In my 1973 book, “Poverty and Progress: An Ecological Perspective on Economic Development,” I described the key innovations from the beginnings of agriculture through the Industrial Revolution as “the escape route of societies caught in the ecological pincers of population growth and scarce resources.” Human societies have repeatedly been forced to exploit the environment more intensively to meet our growing needs. That exploitation has been a crucial part of what we call economic development.
Nor has change always been welcome. Early agricultural populations were shorter, less healthy and had to work longer, backbreaking hours than their hunter-gatherer forebears. Conditions in the early Industrial Revolution in Britain were appalling. We were forced to mine coal as timber supplies dwindled. My children will have to choose between artificial meat, insects or vegetarianism, live in houses made of wood substitutes and be unable to enjoy the countryside because of sweltering temperatures. As economic historian Jack Fisher wrote, “It is one of the eternal verities of history that as societies become wealthy they are no longer able to afford pleasures that were well within their reach when they were poor.”
Richard Wilkinson, North Yorkshire, England
The Global South’s dream of becoming like El Dorado via a Western economic model has led to a rude awakening. The resources that are the very basis of survival — water, fertile land and a predictable climate — are threatened in these countries due to the Western globalized industrial project. This includes the Green Revolution lauded in The Post’s June 23 editorial, which has had severe ecological and social repercussions in India and African countries where it has been implemented. Similarly, the “new green energy infrastructure and new clean technologies” invoked in the editorial require the rapid upscaling of lithium extraction and export to the Global North from Global South countries, causing severe problems for local communities and nature in countries such as Bolivia and Chile. The time has come to cast doubt upon the naive vision of a win-win world geared toward “growth and innovation.” That very model of eternal expansion has brought us face to face with environmental destruction. A serious and respectful discussion of degrowth is the only way for us to find our way out of the labyrinth we have built for ourselves.
Nadia Johanisova, Brno, Czech Republic
A recent series of Post editorials argued that population and economic growth are essential for quality of life advancement, and that innovation and ingenuity have overcome ecological constraints in the past. That might have been true during the early Industrial Revolution. But technology has not overcome our rapid approach to the 1.5 degree climate threshold. Nor has it stopped the decline in fish populations in the oceans or in land species.
The most recent big technological advancement propelling economic growth is artificial intelligence. But the amount of electricity it takes to power AI servers is astronomical. ChatGPT alone consumes over half a million kilowatt-hours of electricity each day, equal to the consumption of about 17,000 U.S. households. AI power needs are growing so fast that economic analysts predict they might “drive a natural gas boom” at the moment when we most need to move away from old fuel sources. Not all technological innovations are good for the world. Innovations that benefit only the investors in that technology at the expense of society and the planet are not positive contributions to our overall well-being.
The Post’s editorial says that even with zero per capita economic growth from now through 2050, the planet will not reach its net-zero carbon emissions goals. The implication is “Why bother to try?” But zero economic growth will bring us much closer to our goal than our current trajectory. And a 5 percent degrowth during that time frame will bring us close to the 2050 goal.
Financial advisers tell us to live within our means. That also applies to society as a whole. The captains of industry do not need to sell us more stuff that we do not need to grow the economy at the expense of the planet that is our home. You can innovate out of your problems for only so long. There is an absolute…
Read More: Opinion | To save the planet, do we have to shrink humanity’s ambitions?