Wisdom in fragments

When I decided to climb Everest, the reason was simply to draw attention to what was happening with the glaciers but also, when I talked about sustainability, it was hard to keep people's attention. You start talking and 5 minutes later, it's an abstract topic. The audience start checking their emails or yawning, and this really frustrated me.

We are under an existential threat now as humankind. Even a simple two-cell yeast has a survival instinct and evolves fast enough to try and survive. I don't understand why humans who are supposed to be these very complex creatures can see that we're heading towards a very, very dangerous future which could be irreversible, and why we're not doing absolutely everything possible now.

The real important fact is that consumers would rather choose a sustainable product or service from a transformed business over others. The young people are going to have to live in that future, and they are not part of the solution because they are not at the decision table and hence are increasingly voting with their money.

I nearly died several times. I shared everything openly with everyone. I shared how my whole thought process and character had changed in that expedition, but also how my own purpose had completely changed. I was going to do everything I possibly could while I manage this platform to make it the cleanest business that exists.

Before I felt leadership was something you earned. Mount Everest, I think changed my opinion quite dramatically. When I came back from that expedition, I realised that all leadership really is, is empowering people to find their purpose, because the only way people are fully engaged and productive and happy is when they are working towards a higher purpose.

All inequality is not created equal. An intersectional approach shows the way that people's social identities can overlap, creating compounding experiences of discrimination.

Numerous studies including recent ones from Stanford and Harvard Universities show that young girls, by the age of six, in the U.S. feel they are less intellectually capable than boys. Why? Because when they open a history book, they are predominantly exposed to male innovators.

This is why today women account for a mere 0.5% of recorded history.

As a collective, we tend to look at progress as being linear, especially where it concerns women's rights. This is a huge mistake and breeds complacency because we risk losing the hard-won gains.

Women in Iran are quite possibly the greatest threat to the regime, they are courageous and relentless in their pursuit of justice, human rights, and freedom from oppression and make the sacrifices needed to bring about change for future generations.

To understand what we're facing in the 21st century, we need to look back in history. It has not always been the case that women were considered inferior or subordinate to men. The myth of women's inferiority is the product of a social system that has produced and fostered countless other inequalities, inferiorities, degradations, and discriminations.

A resilient position means that you are not always on the brink of war. The cost of war is so great that being on the brink is a deeply uncomfortable place to be. We have to make leaders and societies pay more attention to the costs of conflict.

Economist specializing in conflict, development, and poverty research

One of the key things to look out for is the centralisation of power – in most of the places we see conflict, there is highly centralised power, and often few checks and balances on whoever is in control. Unchecked interests can lead people to ignore the costs of war.

Economist specializing in conflict, development, and poverty research

We go to war not because we ignore the costs, but because we know there are costs, but we are willing to pay those costs because we get something from the war which we wouldn't get otherwise.

Economist specializing in conflict, development, and poverty research

There is a famous Iraqi idiom which states that if you think your opponents can eat you for dinner, then you'd better eat them for lunch. If your opponent is too big and powerful to eat you right-now, you'd better eat them for lunch before they eat you. Commitment problems from our opponents lead us to act, and that's another reason why rational man can go to war.

Economist specializing in conflict, development, and poverty research

We do fight a lot of the time. The United States has been at war with somebody (in an active, intensive, pitched-battling sense) for many years of its existence but- importantly- not with most of its potential adversaries. Peace is not so unusual, and perhaps we should also not overestimate the frequency and likelihood of war.

Economist specializing in conflict, development, and poverty research