can become leaders in terms of thinking around sustainability issues, resource issues, climate change issues. What lessons would you have for them? Where do you expect the leadership to come from to try and address this? I'm hoping that some of the people at your programme will go on to become Finance Minister, Prime Minister or Presidents because they're the people who will have to save us. Capitalism can't deal with long horizon problems. They can't deal with externalities, and it's pretty easy to prove. An individual can drag a company with them for ten years, and that's very helpful. But what they have to concentrate on is influencing, first of all, governments and secondly, the general public in any way that they can. And to have a corporation lobby the government or put their weight behind an environmental concept with the government is very powerful. Individuals can be very influential if they state their case emphatically. And we will need all the help that we can get. The other thing, by the way, we should just mention in passing is the hoax or the fantasy that physical growth can be maintained indefinitely. Physical growth cannot be maintained very quickly over hundreds of years. There is simply no place to park your physical goods. There is no place to park your people if you keep growing at even 1%. You can't do that. But much the most limiting, I think, is the laws of thermodynamics, which is every time you run an engine, every time you have energy, every time you heat a room, there is a lot of heat involved. And the heat has to be dissipated. The only way it can be done is through infrared radiation. You can calculate exactly the rate at which that occurs. And it has been worked out that if you compound energy production from any source at all, forget carbon dioxide and climate change. Any source at all, if you increase it at 2.3%, then the thermodynamic effect multiplies by 10 every 100 years. And in 400 years, that's 100,000 times, you boil. The planet would reach boiling point. So you know long before 400 years, far more limiting than my arguments about where you park your television sets were out of business. So you have to understand it. Even if you do it through wind power and solar power and nuclear, you cannot grow indefinitely. You have to reconcile yourself to having qualitative improvements, a better life, a limited population, and concentrate on other ways in which the quality of life can be improved, which might incidentally be a whole lot better than the way we run our lives today.