Preface
It should be axiomatic that the concept of perpetual, unlimited economic growth and consumption on a finite planet is delusional thinking. Instead, that concept appears to be the unquestionable mantra of mainstream/neoliberal economics around the world. I believe it came to be that way because it started when our world was
relatively empty of humans, and
relatively full of natural resources.
Even later, when I was a freshman at Colorado State U. (
1961), the human population was only three billion. Perceptions of future, unlimited possibilities were quite different then. Even though it was fairly pervasive, environmental degradation largely was unrecognized by most people. Natural resources seemed to be super abundant, and in a perpetually unlimited supply. Overall, the biophysical world appeared to be almost limitless. The idol of unlimited economic expansion was "worshipped" around the world.
In
1968, a book by Paul R. Ehrlich & his wife, Anne,
The Population Bomb, was published. It was a best-seller, and made the points that this planet is finite, the natural environment will be degraded even more significantly, and the availability of resources will not keep pace with overpopulation. The book was attacked rather viciously by believers in unlimited growth.
In
1972, after a two-year study by M.I.T. researchers (utilizing a large, mainframe computer), the results were published in a book titled,
The Limits of Growth. Like the Ehrlichs' book, it was a best-seller. And it was attacked even more fiercely. This is a fascinating story, and the author, Christopher Ketcham, is one helluva writer. See the details here---
https://psmag.com/magazine/fallacy-of-endless-growth .
....................................
The Ignorance & Neglect by Economists of Biophysical Constraints
It appears to me that most mainstream economists have little to no higher education in the natural sciences. In the essay at the link above, Ketcham quotes a number of them, as follows.
1. Oxford U. economist, W. Beckerman: "[There's] no reason to suppose that economic growth cannot continue for another 2,500 years.".
2. Harvard economist, C. Kaysen: "[Some studies show] the Earth's available matter and energy could support a population of
3.5 trillion...".
3. J. Simon (deceased), University of Illinois economist, stated in 1992: "We now have... the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next
7 billion years.".
Those beliefs are, of course, sheer nonsense. I can surmise only that they are due to an almost total ignorance of natural science.
In contrast, ecological economics fully recognizes biophysical constraints, and the negative impacts on our natural life support systems of pursuing unlimited growth. From
An Introduction to Ecological Economics (1997), by Robert Costanza, Herman Daly, et.al.: "The basic problems...include: ...highly entropy-increasing technologies that deplete the earth of its resources and whose unassimilated wastes poison the air, water, and land... ".
Unlimited Growth and Overconsumption
I recently watched a 2011 British documentary,
"Consumed - inside the belly of the beast". It effectively illustrated humanity's cultural evolution to the stage at which we find ourselves now: lost in materialism, consumerism, short-term shallow thinking, the pursuit of unnecessary prestige, and trying our best to ignore the destruction of the ecosphere. It also put forth the proposition that this stage is a temporary glitch in the development of the species,
Homo sapiens. The makers of the film see a future shift to sustainability and ecoethics. Let's all hope that's the case for our species.
The film detailed how, over decades, we've been molded by advertising and propaganda to believe that consumer goods can bring us meaning, prestige, contentment, fulfillment, and the big kahuna, happiness. The key is to buy more and more goods. Over the years, as we've come to realize ultimately none of that is true, our discontent, anxiety, and emptiness all have increased. During the same time, we've been trained (in a sense) to seek instant gratification, all the latest tech gizmos (to be replaced every year or two), and to desire having "the latest thing". Now, we're at the point of a line from an old Rolling Stones' song: "I can't get no satisfaction.". On top of all that, too many people seem to believe that Nature is nice, but not especially important... and not really necessary.
In recent years, both mainstream economists and corporate America have used all the above to double-down on their promotion of perpetual, unlimited growth. Any problems regarding natural resource depletion or ecosphere damage, they say, can be handled by new technology and/or the substitution of one resource for another. Some mega corporations even have advertised their new "green" initiatives concerning corporate operations. There's one big problem with all these solutions: they are all within the framework of
continuing unlimited economic growth and consumption... on a finite planet.
Ever-increasing economic growth means ever-increasing throughput. "Throughput" is the total flow of resources from the Earth ecosystem to the economic subsystem...
and then back to the ecosystem as waste. One doesn't have to be a genius to understand that more & more & more of such a system is
unsustainable. It's folly to believe that undiscovered, new technology and/or substitutable resources will prevent the collapse of our natural life support system.
That collapse already has started. Much more than we've been trying to, we need to mitigate it NOW. We must undergo a major shift in ethical and cultural values. The old paradigm is killing us... literally... and both directly & indirectly. It's time to implement steady-state, ecological economics.
Equity
It's all well and good to say, in the developed world countries we have a democratic system which ensures everyone's chance to pursue happiness and fulfillment; however, the reality is as follows.
1. The playing field too often is not level; it's not even close to level.
2. Resources (including financial resources) often are not allocated
fairly.
3. Many countries (including the USA) don't appear to understand the value of having all citizens educated to the highest degree that their capabilities and desires allow. Some other, more enlightened nations provide access to universal higher education at (for the most part) no cost to the student.
4. Adequate health care for many people (including many in the USA) is not available, or is too expensive.
5. Neoliberal politics and corporatist policies (both public and private) greatly favor the Upper Class. The excuse given is that the Rich supply jobs to everyone else. Wealth supposedly "
trickles down". That's more often not true than it's true. Even when it does happen, the jobs too often are temporary and/or part-time, and/or low-paying.
6. Too many poor people often are relegated to living in neighborhoods which are much too close to the "sinks" of economic throughput
wastes. The resulting exposure to air pollution, water pollution, and land/soil pollution negatively affects their physical health, mental health, and general well-being.
7. Perpetual wars and insanely bloated defense budgets siphon limited funds away from infrastructure repair/replacement and from
social safety nets. Primarily, they benefit Mega Banks and other Mega Corporations. The wars often are the result of
shrinking natural resources. Stronger countries want guaranteed access to them.
Conclusion
Pursuing unlimited economic growth, overconsumption, a lack of equity, perpetual wars, essentially unlimited population growth, and neoliberal policies in general have resulted in:
1. an ecological crisis probably never before imagined (shrinking natural resources, damaged or destroyed ecosystems, disease proliferation, an excess of greenhouse gases, increasing pollution in general, a loss of necessary biodiversity, etc.);
2. gross social and income inequality (due to a lack of equity and ethics);
3. a growing discontent with both public and private institutions; and,
4. an increasing sense of despair over the condition of humanity.
It's time for a significant change in present-day economics, equity, and ethics. Ecological economics is one part of a sane, sustainable, and much needed path forward.
........................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
