Growth is unsustainable, causes extinction, and makes war inevitable

The way of life we have in rich countries is grossly unsustainable. There is no possibility of all people on Earth ever rising to rich world per capita levels of consumption of energy, minerals, timber, water, food, phosphorous etc. These rates of consumption are generating numer-ous alarming global problems, now threatening our survival and the survival of other species. Most people have no idea of the magnitude of the overshoot – of how far we are beyond sustainable levels of re-source use and environmental impact. If all the estimated 9.8 billion people living on earth in 2050 were to consume resources at the pres-ent per capita rate in rich countries, world annual resource production rates would have to be about eight times as great as they are now.

For instance, the ‘Ecological Footprint’ analysis indicates that the amount of productive land required to provide one person in Australia with food, water, energy and settlement area is about 6.6 ha (Global Footprint Network, 2019). If 9.8 billion people were to live as Australians do, approximately 65 billion ha of productive land would be required. However, the total amount of productive land available is only 12 bil-lion ha. If we assume one third of this should be set aside for nature (see, e.g., Baillie Yang, 2018) the amount available for humans might be about 8 billion ha. In other words, our rich world per capita footprint is about eight times as big as it would ever be possible for all of the world’s people to sustainably share.

Figures for some other items indicate much worse ratios. For instance, the top 10 nations consuming iron ore and bauxite (from which we ob-tain aluminium and steel) have per capita use rates that are respectively around 65 and 90 times the rates for all the other nations (Wiedmann et al., 2015). Mineral ore grades are falling. All people could not rise to present rich world levels of mineral use. The same case can be made with respect to just about all other resources and ecosystem services, such as agricultural land, forests, fisheries, water and biomass.

These simple figures clearly demonstrate the impossibility of all people ever having the material ‘living standards’ we have taken for granted in rich countries like Australia. We are not just a little beyond sustainable levels of resource demand and ecological impact – we are far beyond sustainable levels. Rich world practices, systems and ‘living standards’ are grossly unsustainable, and can never be extended to all the world’s people. Again, few people seem to grasp the magnitude of the over-shoot. We must face up to dramatic reductions in our present per capita levels of production and consumption.

1.1. Now add the absurd commitment to economic growth

The main worry is not the present level of resource use and ecological impact discussed above, it is the level we will rise to given the obsession with constantly increasing the amount of production and consumption. The supreme goal in all countries is to raise incomes, ‘living standards’ and GDP as much as possible, constantly and without any idea of a lim-it. That is, the most important goal is economic growth.

Consider the implications. If we assume a) a 3% p.a. economic growth, b) a population of 9.8 billion, c) all the world’s people rising to the living standards we in the rich world would have in 2050 given 3% p.a. growth – in that scenario, the total volume of world economic output would be 20 times as great as it is now and doubling every 23 years thereafter.

So even though the present levels of production and consumption are grossly unsustainable, the determination to have continual increase in income and economic output will multiply these towards absurd and impossible levels in coming decades.

Why analyse in terms of 9.8 billion rising to rich world levels? Because a) it is not morally acceptable to assume that they remain much poorer than we are, and b) that’s what everyone aspires to, so we had better think about whether it is viable.

1.2 But what about technical advance?

When confronted by global sustainability problems most people just assume that technical advance and ‘green growth’ will solve them, enabling us to go on living with ever-increasing levels of affluence. They do not realise that the magnitude of the problems rules this out.

The core ‘tech-fix’ faith is that resource demand and environmental impacts can be ‘decoupled’ from economic growth, i.e., that produc-tion and consumption can go on increasing while resource demand is sufficiently reduced. This is extremely implausible (see Part Three of this anthology for more detail). How likely is it that the world’s amount of production could be multiplied by 20 while resource use and environmental impacts are reduced by, say, 50% – i.e., a factor 40 reduction? None of the thirty or more reports over the last 20 years show any global reduction at all; they all show that as GDP rises so do the impacts. The recent review essay by Hickel and Kallis (2019) pro-vides a powerful critique of ‘green growth’ (see also Ward et al., 2016).

1.3 Global problems should be seen in terms of ‘limits to growth’

The ‘limits to growth’ perspective (Meadows et al., 1972) is essential if we are to understand the most serious global problems facing us:

The environmental problem is basically due to the fact that far too much producing and consuming is going on, taking too many resources rom nature and dumping too many wastes back into nature. We are eliminating species mainly because we are taking or ruining so much habitat. The environmental problems cannot be solved in an economy that is geared to providing ever-rising production, con-sumption, ‘living standards’ and GDP (see the next essay, ‘Why this economy must be scrapped’, for more detail).

Third World poverty and underdevelopment are inevitable if a few living in rich countries insist on taking far more of the world’s re-sources than all could have. The Third World can never develop to rich world levels of consumption, because there are far too few re-sources for that. (For more detail on this issue, see the essay ‘Third World development’ in Part Two.)

Conflict and war are inevitable if all aspire to rich world rates of consumption, and if rich countries insist on limitless growth on a planet with limited resources. Rich countries now have to support repressive regimes willing to establish policies that enable our cor-porations to ship out cheap resources, use Third World land for export crops, exploit cheap labour etc. This means we must be ready to get rid of regimes and to invade and run countries that threaten to follow policies contrary to our First World interests. Our rich world living standards could not be as high as they are if a great deal of repression and violence was not taking place, and rich countries contribute significantly to this. If we are determined to remain affluent, we should remain heavily armed! (This issue is developed in the essay in part Two called ‘If you want affluence, prepare for war’.)

Social cohesion is deteriorating and quality of life is being damaged. This is so even in the richest nations, because the supreme goals are raising business turnover, incomes and the GDP, not meet-ing needs, building community and improving the quality of life. (Some details of this decline in quality of life and the benefits of an alternative way to live are discussed in Part Four.)