Is there such a thing as sustainable growth?

Question

The reason I ask is that this seems a ridiculous idea to me. On a planet with finite resource, but an ever growing population I can see nothing but cataclism as an outcome and decent back to the stone age eventually. Yet I often hear the phrase "sustainable growth" from various TV pundits, usually financial. What exactly are they talking about?

Answer 1

In short, no, you're right, in the long term, it's impossible.

It is often used by capitalist policy-makers and politicians (usually one and the same thing) as a way to justify industrial growth whilst appeasing environmentalists. Politicians have convinced industry that perpetual growth is possible because of their imperialist belief that there will always be more places to plunder and exploit. But we've covered most of the globe now, and it's time for science to kick in. Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion says that "Energy can never be created". And, as the energy we get from the sun is constant, there's simply no way we can grow indefinitely. And then's the population problem...

Humans have lived sustainably for 2 million years, and unsustainably for 200 years. In the industrial revolution we found colossal ancient reserves of fuel that gave us the impression that we could burn energy just as fast as we could dig or pump it out of the ground - so energy prices plummeted and we (mostly the West) built the world and all of its socio-economic systems around the assumption that energy will always be this abundant and cheap. But now we all know that in 30 years time oil will be a luxury of the super-rich while the other 8 billion of us will be back to pedalling bicycles.

But it the phrase has it's uses and shouldn't be written off completely. Personally, I'm starting a business at the moment to help co-operatives of small farmers overcome growing poverty in Latin America. And, like the guy writing about Kenyan farmers, I believe that the concept of sustainable growth in the short term is an excellent way to encourage people to work with the environment rather than against it. If people believe you can't be sustainable to succeed, they will become apathetic to the environment and give up completely - better to give some encouragement.

Everything in life goes in cycles. Human's caused this massive boom in energy use and environmental damage and human's can choose whether the cycle ends as smoothly as it started, or whether we crash down like the Romans, The Incas, The Mayans, The Mongols, The.......

Answer 2

There is more than one defintion, which includes economic growth, and that involved with utilising the planet's resources (which is to an extent actually linked). Economic growth is a measure of the GDP per country, which is related to the total value of the things the state creates, including services and products. You can have more economic growth without necessarily requiring more planetary resources, if you create things that other countries value more using the same resources they contribute to more GDP, or if you become more efficient in the production methods you might create more widgets per unit time. However there is nothing sustainable about a continually growing population. Most economic schemes are propped up by population increases, i.e. economic growth is underpinned by having more people to spend more, pay for pensions, etc, rather than creating extra value or efficiency. Hence, usually growth cannot continue indefinitely, and it is not sustainable outside of the narrow definition that is usually applied.

Answer 3

No. The GNP of the earth cannot keep rising indefinitely, if only because the natural resources of the earth are finite. Alread, after a mere 30 years North Sea Gas has almost run out.
The only way forward, to sustain growth in the future, will be space travel to the nearby planets and then to the stars.

Answer 4

They are talking about using more resources per human (for example, with bigger machines. A bit like my 3rd example).

Or, growth at the expense of other companies (the absolute best example is Microsoft: nobody has more power then MS to use it at the expense of other companies). Name any company: if MS would want to destroy it (aka. take it over), it can do so. MS is a bit smarter: they take over smaller companies, and put many many millions in it so that the small company becomes big (as a part of MS, BTW).

Or, use more computing and robotic power instead of human power (=working more efficient).
This last thing can be considerd a good thing: tedious / monotone work can be replaced by computers and machines. As a result, people can have a shorter work week (working less hours a week). They only have to be willing to work less hours (many people are afraid they'll loose salary, do they don't want to work less hours. Nevertheless, we're doing better then 60 years ago).
As long there's a lot of unemployment, i think governments should force companies to let their workers work shorter.

Or, replace people who perform poor by people who perform better. This however, can't last long. It won't take long to have reached a top in that.

The problem is (indeed) the size of the population; resources are used up faster then they are build up. Countries (like in Africa) have way too many people compared with their STEADY agriculture results. Once in so many years, there's a drought and then the result is people starve to death. As long as more efficient fabrication processes isn't the reality, they shouldn't have so many kids. It's a rather natural phenomenon: they try to have as many kids as possible, so that more kids survive. They now IN ADVANCE that not all kids can will stay alive (into being old enough to have kids themselves).
Governments shouldn't push people into having more then 1 kid. Right now, they ARE really pushing people to have more then 1 kid.
PS: China has such a '1 kid' policy (be it too rigid, forcing abortions), but ONLY in some parts of China(!). This is why it's not working as good as it could.

PS: you'll see many companies talking about sustainable growth, but in the long run they couldn't uphold the promise (or even go bankrupt) or they are taken over by another company.

BTW, as long as the population grows, in theory by far the most companies CAN sustain growth, JUST BECAUSE the popolation grows (more consumers).

Answer 5

I believe in sustainable growth. Let me give you an example. I am working with a small village in Kenya. This year a couple of farmers used the correct seed and fertilisers and the yield was much better than their neighbours. We hope that for the next harvest more farmers will use better seed and fertilisers. Next time we want to use drip irrigation as it looks as if it could be highly successful.
For me sustainable growth is when these farmers continue to improve their output and are able to feed their families, to educate their children and sell some of their crops to get a few small luxuries.. The alternative is hunger and death.

Answer 6

Well, the planet we live on does have sustainable life if left alone to grow. You, me, and every tree are proof.
I'll just put my coal order in for winter, and fell that rotten old tree in the garden to make way for more coal. (Sort of thing).
We have found allsorts from ice-ages to equatorial situations, and still , although perhaps different, species crack on.
So broadly, I suppose, our planet does look after itself. The Sargasso Sea is mopping up ozone holes with its' weeds, the Mid-East is more fertile due to good irrigation,
Of course growth is sustainable, It must come under the heading of "Evolution"

Answer 7

You're onto something.

I mean the asker, not the star trek guy above. (sorry i'm pulling yer leg).

I all eluded the Anasazi Indians.

It failed the Incas.

It failed the now-vanished natives of Easter Island.

It failed...oh...this is SO BORING...

In each case, the key ingredient was: ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE.

And these, let us REMEMBER, were pre-industrial, pre-techonology civilizations.

Our delusional oil-based orgy may well come to a halt with a whimper, or -I hate thinking about it- with a bang.

There may well be solutions, but they necessarily would call for some unimaginable changes in political / philosophical established practice.

Answer 8

I belive its a sustainable development.
is an economic term. in short words: all recourses(human, natural, economic, etc) are limited and our job is to make it last as long as possible - which means respect it and use it wisely.
we will never manage to achive it ( come on we are humans;) , but we have to try..