The wealth of nations is being lost

The famous Brundtland Commission Report of 1987 defined sustainable development as "... development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainable development therefore requires that, relative to their populations, each generation should bequeath to its successor at least as large a productive base as it inherited. But how is a generation to judge whether it is leaving behind an adequate productive base?

Economists argue that the correct measure of an economy's productive base is wealth, which includes not only the value of manufactured assets (buildings, machinery, roads), but also "human" capital (knowledge, skills, and health), natural capital (ecosystems, minerals, and fossil fuels), and institutions (government, civil society, the rule of law). Development is sustainable so long as an economy's wealth relative to its population is maintained over time. In other words, economic growth should be viewed as growth in wealth, not growth in GNP.

There is a big difference between the two. There are many circumstances in which a nation's GNP (per capita) increases even while its wealth (per capita) declines.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/02/25/2003224524

live in a canned world. They pray to the Can Gods. There is no hope. They'll just have to wait for that big honking iceberg to break off of Iceland and erase the Gulf Stream. When their warm climate for those weekend flights south disappear - then they'll notice.

or governments. Only money and business.

I recall using wealth in graduate school, too. My 5cents addition is the standard example of working too much and therefore depleting the wealth of natural "body" resources.
Although the article assumes that countries like the US can sustain growth, I like to point out that it costs this country more than just other countries unrenewable resources, but also natural resources of its own. Just think of logging, oil drilling, unrestricted CO2 emission, or 60-80hr work weeks.
Sure call me now a tree hugger and green socialist, but sometimes more is even not better.

What I really like about it is how it points out the fundamental metrics
are askew in terms of measuring if a nation is better off or not.

GNP has always bugged me and pointing out that exploitation of
natural and human resources is a loss of wealth is fantastic.

We have a "all take and no give" attitude towards the world which
reflects in the basic economic metrics.