Image: Courtesy of Nancie Battaglia
Editor’s introduction: Scientists have proposed compelling steps to ease specific kinds of environmental damage and slow consumption of certain resources [see “Solutions to Environmental Threats,”]. But Bill McKibben, scholar in residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of climate action group 350.org, maintains that to truly stop ruining the planet, society must break its most debilitating habit: growth.
In his new book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, McKibben argues that humankind, because of its actions, now lives on a fundamentally different world, which he calls “Eaarth.” This celestial body can no longer support the economic growth model that has driven society for 200 years. To avoid our own collapse, we must instead seek to maintain wealth and resources, in large part by shifting to more durable, localized economies.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentWe tried localized economies in the past, pre-mechanical transportation days. People were left to the whims of local climates, harsh winters caused failed crops or droughts causing failed crops. Now with mechanical transportation methods and spreading out of our food sources to encompass most of the world small climate disaster no longer have to put localized populations at risk. Unfortunately this doesn't keep governments from creating false food shortages through laws limiting peoples ability to retrieve or even produce food supplies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe tried localized economies in the past, pre-mechanical transportation days. People were left to the whims of local climates, harsh winters caused failed crops or droughts causing failed crops. Now with mechanical transportation methods and spreading out of our food sources to encompass most of the world small climate disaster no longer have to put localized populations at risk. Unfortunately this doesn't keep governments from creating false food shortages through laws limiting peoples ability to retrieve or even produce food supplies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry for the double post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis growth includes population, the last, most fiercely defended strategy for generating and accumulating wealth. We won't even identify it directly. "The Invisible Hand with No Name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisISN'T IT ABUT TIME THAT WE REALIZE THAT POOR MC KIBBEN IS JUST A MALTHUSIAN WHO DOWSN'T REALIZE THAT THE WORLD IS NOW EXPERIENCING THE HEALTHIEST PERIOD IN HISTORY WITH THE GREATEST LONGEVITY POPULATION AND HEALTH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlimited growth is a Ponzi scheme, pure and simple. Progress, tell us just exactly when population will become excessive. How many billions? And what will you do when it happens? Are you okay with people in your neighborhood living ten to a house and subdividing their lots to build housing? If not, then maybe you have no business telling everyone else to accept more population. One more thing. Population equals regulation. If you want the freedom we had in 1880, you're going to have to return to the population density we had in 1880. By the way, there's an "o" in "about" and "doesn't" doesn't have a "w."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr maybe this might bring the point home. Many people have been saying for years that increasing taxes will bring the end of capitalism. So far it hasn't happened. So we can keep on increasing taxes indefinitely, right? I mean, if Malthus' predictions haven't come true - yet - why should we believe these other predictions?
Drafter's point about governments is a good one. So Eaarth simply can't tolerate corrupt governments. And the corrupt will fight. That will mean cleaning up North Korea and Myanmar by force, also Iran, Mexico, Colombia, etc. Are we willing to do it? Look at the applause the US got for ousting Saddam Hussein. Do you want to take on cleaning up Russia? This will not be an easy transition.
The type of change espoused here is an impossibility. Why would any subservient, aware of their position, want to regress?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf your life sucks now why would want to make it worse?
The reason capitalism works is that it's understandable and has immediate benefits. Attempting to enforce altruism will be ineffective because it doesn't propagate your genes transparently.
All of this flies in the face of nature and could only be emplaced by fiat. Freedom of choice would be expurgated.
Why don't we try thinking outside of the box? Why don;t we attempt the techie solutions? Why don't we try making it better everywhere and at once?
I think that it's the political way to proceed.
We can keep it going if we can just find another good planet...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe growth of growth is slowing as more women become educated so I think it will settle out at about 8.8B, before very slowly dropping.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally I don't see any reason it should take more than 20 hrs working/wk to support 2 people, leaving work for others to have jobs. Afterall just what do we really need to be happy? I think time to do cool stuff like sailing, fishing, hobbies, sports, travel, helping people, etc is far more important than living well beyond ones means with useless junk, replaced with other useless junk every 3 yrs deep in debt. I do this on 10hrs/wk work for the last 30 yrs.
You can live on very little and very well if you do it right, gardens, trading homes for travel, parties with friends, trading use of sailboats, EV, other vehicles, equipment, etc or sharing clubs is a good way though not at the too high of ones now.
That is how many can on the planet can live well on not much resources.
Paradise Regained the new book by Les Johnson, Dr. Greg Matloff and C. Bangs effectively refutes your argument. The answer is not to live with less, it is to leave the planet. That is to start moving peope and infrastructure starting with solar power satellites off the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn short, there is a way to preserve this biological wonder and it's ecology and the prosperity and economic growth future genrations deserve. That is to begin to establish a speicies wide goal to move as much of the human population and infrastructue off planet as soon as possible.
We need to go from quantitative growth to qualitative growth. In fact, we WILL, whether we want to or not. Nature will do it for us...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Progress"'s comment made me think of a famous British chef whose words, minutes before he died, were, "I haven't felt this good for years!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor old Planet Earth.
"Progress"'s comment made me think of a British chef, who minutes before he died, exclaimed, "I haven't felt this good for years!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor old Planet Earth!
First clean it up at home! The present politicl system results in an increasingly polarized society with greater differences between the rich and poor. Soon there will be no middle class, they will fall into one of these two categories and become corrupt and rich of live in squalor and poverty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe need to level the playing-field can be answered by better politics and sensible laws to provide for equality of opportunity for earning by removing the advantage that ownership of natural resources confers.
TAX LAND NOT PEOPLE. TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS.
Finally, Bill McKibben has done it! Hes challenging the world to embrace three cosmic storms bearing down on us: Climate Change, Peak Oil, and Limits to Growth. Better late than never to halt our headlong rush toward the apocalypse of Ecological Overshoot and Collapse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet, the end of growth is actually only the beginning of a far greater political and economic challenge. Namely, how to accelerate the reduction of resource usage and of population without intervention by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. This requires a paradigm shift in economic thinking, yet no academic field is in more dismal shape, mired in simplistic thinking and faux science, the servant of political agendas instead of human and planetary welfare.
Scientific American needs to challenge economists to reinvent their dismal science, survival is at stake, yet I suspect this reinvention will come from professionals outside the field.
It is time for the human race to learn how to live within the means of our planet, this tiny jewel of life called Earth...for the life of us we should remember where we are!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to Benjamin Franklin "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Consequently the whole shape and thrust of human societies is affected by changes to either , or both these imperatives. Science has improved the probability of more people living long enough to reproduce successfully, and taxes are not, and probably never were, levied uniformly and on a basis that would allow the poor to become richer easily.I do not know the complications of the US tax system, but in the UK people are levied income tax below the threshold of what is considered to be the cost of living modestly. Capital and income are not taxed with any mathematical equivalence, and inflation is not directly addressed. This means that there are always winners and losers in any changes. Hardly conducive to getting the broad concensus that will be needed for the radical changes we will have to make before they are catastrophically forced upon us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not help that the study of economics is still too slow in recognising the culpablity and corruptability of it's main subject of study, humanity. I sometimes think they are at the intellectual stage that biology was pre Darwin, or physics pre Einstein. Markets are neither free nor fair and are ruled by bargaining clout, which is a recipe for confrontation , monopoly, and ultimately conflict. With weapons of all scales and types becoming more lethal, this is not a happy prospect
Progress : I don't know which planet you are living on, but here are the facts from the United nations :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the 'Free Capitalist World' there are 1,000,000,000 people starving and a further 1,000,000,000 barely scraping by on $1 a day or less.
Planning growth for theses populations indicates that we need solutions urgently, and not Madhof ones either...
sdtyhdgfdgdghdgh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the type of drivel I would expect from my local alt-weekly that, while free, I nevertheless decline. The puff-piece interview, laughably titled "Bill McKibben, Challenged," only serves to add insult to the injury. Such a science-free diatribe full of economic fallacies, fringe political shibboleths and appeals to discredited authorities (the Club of Rome? Puh-lease.) would have had no place in the respected Scientific American of old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Scientific American is truly serious about controlling economic growth, it should start a serious, objective and apolitical discussion about the debt based, central bank financial model. It is explicitly designed to expand economic production and extraction of value to pay the debts incurred to expand the money supply. It has been very successful in building the world we have now, but it is designed to extract wealth from society and the environment in order to expand the economy. What we need is a model which encourages storing value in the environment and in organic social relationships and not have every transaction mediated by an single currency, which allows those managing that currency to effectively tax the entire system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConveniently this system is breaking down, as the levels of debt incurred far exceed any viable ability to pay them down and much notational wealth is evaporating as a result. Including a significant portion of the savings of those who still think they are safe.
As drawing rights on community productivity, money is a form of public utility and when we try treating it as a store of value, the resulting hoarding of wealth not only eventually destroys the financial system, but society and the environment are sacrificed to maintain the illusion as well.
If we were to treat money as a form of public commons, like the roads, people would be far more careful what value they drain from relationships and the environment to convert into money. We all like having roads, but there is little inclination to pave more than we must.
Haha, "healthiest population": what planet are we living on? The majority of our species , thanks to our capitalist economy now suffers from malnutrition of a novel kind resulting in life-shortening obesity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo quote from the Grass Monkey Fable:
" What did they get? Candy & caries, cream chocolate & cholesterol, cereal & coeliacs, daiquiris & diabetes,cream puffs & coronaries, cordials & cardiac arrest! But , 'not to panick!' said a smart male called Alf Rameo: 'We can fix all that in time.' So they trained some as mouth & body plumbers, some as chalk & cheese specialists, and some as producers & peddlers of sugar-coated pills against all ills by a famous trade name: PANACEA.
Then they all could continue being happy consumers of all things white & beautiful, & proudly grow into 'Super-Sized Me's' of their former selves, in the name of the greatest of their games called: the GROWTH NATIONAL PRODUCT OF DEMOCRACZY... Visit :youthevity .com for a more species-specific nutritional lifestyle.
Haha, "healthiest population": what planet are we living on? The majority of our species , thanks to our capitalist economy now suffers from malnutrition of a novel kind resulting in life-shortening obesity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo quote from the Grass Monkey Fable:
" What did they get? Candy & caries, cream chocolate & cholesterol, cereal & coeliacs, daiquiris & diabetes,cream puffs & coronaries, cordials & cardiac arrest! But , 'not to panick!' said a smart male called Alf Rameo: 'We can fix all that in time.' So they trained some as mouth & body plumbers, some as chalk & cheese specialists, and some as producers & peddlers of sugar-coated pills against all ills by a famous trade name: PANACEA.
Then they all could continue being happy consumers of all things white & beautiful, & proudly grow into 'Super-Sized Me's' of their former selves, in the name of the greatest of their games called: the GROWTH NATIONAL PRODUCT OF DEMOCRACZY... Visit :youthevity .com for a more species-specific nutritional lifestyle.
The first and most important resource humans have used non renewably (long before fossil fuel depletion/peak oil) is the arable soil on the planet; soil mining by cultivation agriculture began ~ 10,000 years ago. If this thesis is correct -- then the 'population bomb', that continues to make natural resource management problematic, exploded a long, long time ago, see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong term agricultural overshoot
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6048
The 'guesstimate' for sustainable human numbers in the 100s of millions, if correct, suggests that the present global population has so far overshot the carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystems that most analyses of the relationship of excessive human numbers to SPECIFIC ASPECTS of environmental damage are simply indulgent academic exercises.
There are more people on the planet (and have been for millennia) than it can sustainably support.
Many of us have concluded that even TWO CHILD FAMILIES -- that would only slowly stabilize the human population -- are not an adequate response to this problem; we require the VOLUNTARY adoption of NO or ONE CHILD PER FAMILY behavior to orchestrate the Population DECLINE that is necessary now.
Peter Salonius
Zero growth, is not possible; unless we discontinue research, including medical and that simply isnt going to happen. I suppose another way would be to lower the human population, but even if that could be done, it cannot be done for many years, long after the earth has been environmentally destroyed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem science and growth got us into this situation and it will take science and growth to get us out. But it must be smart growth.
It would seem to me it will take the invisible hand of a truly free economy to make this work. We need to get rid of all subsidies, most of which poorly serve us and usually are the result of lobbying for government money.
The only way to make this smart is to levy a fee equal to or greater than environmental damage caused. Since we are all affected by this damage, whether it is bad air, bad water including oceans, or any other environmental damage, it would seem only right that this fee be equally returned to all members of the society. Certainly the wealthy, that usually use the greatest amount of earth resources will pay the greatest fee; however most of these people will be able to see the fairness of the system.
The fee could be very small at first so as not to cause any great economic disruptions; yet just the knowledge of further increases will stop damaging capital investment and increase research and development of clean and sustainable ideas.
I would think that the only serious objection to his argument that we must halt economic growth would be to point out that with nuclear power and certain other technologies, we might be able to decouple economic growth from the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, with government regulation forcing the use of energy sources and agricultural techniques with less environmental impact, even though they're more expensive, a world population of trillions might live in giant cities located in deserts or permafrost, fed from underground farms lit by sunlight funneled in from giant mirrors in space... while 99% of the Earth's surface is a giant wildlife preserve.
Yes, that sounds like science fiction, but the point is that growth, per se, is not the real problem, only growth beyond what our current level of technology permits us to enjoy sustainably. But that may be only a minor quibble in practice, since most technology doesn't improve at the breakneck pace exemplified by Moores' Law in microelectronics: it grows more slowly than 2% per annum, the pace of population growth in the industrialized nations back during the last economic boom.
Also, while I would not like the world to be a place where we could not build things like the Large Hadron Collider, it is true that possessions are not the key to human happiness. The trouble is, though, that love, which is the key to human hapiness, is precisely what leads to more mouths to feed - and to economic competition between males seeking mates so as to display their fitness as providers.
Any measures designed to restrict human population growth directly must involve compulsion to be effective. Quite apart from extending the sway of totalitarianism, the response of the populations may not be quite what the well meaning despots had in mind.When china tried this drastic remedy, the cultural bias towards having a male child ( which long predated the political regimes of the present )meant that many crimes against female babies were perpetrated both officially and unofficially, and the ratio of males to females in some age groups was distorted, with all the social problems that would engender a few years down the line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit seems that the only peaceful way to bring human population into balance is to make most of the worlds population sufficiently prosperous that they have distractions and interests other than sex to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, and sufficient confidence that they will be able to live out their old age without requiring a large family to care for them. This requires economic growth, but more intelligently measured and orchestrated than that presently dominated by the greed and fear of the present day financial institutions and instruments.
The rich demand that they be highly paid for their contribution of finance and expertise, and expect the poor to abide by supply and demand where they control both in their favour. It has been said that it is not in the nature of most humans to make sacrifices to benefit people they will not meet because they are yet to be born. Much of our wealth is diverted into ostentatious displays of consumption to acquire status by demonstrating within the arbitrary conditions of the topical market that the individual is so successful that they can afford it, and so are a better bet for reproduction. Thus the needs of the individual are in conflict with the needs of society as a whole.
Human societies are not like insect colonies or hives, and should not try to be. Power in the individual and sub group should always come at the expense of commensurate responsibilities, and tenure of high office be time limited, with repeat sessions broken up by periods without power getting longer in relation to the time at the top. Some say that we would be denying ourselves of the benefits of the talents of irreplaceable people. The graveyards are full of irreplaceable people.
Many hold the ambition to be wealthy, but when that point is reached always seems to shift according to where you are ( like the pot at the end of the rainbow ) That is lunacy .
This article provides A solution for problems discussed in the previous article [Boundaries for a Healthy Planet]. Why does no one talk about attacking the fundamental cause: too many humans. Overpopulation was a meme in the past for environmentalists. Today it seems politically incorrect to even mention the concept. Stopping population growth in its tracks and cutting in half the current population would solve most of the boundaries we are crossing or approaching. In this sense it is too bad H1N1 is not more aggressive or that HIV-AIDS is not an airborne disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article provides A solution for problems discussed in the previous article [Boundaries for a Healthy Planet]. Why does no one talk about attacking the fundamental cause: too many humans. Overpopulation was a meme in the past for environmentalists. Today it seems politically incorrect to even mention the concept. Stopping population growth in its tracks and cutting in half the current population would solve most of the boundaries we are crossing or approaching. In this sense it is too bad H1N1 is not more aggressive or that HIV-AIDS is not an airborne disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article provides A solution for problems discussed in the previous article [Boundaries for a Healthy Planet]. Why does no one talk about attacking the fundamental cause: too many humans. Overpopulation was a meme in the past for environmentalists. Today it seems politically incorrect to even mention the concept. Stopping population growth in its tracks and cutting in half the current population would solve most of the boundaries we are crossing or approaching. In this sense it is too bad H1N1 is not more aggressive or that HIV-AIDS is not an airborne disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo get out of the growth trap we must start evaluating increases in social wellbeing rather than simple possession. Being rather than having.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Mr. McKibben omits from his analysis is the reason for the continuing need to grow output... for economic growth. Specifically, suppose we somehow achieve his vision of steady economic output and proper management of finite resources -- a goal with which I strongly agree. Then, as long as human population grows, per capita output will decline. And a reduction in per capita output implies a reduction in standard of living. Thus, if Mr. McKibben's vision is achieved while we still have human population growth, we will face the choice of slowly reverting to the Stone Age or piercing his sustainable world in the name of simply maintaining the status quo for the new mouths to feed. Please note -- I am not devaluing human life nor am I suggesting a solution. I am simply pointing out the logical outcome of Mr. McKibben's argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that there is a way out of this paradox: efficiency. If more output is achieved off of the same inputs, human growth could continue without declining standards of living. However, this is not a long-term strategy: you can't cut the inputs to zero no matter how efficient you are and (aside from breeder reactors), you can never cut inputs to less than zero. However, it would be better if Mr. McKibben made his argument based on stabilizing/reducing the use of inputs rather than on capping outputs.
In "The Limits to Growth," population growth is called out. Remember that the 70's was a time of the Zero Population Growth movement. Mr. McKibben would do well to be as comprehensive in his arguments.
I was shocked and disappointed to see what used to be a reasonably serious science journal publish such nonsense as Breaking the Growth Habit in your April issue. Much of what Mr. McKibben writes is silly. The idea of completely stopping economic growth is not only crazy but in one fell swoop dooms the couple of billion people living at below the poverty level on earth (or if you wish eaarth) to bare subsistence living, as well as their descendents, for eternity. That is not only nuts but it is morally indefensible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis ideas on local agriculture are also way off track. I happen to have lived in a rural community before industrial farming existed. I remember the lean diet we had during winter; root vegetables, cabbage as the only salad, canned beans and tomatoes, etc. But no fresh green vegetables at all. I dont want to go back to that, nor do I need to. I like having fresh Chilean blueberries available in mid-winter, crisp lettuce all year long as well as a cornucopia of other fresh & healthy produce. If Mr. McKibben wants to revert back to the lean old days, fine; but dont preach it to me!
I am involved in industrial farming in Brazil & Chile and see first hand how dramatically yields can be increased by judicious use of modern technology. And indeed much of that technology is aimed at reducing the need for chemical pesticides and fertilizers. And our large investment in drip irrigation systems vastly improves the efficiency of water use. One can only dream of what impact such relatively low tech practices could do if implanted in Africa.
Sincerely
Richard L. Huber
139 W. 78th Street
New York, NY 10024
A definitive work on this subject is Jared Diamond's book - Collapse. It is a comprehensive study of the topics raised in McKibben's article. I highly recommend it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have few problems with the limits to growth argument. I have issues with several of McKibben's suggestions. In particular, the proposed incentives to limit carbon emissions.
While I am not doubting the seriousness of CO2 in the atmosphere, I contend that as long as the energy out exceeds
the energy required to obtain fossil fuels, that they will be extracted and used. I don't think any incentive or tax or law will prevent this from occurring. We can slow it down, but we will use all the fossil fuels available until the energy equation is no longer favorable. In my view this will mean that the CO2 will be put into the atmosphere and that we should brace ourselves for the consequences.
McKibbon's advocacy for local solutions I think is well made.
Putting solar panels on every house in the US is very feasible
and considerably more sensible than dedicating 10000 acres of land in Nevada for a "plant". Far better to subsidize solar power (ultimately the only sustainable energy) than tax carbon.
But these simple ideas have been around for a long time. We don't have the political leadership or will to implement them. We could easily provide economic incentives that would encourage individual actions that would lead to a more sustainable lifestyle. We will not achieve this by bemoaning the loss of biodiversity or crying out against climate change. The incentives I envision don't have to be based on economic growth, but I do feel they have to provide an economic basis for changing behavior. The problem of course with this notion is answering the question - what behavior do you want?
Do the following experiment : Sit down at table and start eating. When you are full, continue and whatever anyone tells you swallow another spoonful. To see the final outcome, watch Monty Python's 'The meaning of Life'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may not be an exact representation of economic growth, but at least it is good for a laugh....