For more than a century, nations have measured societal gains in terms of economic growth. But a new review published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health in January 2025 questions that convention. It concludes that humanity would benefit more if it aims for ecological sustainability and stays within the limits of what Earth can provide, […]
  • New research concludes that humanity would benefit more if it aims for ecological sustainability and stays within the limits of what Earth can provide, rather than pursuing relentless growth.
  • The success of capitalism depends on the push for growth, which requires the use of resources and energy, and comes at the cost of ecological damage.
  • Economists have proposed alternatives that focus on staying within a set of planetary boundaries that define the safe operating space for humanity.
  • The review, published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health, draws on more than 200 resources from the scientific literature.
    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldOP
      71·
      2 months ago

      This is pie in the sky, at least on my reading of the evidence. I wish that were not the case.

      Yes, economic growth is slowly being decoupled from energy use and resource throughputs, i.e. the things disrupting our planet. But the decoupling is relative, not absolute. The absolute indicators continue, inexorably, to go in the wrong direction. For now, and surely into the medium-term future, economic growth is simply not on a sustainable trajectory. And yet our culture remains obsessed with it, irrationally.

      As for exploring the stars, well, I say we put that aside and consider it at a later date.

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldOP
          3·
          2 months ago

          That’s fair. The question I always have is, Why? Why is this abstract indicator so important? It’s routinely invoked like some kind of religious incantation, as some kind of obvious good, when it plainly has major limitations.

          Why not instead use indicators that measure the concrete things we’re really aiming for? Things like education, health, food security, environmental quality, etc?

          The Human Development Index, to take the obvious example, is a much more meaningful indicator than economic growth. Imagine what might happen if we could persuade ourselves to judge everything by the HDI, and if politicians competed on their success at improving the HDI. All kind of possibilities would open up.

    • PostiveNoise@kbin.melroy.org
      21·
      2 months ago

      Indeed. A push for CONSTANT growth is not all that workable in the next few decades possibly. But once humankind starts transitioning to an existence beyond planet earth, even if it’s just o’neill cylinder space habitats in orbit around the planet, lots of growth opportunities will open up. Heck, just this solar system could eventually fit hundreds of billions of humans in a century or two, and combine that with massive improvements in technology, it’s easy to see hugely improved growth.

        • PostiveNoise@kbin.melroy.org
          2·
          2 months ago

          It’s more about the potential for population growth without needing to leave the solar system or develop FTL space drives or anything super fancy.

          These days, people tend to have less children once there is good education and health care. But if things get better and no one needs to have a job, maybe people will return to having more children per person, so it’s hard to say how many people there would actually be in the 2300…lots of change will be happening in the meantime.