Continuous growth isn't just unsustainable from an environmental perspective; it also poses risks and, in some cases, may be unattainable from social, political, and economic angles. A recent review published in The Lancet - Planetary Health explores the idea of "post-growth"—an economic theory focused on improving human well-being rather than endless expansion. The study delves into the need to rethink the global economic system, which is built on the assumption that technological progress can keep pace with and overcome resource depletion, enabling unlimited growth. However, the study points out that this isn't the reality. The growth of GDP is closely linked to rising environmental harm, reduced income benefits, a decline in overall well-being, and increasing social and political risks.
The study in The Lancet, titled “Post-growth: The Science of Wellbeing Within Planetary Boundaries,” was published in January and serves as the first comprehensive analysis of the progress made in post-growth models and research. The main idea of post-growth is to shift the focus from increasing GDP, as seen in the capitalist model, to improving human well-being "within the planet's limits." Before exploring this, the study emphasizes the need for a fundamental change in the capitalist economic model, arguing that the relentless pursuit of growth it promotes is neither truly sustainable nor beneficial, despite what it claims. The first part of the study critically examines the capitalist concept of development, showing the links between GDP growth and damage to the environment, society, politics, and the economy. It highlights that the technological progress required by the capitalist model is unsustainable from all these perspectives.
Studies related to the "limits to growth" model are first examined from an environmental perspective. The model's initial hypothesis, due to the cumulative nature of growth, suggested that what seemed like abundance—whether in mineral resources, hydrocarbons, metals, or even wealth and production—would eventually reach a peak and then rapidly decline into scarcity. According to this scenario, the growth of industrial capital would lead to increased resource consumption, and as this consumption rises, the extraction, supply, production, and processing of resources would eventually reach a breaking point, causing the collapse of the industrial foundation and everything dependent on it.
Over time, the "standard model of limits to growth," as described in the article, has evolved to include the idea that an economic collapse is inevitable due to ongoing pollution and its impact on ecosystem stability. This scenario suggests that the climate and environmental issues resulting from the unchecked use of non-renewable resources would eventually reduce the regenerative capacity of renewable resources, leading to rising costs in those areas as well. The article refers to new studies predicting that within the next 26 years, the environmental crisis could cause costs to rise, potentially reducing economic growth by 19% of GDP per capita. Some argue that technological progress can make resource use more efficient, potentially disconnecting GDP growth from resource depletion. While this is partly true, the study points out that the issue of "decoupling" can only be addressed from a relative perspective—specifically, by considering the availability of resources. The article emphasizes that the problems associated with resource exploitation, rather than exhaustion, remain unresolved.
Another limitation of capitalist growth is social. Over time, it has been observed that once a certain income threshold is surpassed, further increases in GDP do not lead to greater well-being. The social limits hypothesis argues that growth has a cap on how much it can improve subjective well-being because people tend to adapt to higher income levels. This happens for several reasons, but one key factor is that in an economy driven by growth, production becomes a zero-sum game when it comes to basic benefits. In other words, once a certain level of profitability is achieved and basic social benefits are met, continued growth would primarily generate costs, such as environmental damage, making it economically unfeasible. The article points out that while well-being does increase with rising GDP to a certain extent, the reverse is not true—well-being does not decrease when GDP declines.
Instead, measures aimed at improving social well-being—such as investments in healthcare, building social solidarity networks, or implementing employment policies—are shown to enhance overall well-being. Finally, the article highlights how the economic aspect is closely tied to the social one: paradoxically, greater economic growth can lead to slower growth in per capita incomes. This means that as wealth increases, it tends to become more concentrated in the hands of a few. Additionally, as economic growth continues, periods of stagnation and slowdown seem to occur, which also results in a decline in research productivity.
source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00310-3/fulltext