John Elkington has spent more than 50 years thinking about sustainability, business and how systems change. He coined the term Triple Bottom Line, has written more than 20 books and advises businesses and leaders around the world.
But this conversation is much more about what comes next than what came before. John believes the next 10–15 years could bring more change than the previous 50.
We talk about why the sustainability movement has become tired and overcomplicated, why the pushback against ESG may actually be useful, and why he believes we’re moving from an era of “soft sustainability” into something much harder.
We get into Donald Trump and the breakdown of the old order, AI and the dangers of technological races, why individual action still matters but can’t deliver system change alone, who gets to shape the story of our future, and the kind of leadership we may need for what comes next.
Most importantly, John explains why he’s optimistic, even while expecting the years ahead to be extremely challenging.
In this episode
00:01 — Curiosity as a way of life
At 77, John says he feels like he’s only getting started. What keeps him curious, and why nature still gives him disproportionate joy.
00:12 — Has sustainability run out of steam?
John thinks the movement has become tired, complacent and too complicated. And surprisingly, he sees the backlash against it as an opportunity.
00:17 — Why real system change rarely happens gradually
We talk about the shocks that have transformed societies throughout history, and why John expects far greater change over the next 10–15 years than we’ve seen in the previous 50.
00:25 — The end of soft sustainability
Being responsible, reporting progress and making voluntary commitments won’t be enough. John explains what he means by the shift from “soft” to “hard” sustainability.
00:34 — AI, technological races and running through the red lights
What happens when everyone believes they have to win? We explore AI, the race for technological dominance and what history tells us about technologies developing faster than our ability to understand their consequences.
00:39 — Have we given people responsibility without power?
From The Green Consumer Guide to today’s calls for system change: did asking millions of individuals to make better choices actually work?
00:43 — Why we’re addicted to magical solutions
There is rarely one technology, policy or idea that suddenly fixes everything. John explains why meaningful change is much messier, slower and more experimental.
00:48 — Who gets to shape the future?
How do we give nature, future generations and marginalised communities a genuine voice without simply telling their stories for them?
00:52 — Where are the leaders we need?
Why strong leadership and good values so rarely appear together, what John sees in leaders such as Mark Carney, and why our political systems may need much deeper reinvention.
00:58 — The future isn’t waiting for us
Climate impacts we once imagined our grandchildren dealing with are already arriving. John explains why time literacy matters and why leadership ultimately depends on telling people the truth while still giving them a believable way forward.
Transcripts
[:
Rav: So welcome back everybody to the Storytelling for Social Impact podcast, the podcast where we explore how storytelling can change the world. I have a really wonderful guest this week someone I've known for almost 15 years and really admired. the-- He's been involved in sustainability probably, can't say longer than anyone else, but for a long time.
Rav: He was way back in:
Rav: So I'm really delighted and honored to, to have you with me today, John. Thank you so much.
John: It's a thrill to be here, Reverend Oh. I look forward to the conversation
Rav: Excellent. So the way in which I just try and, start a little human before we get too intellectual. I've got a few little icebreakers. What's something that you're just curious about right now? It could be anything
different things and digging [:
John: But, uh, I- I've just come out of a session with a co-author, Charmian Love, and we're working on a book, uh, which is about how do we give nature a, a voice in every aspect of human affairs? And not just a voice, but an effective one. And we're running right the way through from the living room right the way to the war room, and I think that- that- that's something that intrigues me.
John: And clearly, one element of that's going to be AI. I'm sure we'll discuss that because you need some combination of natural, human, and whatever we call it, artificial, augmented, whatever uh, intelligence. So that, that space is, is entertaining me a considerable degree at the moment. But ask me in five minutes and I'll have a different answer.
hat's good to hear her name. [:
he triple bottom line, and in:
John: And they said that n- n- no management thinker in their, their experience or memory had ever done that. And, and, and, and that wasn't to say the idea was stupid and dead. It was simply to s- say that the original intent, the original purpose was not being met very often. And, and we needed to collectively take the time to reflect on why that was the case and what we might do to address it.
that immediately springs to [:
Rav: Yeah, you see it's not an easy question to answer, is it?
John: Bite a bit
Rav: I think I spent some time in my 20s as a monk, and in those years I was very certain.
John: Mm-hmm.
Rav: it was partly youthful of idealism and very certain about some of the bigger mysterious questions. And as I've got older, I've definitely realized that it's not that they're any less important to me, but I wouldn't be as certain.
Rav: And in actual fact, I find that to be thing because you can embrace the myster- the mysterious aspect of it rather than trying to somehow contain something so huge i- in a, in sort of some concrete idea. So that would be mine
John: And was there a sort of final rupture or rapture where you suddenly parted company with that version of yourself, or how did that happen?
Rav: [:
Rav: It would be in the last five years or so where, I don't know what they call it now, midlife or, whatever. And yeah, where I'm really having to find my space with all of that again. So it's been a tumultuous time, but a good time nonetheless.
ing what are you gonna do at [:
John: So I mean, what we go through as individuals, I think collectively we can go through as well. So in a way, here we go again.
Rav: Yeah, absolutely. It's a eternal growing up,
John: I never want to get to that point, so I'm gonna I didn't want to be Peter Pan but equally I think part of that, that retaining the curiosity, that inquisitiveness is about never quite growing up. Anyway
Rav: no, I get that. what's a piece of advice you received but didn't take it straight away? It took you a long time to maybe grasp or understand?
John: I don't know. I, I, nothing comes to mind on that. I re- when I was younger, by which I mean in my teens and early 20s, I had typically friends who were very often 40 to 50 years older than I was. And, and so I, and now it's sort of s- flipped. It's gone the other way around 'cause most of those people are now dead.
've been full of advice, but [:
John: It was that perhaps it took me a bit of time to get into the position where I could do more of that than perhaps you can when you're very young and clueless, uh, and constrained in multiple different ways. I don't know. Ask me again in two years and I'll try again.
Rav: No, that's good. It's funny that how we... 'Cause we're a person at each stage, and the same advice can still be helpful, but in a different way perhaps.
John: Yeah
Rav: Just lastly, if you weren't doing the work you're doing now, what do you think you might have been doing potentially?
en that very much thought as [:
John: But Nonetheless, uh, after that I got an education which was extremely liberal in in, in a sort of healthy sense, and was encouraged again to follow my nose and follow my interests. Yeah, I don't... I, I, I think the thing about this space, or at least as I've, I've experienced it and, and chosen to define it, is that everything is relevant.
n it's all relevant. So I, I [:
John: and it, it is this desire to help other people understand stuff that they don't yet understand, that they don't yet see, but has consequences and implications for the wider world if, if they continue on their current trajectories. So I don't know whether that's missionary or, or educational or, or what it is.
John: But yeah, I don't... I genuinely think I've been massively privileged, which in a way blinds me from what I might otherwise have been forced into doing. But my father, who was Battle of Britain pilot, he was in the armed forces, which was the environment in which I grew up, uh, and we traveled a lot as a family.
o into the armed forces, and [:
John: Um, it took my father, Tim, about 25 years to suddenly realize what it was that I was doing because it was something completely outside his world.
Rav: Yeah.
John: yeah, so I don't know. I'm answering all these questions by saying I don't know. Hopefully it'll get better at some point.
Rav: That's good. Before we dive in what's a little thing that gives you disproportionate joy? It just really tickles you and makes you feel happy
of the, one of the critical [:
John: If I see a dragonfly, we w- About four or five years ago, our oldest daughter, Gaia, dug us a, a quite deep pond. Small but with, it's got reeds and other things in it. And I see all sorts of things like hawkers or, or different forms of damselflies and so on. I love seeing wildlife.
John: Uh, and, and in a way being immersed in that world. Yeah, I, I, I, I think that's what comes to mind first
Rav: Yeah. Beautiful. It's magical, isn't it? It's, is it this, the phrase, something like instead of, like everything's a miracle in a way,
d love to hear your thoughts [:
John: Yeah
Rav: Like for example, obviously there's been a lot of pushback in more recent years on things like sustainability, and some people would say, "Oh, that's terrible," yet others might think actually perhaps it's not so terrible 'cause it could be the catalyst for something fresh."
Rav: So would love to hear your thoughts on it
John: Well, it's funny, I, I've found myself in at least, uh, an additional country per week for several months now. And as I've gone to places like Warsaw or Oslo or whatever, I find myself saying the same thing, which is that Donald Trump is a gift to the sustainability movement. And by that, I mean something that is not obvious to everyone when they first hear it.
has, as I've mentioned, been [:
John: I think it's also got associated with a lot of other concepts. So, for example, ESG, you kindly mentioned the triple bottom line. I mean, from that came the double bottom line, the quadruple bottom line, shared value, blended value, ESG, all sorts of different concepts. And of all them all, the one that gave me greatest concern was ESG.
ed, uh, or damaged and, and, [:
John: And when I'd thought about the triple bottom line, I thought economic, social, environmental. And in the middle, you would have like almost like the axle with a wheel spinning around would... You'd have politics, you'd have governance, you'd have education, all the things that enabled and kept this thing spinning or, or sort of locked it solid.
John: So to your question, I think what's happened is there's been a profound pushback against ESG. I think it was well deserved. I think a lot of what happened in that space was just not well conceived. A- and as you'll remember, there was a time when, as I sometimes say, there was everyone on their donkey wanted to have their own ESG fund.
all of these different funds [:
John: There were, there are. But I think what's happened is that the likes of Donald Trump have actually sent a shot across our b- uh, collective bow. And I think ESG really has to pull its socks up in, in a way that I don't yet see happening properly. Sustainability, I think, is slightly different because it bundles so many other things as well, including climate change and biodiversity loss and human rights and anti-bribery and corruption, and you name it, it's all in there.
digm shifts, but they forget [:
John: every 70 to 80 years, and they're nauseating for people trapped in the old order when they come through. So final point is I think, I think what I'm taking away partly from the pushback is, okay, we need to improve our game, and we must do that. But at the same time, I think it's an indication and a, uh, and a reassuring one in a way that the...
John: those people with sunk capital, with you know, vested interest in the old order are suddenly waking up to the fact that this, all of this has, uh, profound consequences, uh, for the future of their wealth and so on. The whole argument around stranded assets and so on. So I, I'm actually quite optimistic.
yet see, except in pockets, [:
Rav: Yeah. And I guess it's, there's people like yourself and others, who are trying to offer ideas for how that could move forward. But it, I suppose for a lot of people, they see perhaps a bit of a void, when so much of the established pathways or methods that, some of those conversations, ESG or otherwise, were happening and the huge pushback on it.
Rav: I suppose it's that in-between bit where people are not quite sure it moves forward, even if there is a need for it to move forward,
John: Yeah. No. Well, I think, uh, two things are going on at the same time. There, there, there are a bunch of people who are thinking if they just do more of what they were doing and do it better and faster, much of which is incremental change, the system will change. And I, I think it might do you know, given a couple of lifetimes or generations or whatever, but we don't have time for that.
mean that incrementalism is [:
John: Actually, Donald Trump is driving system change. It just doesn't happen to be the, the sort of system change that we uh, wanted. Um, so he didn't get the brief or whatever. But the thing about system change is nothing happens for very long periods of time, and then suddenly everything happens overnight.
ber of people, raises income [:
John: It could be a depression not a recession, but a but a depression which takes FDR and the United States somewhere that people just hadn't been bold enough to get, think of going before. It could be a war. Not the First World War because that took us in the wrong direction. But certainly the Second World War took us towards the system that is now falling apart around our ears.
others to do in the mid-late:
the polycrisis, whatever it [:
John: They create a very different perspective on the world, and they drive the emergence of very different styles of leadership and very different leaders. Um, I think I, I, again, I'm 77 now. I feel I'm only just getting started. I spent 50 years plus now professionally in this space. But I think the next 10 to 15 years are gonna see much more change in every direction than the last 50.
John: So I'm actually quite excited about that. But also it's not going to be easy, and at times it's gonna be politically very challenging indeed.
Rav: Yeah, I, just listening to you speaking, it seems, like placing different pieces of the jigsaw on the table. You start to go, "Ah, I can kinda see the picture of what's coming." It's
John: Yeah
isn't it, a little bit that [:
Rav: also, know, necessary at times. I think with Donald Trump, for example, as you say, as a leader, of course, y- many would, for, for many, good reasons not necessarily be in favor of him.
Rav: But I think one of the things that people appreciate about him and even I can appreciate about him,
Rav: necessarily what he does, but he's decisive. He's getting what he wants done, and so he's effecting change in a, in an effective way you could say, although maybe in the wrong direction.
Rav: But he's, so there's something about, when, like y- I'm not quite as old as you, but I'm sure you can relate, where when you hear talk and talk, and you j- there's something quite dynamic about someone who does. You know what I mean?
Adolf Hitler. A- and when I [:
John: somebody who pulls together a nation. He's somebody who just fractures it. A- and so basically what he's doing is taking apart and consuming some of the energy from that sort of fission process, what has taken much better leaders than him, centuries to put together. So I
reality. And he, fed by his [:
John: But look at the earthquake, and what was the American response there? He wants to go into Cuba. He thinks that will be an easy win. God help us all. Th- this man is a, a tyrant, a, a would-be monarch. It's all been said before, but I don't think we probably quite recognize the degree of danger that our collective democracies are in.
John: And yet the pushback is happening. You're seeing people finally starting to think, "Oh, God. We can't ... We ... if this goes on we are going to lose our jobs in government. We're gonna lose our seats in the Congress," or whatever it happens to be. So I don't think that the whole world will reset when Donald Trump is dead or retired or whatever happens to him, or in prison which, ideally he would be.
em, an old order is breaking [:
John: But it ... The next 10 to 15 years are going to be massively character-forming let's say, for all of us
Rav: And I guess i- if we look back in history, those monsters, they also play their role. If you think of it as a story, like a longer story, they play a role in the story, and that helps move the story along, if you like, as a
John: I agree with their intention. I mean, I, I don't think Mussolini or Hitler or, Pol Pot or whatever de- decided this is gonna have a role in the long term. David Trump would be quite different as Donald Trump is, is, is trying to do. But anyway
Rav: Yes
ing one and there's a lot to [:
Rav: So do you think it's the end of soft sustainability? That phrase I'll explain. Like in the sense that there was a time maybe where there was a sort of a moral argument made or, it's the right thing to do kind of argument, and maybe now w- when the change comes, it may be more to do with a realization because of perhaps difficult times or whatever, but that actually an imperative to do it for our own survival or for our own self-interest. have you seen a shift in that?
John: Well, several things. I mean, simple answer, yes. But when I did the product recall, I then spent sort of 18 months scratching my head and saying, "If not that then what?" And the answer I got to eventually was very simple, but it was that if I thought about what had gone wrong with the triple bottom line, is that largely we had tried to apply it within the context of responsibility, morality, ethics, all of that good stuff.
John: A- [:
John: And last year it was 844 experts, 72 countries, 56% of whom said the sustainability agenda needs radical change. So I mean, it's not just me saying this stuff. I, I think there is this sort of wider understanding growing out there a- and sentiment alongside. I've completely lost my thread because I went on the detour, and as often happens, you don't know where you're headed back to.
um, can you remind me of the [:
Rav: Yeah, sure. It was just perhaps the moral and ethical argument
Rav: didn't work, and I suppose I'm curious as to maybe why not, and if the, the harder, more self-interested approach works, what... what's the, what are your thoughts around that? I know I, I was looking at
John: Yeah
Rav: studied sociology and social psychology as a young man, so as well I'd love to hear your sort of insight into that dynamic as to why didn't we rise to the challenge because of ethics and doing the right thing?
John: I don't think we ever do as a species. We conjure wonderful ethical frameworks and new moralities and requirements of other people who are in the safe belief, same belief system. Whether you look at Christianity or Islam or communism or whatever, they are very imperfect. All of these things are very imperfect expressions of the declared intent of what it would be to be a good citizen or whatever.
oing to change. I think with [:
John: So there have been endless attempts to get this onto a moral basis. I think if we abandon that request, that quest and abandon the the ethics component of all this, we are, to use an extremely technical term, utterly screwed because ultimately it comes down to values, and ultimately it comes down to shared values.
So I think it's, It's not a [:
years ago, in:
John: And to some degree, I understand why people are saying that as a sort of provocation. If you look at the climate science, biodiversity science, and so on even if we moderate our current impacts on the wider global system, we're still not gonna save ourselves or that wider world. But if my sense, you asked about sociology and social psychology, that in my mind also came with a very big dose of politics.
I think if you offer to the [:
that period and i continued [:
John: examples So i think this is um Going to remain something about values.
about, you know, the softer [:
John: And I think weak to strong is about what you're asking for from, from people who are gonna implement sustainability. Is it, is it taking ecosystem health as an absolute requirement or something that is tradable? What I mean by soft to hard is soft requirements are things like be nice, be good report on your progress.
is some of the depopulation [:
John: Japan also. Italy won't be able to pay its pensions within 30 years. So we, we... as a movement, we fretted about population for very good reason. But selective and then accelerating depopulation for a range of other factors, one of which is just people don't want to have children into the sort of future that they increasingly see.
John: So that soft to hard transition, I think is, is really important. And I don't see most sustainability people, if I can call them that with respect alert, uh, and responding to that. Um, yeah
ocial enterprise or anything [:
Rav: And then you have on the other extreme, out-and-out hard-nosed business on another extreme. And it's very difficult to find people who naturally straddle or are able to operate and think in both.
Rav: like you say, the foundational component has to be the values and the ethics and the moral argument. But ultimately, the thing that it seems to be the tipping point is, something that happens, something that has a, an immediate
Rav: risk or opportunity. And i- interestingly, you mentioned the AI there. I was at AI for Good in Geneva last week, and one of the things I kinda came away with, and I've heard it on other podcasts and stuff, is that I don't know if any of those big leaders are on, grounded properly in values.
of the others achieving the [:
Rav: so it means they run through all the red lights that they would ordinarily do to slow down and test and make sure it's safe. And so that kinda maybe is a really visceral example of that tension,
John: Yeah
Rav: know I don't know if you've got any thoughts on that
John: Well, I th- I think there are exceptions to every rule, and I think Anthropic is an example of a company that is trying at least to
John: call people's attention to the implications of some of this new technology, and paying the price because, you know, Trump then comes down on them and says, "You can't release the, your latest version to
John: aliens or foreigners," or whatever.
t will create the same sorts [:
John: W- we were experimenting, and we even used chemical weapons in places like Iraq. And so it... this is back in the First World War period not the recent thing . That was Saddam Hussein. But th- there are these moments where technologies are make or break for individuals very often wealthy individuals and their societies.
lse And there was no problem [:
John: Actually, we had seen it. And the Nimbus 7 satellites have been overflying Antarctica for years. But all the computers, as you probably know, were programmed to dump any data that showed anything like a hole, stra- stratospheric ozone hole, because that was impossible, wasn't it? And you have to ask yourself, w- where in the world are we now doing the same thing?
nographic Institution back in:
at I was covering back in the:
remember is that by the late:
t now you're starting to see [:
John: And the rapid rapidity of loss of glaciers in Europe of the polar ice caps, particularly in the Arctic. So it's it's an extraordinary period where you just see, again, this willful blindness of people and even, the unwillingness to talk about it once people do recognize what's going on because Trump will cut their federal funding or whatever it happens to be.
John: So it's a war. It's not a declared war so much. But it's a very real conflict between a, a past version of reality and the future version of reality.
Rav: Yeah. I Wanted to ask you about this balance between something else you've talked about, responsibility and power. So
John: Yeah
individual choices, and you [:
... late:
kground. I think people are, [:
John: They would then redirect, uh, this thing to what you can do as an individual to save energy, and it's up to you, and if you can't do that, then God save the wider world. I I think it makes sense to do everything that you can do at the same time and experiment and see what works and what doesn't.
John: And that was the, uh, the intent, the spirit, in a way, of the green consumer movement. But now it, it is about system change, and it is about institutional evolution, and it is about new forms of pricing, and new forms of valuation. All things that we really struggle to get our brains around as a species.
t great. We've learned a lot [:
John: Because in a way, to some degree, this paradigm shift does happen one mind at a time one lifestyle at a time. And if you can then systematize that, so much the better
Rav: It's interesting actually, I just realized even in the way I asked the question, we tend to think like that, don't we? We tend to that everything is connected and that there are many different things all happening at the same time. We tend to think did this work? Yes or no," and therefore it was worth it or it wasn't worth it.
t? And we have to of try and [:
John: it's partly the, th- there is a deep appetite in the human being for magical solutions. The sort of, the, the sort of Excalibur or whatever. It's some- something that, that, that changes everything overnight. And typically they're very rare, vanishingly rare, non-existent, those sorts of solutions.
f time. And I wrote a book in:
et this combination of China [:
John: So that, that's part of where I take my optimism from. And yet, these things wear out 15, 20 years out. What the hell are we gonna do with the first couple of generations of those solar arrays because they are toxic and not r- non-recyclable and so on. And the question, are we yet screening out toxics from those production lines?
John: Are we making these things circular as they should be, could be? I'm not entirely convinced.
to think somebody must have [:
John: No
Rav: even these huge data centers for AI, apparently they have a five-year life cycle, which is,
John: Yeah
Rav: such a short, so it's easy to get excited about all of this stuff, and no doubt it's happening anyway, but it's, Some people are talking about, yeah, the shortsightedness of some of it and the cost.
John: And it always happens. The pattern repeats itself endlessly. So for example I was always fascinated by the early history of the railways or the railroads in the United States, and you look back at the literature around that time, and one of the, one of the claims that was leveled against the railways was that they would cause cows in fields to abort their calves.
ght all sorts of interesting [:
John: I mean, o- one of my relations, um, ended up as, uh, vice president to President Ulysses S. Grant. His name was Schuyler Colfax, and he was probably the most conspicuously rotten corrupt politician in, in known political history because he was completely embroiled in the railroad boom, and everyone was making money hand over fist and corrupt as anything.
John: And yet he signed off on the Bill of Emancipation. And uniquely in American history, as far as I understand it, the speaker, which he was then signed a bill to get it across the line. You have to won- so emancipation happened, but you have to wonder h- who paid him how much to make that happen. So I just...
John: The fact that it's [:
t's there in the way that it [:
Rav: Yeah, it's a very good point. So often read something from the past, and I'm amazed at how similar it is to s-
Rav: something that's going on now, and you're just like, "Wow." So even back then they were completely thinking about these things. They were, it was So it's fascinating. Two more things I wanted to run by you. So one is I guess who gets to tell the story of our future? So representation. How do we genuinely give a voice to nature, future generations, and also, marginalized people? Or, a lot of people are now looking to the wisdom of, say, the Amazon, for example.
John: Yeah.
Rav: so how do we genuinely give a voice to these voices without the story for them, if you like?
frame, the temptation grows [:
John: It's-- Your, your question is fundamentally a political question. And I've always said that I'm-- I try very hard not to be political with a big P, a part of politics, and I... But I've been forced over time to recognize that most of what we do in the sustainability field has considerable political consequences.
John: So if you're going to shut coal mines in Germany or in the Appalachians or whatever it is in the United States, you're going to have to really work to ensure that the populations who will be shaken out or by AI or whatever it is, find other gainful forms of employment. So I think, I, I, I think That depends on a, a level of political wisdom, which at the moment we don't see.
the greatest respect to most [:
John: And so again, we've got these monsters, uh, bubbling up. And I think d- democracy is much more precarious than it has been for a very, very long time. And, and this is ... I'm gonna sound like, um, gunpowder plot, but I mean, if I could blow up the house of, houses of Parliament in this country and start from scratch with something that was built in a more circular design and all the rest of it, in, circular in every sense I, I would be very tempted to do it.
s there, and it is emerging. [:
John: And, um, it was with literally admirals and generals and air marshals in the room, and the subjects were things like energy security, water security, forced migration pandemics, um, these sorts of things. And my sense of that world was that those people saw the permacrisis, the polycrisis, whatever it is that we're in, with much greater clarity than any politician that I've come across to date.
ense of the emergent reality [:
Rav: I have a question. Sometimes So I get exactly what ... You know, I really hear you about democracy, but let's say, democracy has taken um, course and someone is voted in and they're a leader. I see, I te- this is how I see it, whether ... I'm not sure if it's correct, but it's how I see it.
Rav: You tend to get these very um, leaders, that are m- emboldened and overly confident and, li- like Trump, for example, that are just out for themselves. then you tend to get on the other side pr- and perhaps it is really on the other side, people who are almost overly concerned what everybody thinks, so much so that they almost become useless also.
John: Yeah
r a long time that you know, [:
John: it's tempting to point to somebody like Arnold Schwarzenegger governor of California at one point, as somebody who, despite all expectations, was quite thoughtful and very interested in climate change and things like that. I think of city mayors, again you look around the world, and cities are crucibles, cauldrons of, of, uh, in which many of these problems are bubbling up, and mayors are right at the cutting edge having to respond.
we come up the notch to the [:
John: I see somebody there who is ferociously intelligent, who's declared his values, uh, and they're very much aligned. But you look at all the decisions he's been forced to take because of the hostility of the United States of America in terms of fossil fuel investment and pipelines and so on.
ear blind that they've got a [:
John: Or do we somehow over time try and broaden the base from which we select our political leaders? Do we invest in those leaders and pay them properly, educate them for the role? And I think, again, to your point about one end of that spectrum you described of people who just consult with everyone but then do nothing.
John: I think the Danish idea of citizen juries is something that we really should be properly trialing, uh, in this country. Not because it gives us in- instantly better informed decisions, but it helps educate the populace and the wider population in terms of the nature of democratic politics and, um, the, the system dynamics that we're all having to deal with.
rrent form of politics is so [:
John: And I think we're very much people will say, "We've got Ukraine, we've got Gaza, we've got Iran." I'm thinking about something very much more widespread than that. And I think within three to five years, we may f- well, find ourselves there again. So I'm not a pacifist. I think war is, to some degree, hardwired into our species.
went to U- well, multiply to [:
John: He w- he wanted to be another Churchill. But I d- I see very few people as yet who have, have that broad expanse of knowledge and skill base that's going to be required. But they're out there. We've just got to find them. We've got to work on... And it doesn't mean that we're gonna have to take lots of CEOs and inject them into politics.
John: I think that again would be a mistake. These people aren't bred for that.
Rav: Yeah. It's it's interesting you made the point about it's often much harder when you're in that seat than we, you know, armchair f- uh, politicians might think.
John: It's you? Yeah
Rav: yeah, I- another person on this upcoming season on the podcast I have had on is Lisa Witter. She's co-founder of Better Politics Foundation,
John: Mm-hmm.
Rav: they actually are trying actively to, to train and coach and cultivate a, a whole new generation of political leaders, so that's very encouraging
John: I'd love to know more about what they're doing.
Rav: Yeah.
John: that's fantastically [:
Rav: yeah. I'll put you in touch.
John: Thank you
Rav: last last point. So what does good storytelling look like when the consequences we need people to care about may unfold beyond their lifetime? So it's this kind of literacy perspective that you've talked
John: yeah, and I'm, I'm, I'm fascinated by time literacy, about deep time, both going back into deep history, but also forward into the future. And I think science fiction authors have been signaling s- mapping out some of those landscapes for quite some time. But I think the... We all know it but our institutions are very, very much constrained in terms of the timescales over which they can think.
charged with thinking about [:
John: Now, the fact that we're dying earlier now may actually help, uh, solve some part of that, but I think it's, it, it's a systemic problem. Uh, and there are people who've been trying to promote financial literacy alongside, you know, areas like more abstract ones like time literacy. But that needs sustained investment over time, and it's not it's not second nature to most people.
John: I mean, they'd rather spend in the present than invest for the future. So to your question, I think two things are gonna happen at the same time. One is that what we thought was gonna hit our grandchildren is actually emerging in the present day. Heat domes being just one example. A- And I think that's going to spook the living daylights out of people increasingly.
John: And at the [:
John: What needs to happen next? And that ultimately comes back to leadership. It comes back to people who can tell you the truth as it is, as it's going to be. Who can give you a sense of hope, which you know, Sir Keir Starmer blatantly didn't do. I mean, it was all doom and gloom. And people may sense that that's the reality, but they really don't want to hear it.
this. At the moment, I don't [:
John: But the reason why I'm optimistic is that history suggests that every time you have one of these systemic crises, leaders pop up. People you've never heard of, people you, you know, you wouldn't have imagined some ways. I mean, Churchill himself, uh, was an example of that trend. Yes, he was around for quite a long time, but no one actually thought he'd be a good prime minister.
John: He would not in normal times, but in, in abnormal times, he proved to be. And so part of what I'm, I'm trying to think about is: where are those people? How would we find them? What do they need to help them move to the next stage in in, in their work and lives, and how can we make some of that happen?
about social entrepreneurs, [:
John: We've got to, we've got to build this sequentially. But I think political leadership, wherever it comes from, is our number one challenge.
Rav: it really struck me when you said there that we need people thinking about the future, but not necessarily, some people might think about the future, because it'll make them more money or, because it'll make them live longer or whatever. But almost and I would put you in this category broadly, who for whatever reason, feels motivated and inspired to think about the future for the benefit of everybody.
ive very simply, and they on [:
Rav: It's rare because most people are just thinking, as for short term for their own self-interest. But it's it's a great, it's a great world where there are people thinking about that, so
ndence in a way, independent [:
John: So if we had to resign a client or refuse a client or whatever, we've been able to do that, and we've also been able to do that transparently. So I, I, not making the claim of what you suggested, I'm, I'm delighted to be sort of even in a wide, wide, wide orbit around that group of folk, but we need more people like that.
John: And I, I don't think it necessarily means that they don't have to be paid or because even they-
Rav: today's world, definitely not. Yeah.
John: But even then it
Rav: with you
John: would depend on the king's, um, uh, uh, generosity or whatever.
Rav: Indeed.
John: but interesting. Uh, and I hope you can make sense of some of this. Um, you've got a big editing job ahead of you
or it, so thank you so much. [:
Rav: learn more?
John: and vice versa. Um, so, two emails. Uh, you can choose either [email protected] or [email protected]. Uh, and then there, there's a sub- Substack channel called Rewilding Markets, and there are two websites. One is johnelkington.com, and the other one is countercurrent.earth. Um, so any of those will give you a starting point.
John: But and I'd love to continue conversations with you, Ravenold, but with other people who may be among your listeners or audience. So thanks for the opportunity.
Rav: Oh, thank you so much. we wish you a wonderful month to all the listeners. I hope there was something interesting there. Do reach out and share if there was something in particular that landed, and uh, we'll see you next month. Take care.
