Process vs. Result : Pollution and the Earth

Have been kicking around the idea of process versus result lately. It covered a subject completely unrelated to the post, but people are generally finished-results-go-getters or very into step by step in how they get there. The final deliverable could be eternally debatable.

Then this news of note popped across my screen. The president of Guyana is advocating "allowing the sale of credits by nations that prevent deforestation, seeing this as a way to fight the destruction of precious, uncompromised rainforests as well as a method of fighting climate change." Currently as it stands nations only earn credits should trees be removed and then they plant more, which actually rewards forest destruction. Coming from the Kyoto Protocol, this really doesn't make much sense here. Focusing on the end result has created an ideal end-result, but through exploitation and and improper technique only do we reach it. Sounds like someone is trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. I really give credit to Guyana for standing up for the right thing here, being a relatively small and uninfluential nation in the grand scheme of things. Shouldn't we be more focused on the fundamental principles and not the end result?

I'm probably stretching this idea too thin, but I feel like their is too great an emphasis these days in terms of marketing on the end result, sales- growth - awareness -etc. The bigger ideas seem to come from the smallest connections. Simplicity and the value of honest good connections are most rewarding and powerful for a reason, they are righteous in the consumer's mind. Today's consumers are too savvy to be sold to, and are now crafting the conversations that build brands from the beginning. We might need to place a greater emphasis on not just having a conversation, but how it evolves and how we value the topics within the conversation.

SaveTrees