Continued economic growth for all humanity is absolutely possible. Infinite human population growth is not possible. Our current human global footprint has already seriously destabilized ecosystems, greatly reduced animal habitats and disrupted global temperature moderation.
Human population growth will peak soon and rapidly decline. As human progress advanced we stopped cutting forests for firewood, and forested areas have increased over the last few centuries, along with their ecosystems. As solar, nuclear and geothermal energy replace fossil fuels, less CO2 will end up in the atmosphere, but so far it isn’t on track for more than 2°C warming in the next century. Many animal species wouldn’t exist if humans hadn’t breed or saved them. So I don’t see if growth is bad, if technology had stopped progressing 200 years ago we would now be in much worse environmental conditions. If growth and progress continue, then the future will be better, not worse.
Nice take. And referencing the take that you replied to, it frustrates me that the notion of "infinite" this and that has become so common that everyone reasons with it, when *nothing* infinite is ever possible. "Infinity" is an abstraction, useful in pure mathematics and other thought exercises, but to apply it to anything in the real world is just going to lead to bad reasoning. For example, it has become common in popular discourse to throw around terms like "exponential" and to think that you have drawn devastating conclusions or arguments using the concept. But "exponential" is basically meaningless *unless you are taking it to infinity*. In reality, nothing is truly "exponential" because exponential explicitly means that it grows at that rate *forever*. Many things show temporary growth that can be fitted by a piecemeal exponential curve, but they don't keep going that way, eventually other limiting factors kick in and the exponential growth stops, in which case, it would have been just as useful to say "this relationship was increasing rapidly for a while" which leads to much different conclusions than "this relationship is going to run to infinity if we don't do something to stop it!"
To be more specific: *no one* advocates "infinite human population growth", so it is veridically meaningless to reference it as if it answers a question about growth. There are many, many levels of theoretical growth that are not "infinite" and you're not contributing anything unless you are addressing *those*, instead of the boogeyman "infinite".
Wealthiest countries have the lowest population growth rates and the broadest availability of reproductive services and rights. Lower wealth countries have the fastest population growth rates and the narrowest availability of reproductive services and rights. Focusing on global access to birth control, women's reproductive rights and sexual education could help increase wealth globally while simultaneously lessening the negative impact of human population growth on ecosystems and the environment.
I think this is a strong critique of degrowth, but I wonder whether the debate is still framed around the wrong objective.
The choice does not have to be growth versus degrowth.
The more useful objective may be equilibrium.
Growth is not inherently good, and contraction is not inherently good. They are responses to conditions. If people lack housing, food, energy, healthcare, education, or productive opportunity, growth is desirable. If an activity is exhausting resources, destabilizing ecological systems, or creating other unsustainable feedback loops, that activity may need to slow, change, or contract.
A thermostat provides a simple analogy. Heating is not the objective. Cooling is not the objective. Maintaining a viable temperature range is the objective. Heating and cooling are corrective responses.
The same distinction matters economically.
I agree with the article that economic growth does not necessarily require proportional growth in material consumption. Innovation can allow us to create substantially more value from fewer resources. But efficiency alone does not guarantee sustainability; Jevons' paradox reminds us that making a resource cheaper or more efficient can sometimes increase total consumption.
That is why I think both sides capture part of the problem. Degrowth recognizes that physical and ecological limits exist. Growth advocates correctly recognize that human ingenuity continually changes what can be accomplished within those limits.
The challenge is not to centrally determine how much society should produce, nor to assume that perpetual expansion will automatically solve every constraint. It is to create institutions and incentives with sufficient feedback to keep economic activity within a sustainable operating range while preserving individual choice, innovation, and spontaneous market order.
In other words:
Growth is not the goal. Degrowth is not the goal. Balance is the goal.
"our planetary equilibrium" I can't tell if you are invoking this concept, or referencing the degrowther's use of it, but it's an absurd notion: the planet is not and has never been in "equilibrium", and a mental model that thinks that it is or has been is going to spew out the garbled conclusions that "garbage in, garbage out" logically leads to. The "planet" is an incredibly nonlinear system, with coupling between enormously different time and spatial scales, and like all such systems, its dynamics are unpredictable and chaotic. The best that you can hope for in a nonlinear system is that it runs into some sort of strange attractor in which the system goes through relatively similar *changes* over time, but it's never exactly repeatable and still *always changing*.
What is the consequence for our collective planning purposes? Instead of kvetching when things change and beating ourselves up over "what we did" to make it happen, we need to embrace the idea that the planetary systems *are* going to change and prepare ourselves to adapt. And to adapt to the largest spectrum of possibilities, we need to keep pushing the boundaries of science, engineering, technology, social systems, or else one day the world is going to change in a way that we are not prepared to handle... That is, we need to keep *growing*.
I assume Jason Hickel donates all the profits from his bestselling book above the $24,000 annual maximum income he advocates that everyone else in the world should be limited to.
Continued economic growth for all humanity is absolutely possible. Infinite human population growth is not possible. Our current human global footprint has already seriously destabilized ecosystems, greatly reduced animal habitats and disrupted global temperature moderation.
Human population growth will peak soon and rapidly decline. As human progress advanced we stopped cutting forests for firewood, and forested areas have increased over the last few centuries, along with their ecosystems. As solar, nuclear and geothermal energy replace fossil fuels, less CO2 will end up in the atmosphere, but so far it isn’t on track for more than 2°C warming in the next century. Many animal species wouldn’t exist if humans hadn’t breed or saved them. So I don’t see if growth is bad, if technology had stopped progressing 200 years ago we would now be in much worse environmental conditions. If growth and progress continue, then the future will be better, not worse.
Nice take. And referencing the take that you replied to, it frustrates me that the notion of "infinite" this and that has become so common that everyone reasons with it, when *nothing* infinite is ever possible. "Infinity" is an abstraction, useful in pure mathematics and other thought exercises, but to apply it to anything in the real world is just going to lead to bad reasoning. For example, it has become common in popular discourse to throw around terms like "exponential" and to think that you have drawn devastating conclusions or arguments using the concept. But "exponential" is basically meaningless *unless you are taking it to infinity*. In reality, nothing is truly "exponential" because exponential explicitly means that it grows at that rate *forever*. Many things show temporary growth that can be fitted by a piecemeal exponential curve, but they don't keep going that way, eventually other limiting factors kick in and the exponential growth stops, in which case, it would have been just as useful to say "this relationship was increasing rapidly for a while" which leads to much different conclusions than "this relationship is going to run to infinity if we don't do something to stop it!"
To be more specific: *no one* advocates "infinite human population growth", so it is veridically meaningless to reference it as if it answers a question about growth. There are many, many levels of theoretical growth that are not "infinite" and you're not contributing anything unless you are addressing *those*, instead of the boogeyman "infinite".
Oh I should have read the whole article before commenting: Mark makes basically the exact same point. Good on you Mark!
Wealthiest countries have the lowest population growth rates and the broadest availability of reproductive services and rights. Lower wealth countries have the fastest population growth rates and the narrowest availability of reproductive services and rights. Focusing on global access to birth control, women's reproductive rights and sexual education could help increase wealth globally while simultaneously lessening the negative impact of human population growth on ecosystems and the environment.
I think this is a strong critique of degrowth, but I wonder whether the debate is still framed around the wrong objective.
The choice does not have to be growth versus degrowth.
The more useful objective may be equilibrium.
Growth is not inherently good, and contraction is not inherently good. They are responses to conditions. If people lack housing, food, energy, healthcare, education, or productive opportunity, growth is desirable. If an activity is exhausting resources, destabilizing ecological systems, or creating other unsustainable feedback loops, that activity may need to slow, change, or contract.
A thermostat provides a simple analogy. Heating is not the objective. Cooling is not the objective. Maintaining a viable temperature range is the objective. Heating and cooling are corrective responses.
The same distinction matters economically.
I agree with the article that economic growth does not necessarily require proportional growth in material consumption. Innovation can allow us to create substantially more value from fewer resources. But efficiency alone does not guarantee sustainability; Jevons' paradox reminds us that making a resource cheaper or more efficient can sometimes increase total consumption.
That is why I think both sides capture part of the problem. Degrowth recognizes that physical and ecological limits exist. Growth advocates correctly recognize that human ingenuity continually changes what can be accomplished within those limits.
The challenge is not to centrally determine how much society should produce, nor to assume that perpetual expansion will automatically solve every constraint. It is to create institutions and incentives with sufficient feedback to keep economic activity within a sustainable operating range while preserving individual choice, innovation, and spontaneous market order.
In other words:
Growth is not the goal. Degrowth is not the goal. Balance is the goal.
"our planetary equilibrium" I can't tell if you are invoking this concept, or referencing the degrowther's use of it, but it's an absurd notion: the planet is not and has never been in "equilibrium", and a mental model that thinks that it is or has been is going to spew out the garbled conclusions that "garbage in, garbage out" logically leads to. The "planet" is an incredibly nonlinear system, with coupling between enormously different time and spatial scales, and like all such systems, its dynamics are unpredictable and chaotic. The best that you can hope for in a nonlinear system is that it runs into some sort of strange attractor in which the system goes through relatively similar *changes* over time, but it's never exactly repeatable and still *always changing*.
What is the consequence for our collective planning purposes? Instead of kvetching when things change and beating ourselves up over "what we did" to make it happen, we need to embrace the idea that the planetary systems *are* going to change and prepare ourselves to adapt. And to adapt to the largest spectrum of possibilities, we need to keep pushing the boundaries of science, engineering, technology, social systems, or else one day the world is going to change in a way that we are not prepared to handle... That is, we need to keep *growing*.
I am referencing their arguments of course. Suppose they were right about all of these ecological concerns, there arguments would still fail.
I assume Jason Hickel donates all the profits from his bestselling book above the $24,000 annual maximum income he advocates that everyone else in the world should be limited to.