[mgobl]

> The concept of endless growth is a key ideological component of capitalism. Despite its devastating environmental and social consequences, growth for the sake of growth remains one of the main drivers of the global economy. Without it, the entire system comes crashing down like a gigantic house of cards.

I hear this a lot, but is it even true? Yes, our current system incentivizes increased consumption as a primary driver of growth. However, with the internet-era advent of 0-marginal cost goods/services, with extremely sublinear real-world resource usage (ie. electricity), aren't productivity increases just as valid a mode of growth as consumption increases? If we appropriately tax the consumptive inputs that feed an enterprise (eg. Carbon) isn't it reasonable to say that the growth of capital is not necessarily permanently hitched to the cart of otherwise limited real-world consumption?

This is a key part of my perspective that degrowth is not the only path forward. Innovation can yield us a carbon-neutral future. In the same vein, can't invention yield us an economy with fewer "devastating environmental and social consequences"?

It's incumbent upon us to price the negative externalities of consumption, not to abolish consumption entirely.

IANAEconomist, so I'd welcome critique on these points.

[CatWChainsaw]

Have you noticed that when the economy isn't constantly growing, people start freaking out about it totally collapsing?

[mgobl]

Not sure I fully follow the critique (if it is one?). Productivity increases can yield GDP growth without additional resource consumption.

[CatWChainsaw]

As you quoted (skeptically): The concept of endless growth is a key ideological component of capitalism.

What people (shareholders) want is more. Next quarter's profit ought to be more than last quarter's profit, forever. Why? Because more is better. More is the be all, end all. More, more, more.

"Productivity increases" cannot keep this going... forever.

[svachalek]

Oh they would love to make you "need" all kinds of virtual expenses. But why not both?

[mgobl]

Because consumption feeds the machine that ultimately increases the availability of resources which deliver basic human needs to people around the world [1]. Food, water, and shelter are important.

From another perspective: global GDP seems to be in the ballpark of $100T. If we grow at 3% for 100 years, we get 100T*(1.03)^100, almost 2000T global GDP. If we cut off 1% of that growth and use it to feed and house people worldwide, it becomes 100T*(1.02)^100 = 725T, plus 1% of global GDP per year in assistance (1T per year now, 7T in 2123, summing to 35T over 100 years [2]).

I think the utilitarian question is whether an additional 1200T in global wealth outweighs 35T of targeted assistance to the most vulnerable people in the world. If we look at the wealth distribution [3], the bottom 53% have 1.4% of the wealth. If that holds (which isn't necessarily a safe assumption, it could get worse), the bottom 53% would get 16T. Doesn't look so great compared to that 35T (probably targeted at the very bottom of that 53%), I admit. If we extend out to 200 years though, even these lines cross (if we make it that far :).

I think this tells me the most beneficial path forward is to maximize GDP growth while minimizing inequality to ensure that the fruits of that labor/growth help the vulnerable get food, not the rich buy another boat. That said, I think cutting global wealth by a factor of 3 in 100 years is not a great outcome. It would be like global wealth in 2020 being reverted back to that of 1980ish [4]. Life wasn't so different in the developed world then, but it was quite different outside of it (see [1]).

There is a valid criticism that perhaps the world doesn't need more wealth than that which can house, clothe, and feed everyone on earth. And we already produce that much wealth, it's just not distributed evenly enough to meet those needs. OTOH, what luxuries would you forgo to deliver those benefits? AC? Your laundry machine? Availability and quality of healthcare? We also need to motivate 8B people to continue working and producing the goods/services that yield a good life for everyone.

In the face of these questions, I don't find capitalism to be as evil as I once did when I was a bit younger. I don't mean to blindly support the invisible hand. The Keynesian approach balances government intervention ("distributions", above) with capital investment. My point is just that the trade-offs are not as simple as I once thought they were, and that growth is not the unmitigated evil many are eager to make it out to be.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo... [2]: https://imgur.com/a/rEneaxK [3]: https://cdni0.trtworld.com/w960/q75/93908_Theglobalwealthpyr... [4]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t...

[frankreyes]

Growth is the natural consequence of capitalism. More humans solving more problems means that we have more choices. Instead of going to your local post office for sending a telegram we now have smartphones. It's a choice that people did, to stop using paper letters to communicate.

Consumption is the basic principle of any modern economy because that's how you create jobs. Otherwise we have BS jobs, where what people have useless jobs they don't solve any problems.

For every thing you produce, someone has to buy it, and for every thing you buy someone has to make it.

In the USSR they didn't understand this concept and they just had jobs for the sake of jobs. Then you'll end up with warehouses full of useless products that none buy. Just to create jobs.

One example from the book Basic Economics of Sowell: the Ushanka hat where the skin of some animal would be used to make those typical Russian hats. The government would pay you for each individual animal skin you hunt. But there was a disconnect between animal skins killed, and hats sold. It's easier to hunt the animal than to sell the hat , and they'll end up with warehouses full of dead animals that would rot and never be used for hats.

What has growth to do with it? Capitalism would tell you to stop killing animals and do something else instead. The same thing that happened with sending paper letters and instead using smartphones. That's growth.