It depends what you are measuring. If a city could increase its financial prosperity at the expense of poisoning its population (fracking may be a good example) would they do it? After all, if money is the only thing that matters then human health only matters insofar as it affects the flow of money. And if other factors compensate to preserve &quot;financial health&quot; then human health outcomes become expendable.<p>If you could produce more meat cheaper at the expense of keeping animals in terrible conditions on factory farms, would you do it? After all, if money is all that matters the animal&#x27;s suffering doesn&#x27;t even enter the equation.<p>How about increasing financial gain at the expense of destroying the natural environment (eg overfishing, dumping plastics and releasing all the carbon from the ground)? Grandchildren may have to pay the bill, but what if you had perfect knowledge and knew they&#x27;d be economically richer, but with worse health outcomes and lots of species gone exinct?<p>Measuring implies a model, and the model makes assumptions about the world that may not be true, and the whole combination can be extremely harmful. Not to mention very human-centric (and &quot;us&quot; centric). As the Native American chief said:<p><i>When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money</i>