Sujay Rao Mandavilli Degrowth delusion FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL.pdf
SujayRaoMandavilli
367 views
15 slides
Aug 29, 2025
Slide 1 of 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
About This Presentation
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Degrowth delusion FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL.pdf
Slide Content
1
The degrowth delusion: Why technology and
sustainable development models alone will solve the
world’s environmental woes in the long-term
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Published in SSRN, August 2025
Abstract
The core objective of this paper is to trace the history of the degrowth movement, define its broad and
overarching principles, goals and objectives, and to show why the idea is almost always likely to fail
given the fact that it is intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to human nature, the natural tendencies
of economies to grow, and also because it leads to governmental interference, inefficiency, and
arbitrariness. We therefore not only discuss the different types of degrowth proposals made, but also
delve into the various drawbacks and deficiencies of degrowth movements in depth. We therefore
propose that investments in technology, public resources, afforestation and land restoration, population
management, and other ecological movements are the only way to tackle the growing menace of global
warming and climate change. We also discuss the concepts of sustainable development, circular
economy, and regenerative economics in this paper. We also discuss the state of various technologies
such as sustainable power generation, sustainable transportation, sustainable construction, bioplastic,
biopaper, and other technologies besides reviewing their limitations. While perfectly sustainable
development is a myth and a mirage, we can slowly inch towards a circular economy in the long-term.
This paper therefore lies at the intersection of our publications on the environmental movement and
population management.
The degrowth delusion: Why technology and
sustainable development models alone will solve the
world’s environmental woes in the long-term
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Published in SSRN, August 2025
Abstract
The core objective of this paper is to trace the history of the degrowth movement, define its broad and
overarching principles, goals and objectives, and to show why the idea is almost always likely to fail
given the fact that it is intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to human nature, the natural tendencies
of economies to grow, and also because it leads to governmental interference, inefficiency, and
arbitrariness. We therefore not only discuss the different types of degrowth proposals made, but also
delve into the various drawbacks and deficiencies of degrowth movements in depth. We therefore
propose that investments in technology, public resources, afforestation and land restoration, population
management, and other ecological movements are the only way to tackle the growing menace of global
warming and climate change. We also discuss the concepts of sustainable development, circular
economy, and regenerative economics in this paper. We also discuss the state of various technologies
such as sustainable power generation, sustainable transportation, sustainable construction, bioplastic,
biopaper, and other technologies besides reviewing their limitations. While perfectly sustainable
development is a myth and a mirage, we can slowly inch towards a circular economy in the long-term.
This paper therefore lies at the intersection of our publications on the environmental movement and
population management.
2
Introduction
The core objective of this paper is to trace the history of the degrowth movement, define its broad and
overarching principles, goals and objectives, and to show why the idea is almost always likely to fail
given the fact that it is intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to human nature, the natural tendencies
of economies to grow, and also because it leads to governmental interference, inefficiency, and
arbitrariness. We therefore not only discuss the different types of degrowth proposals made, but also
delve into the various drawbacks and deficiencies of degrowth movements in depth. We therefore
propose that investments in technology, public resources, afforestation and land restoration, population
management, and other ecological movements are the only way to tackle the growing menace of global
warming and climate change. We also discuss the concepts of sustainable development, circular
economy, and regenerative economics in this paper. We also discuss the state of various technologies
such as sustainable power generation, sustainable transportation, sustainable construction, bioplastic,
biopaper, and other technologies besides reviewing their limitations. While perfectly sustainable
development is a myth and a mirage, we can slowly inch towards a circular economy in the long-term.
This paper therefore lies at the intersection of our publications on the environmental movement and
population management, and might as such help to initiate some much needed course-corrections in
public debate and thought. This is in spite of the fact that the left is in terminal decline almost
everywhere, and the far right by its very nature and composition, couldn’t care less about
environmental degradation and environmental issues.
What is degrowth?
Let us begin this paper by discussing what degrowth is. Degrowth as a left-leaning academic and social
movement advocates for a planned, and a gradual democratic reduction in society's production and
consumption levels in order to achieve social and environmental well-being and responsibility within the
ability of the earth’s means to support different types of human activity. Degrowth as a somewhat left-
leaning paradigm, seeks to challenge prevailing growth-oriented capitalist systems by prioritizing
sustainability, reducing inequalities between individuals and socioeconomic groups, and reorienting
economies particularly in high-income nations and emerging economies away from resource-intensive,
and harmful human activities toward public services, local production, and regenerative practices. The
term degrowth was first used the French intellectual Andre Gorz in 1972, who later went on to advocate
the concept extensively; however, technology half a century ago was not what it is today. Current
observations on total fertility rate reductions has not been made then – this was still an area of beliefs in
the Malthusian catastrophe, and Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday predictions – a lot has changed since then,
and as such some observations made then by intellectuals and philosophers may now be considered
rather obsolete, outdated and antiquated. Andre Gorz, a critic of capitalism, was somewhat left leaning,
and his ideas somewhat idealistic. The Soviet Union and the Communist block have all but vanished into
the annals of history since then, and a prospect of their comeback seems bleak, at least as of now. We
not know the failings of Communism and democratic socialism more than people did about have a
century ago.
Introduction
The core objective of this paper is to trace the history of the degrowth movement, define its broad and
overarching principles, goals and objectives, and to show why the idea is almost always likely to fail
given the fact that it is intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to human nature, the natural tendencies
of economies to grow, and also because it leads to governmental interference, inefficiency, and
arbitrariness. We therefore not only discuss the different types of degrowth proposals made, but also
delve into the various drawbacks and deficiencies of degrowth movements in depth. We therefore
propose that investments in technology, public resources, afforestation and land restoration, population
management, and other ecological movements are the only way to tackle the growing menace of global
warming and climate change. We also discuss the concepts of sustainable development, circular
economy, and regenerative economics in this paper. We also discuss the state of various technologies
such as sustainable power generation, sustainable transportation, sustainable construction, bioplastic,
biopaper, and other technologies besides reviewing their limitations. While perfectly sustainable
development is a myth and a mirage, we can slowly inch towards a circular economy in the long-term.
This paper therefore lies at the intersection of our publications on the environmental movement and
population management, and might as such help to initiate some much needed course-corrections in
public debate and thought. This is in spite of the fact that the left is in terminal decline almost
everywhere, and the far right by its very nature and composition, couldn’t care less about
environmental degradation and environmental issues.
What is degrowth?
Let us begin this paper by discussing what degrowth is. Degrowth as a left-leaning academic and social
movement advocates for a planned, and a gradual democratic reduction in society's production and
consumption levels in order to achieve social and environmental well-being and responsibility within the
ability of the earth’s means to support different types of human activity. Degrowth as a somewhat left-
leaning paradigm, seeks to challenge prevailing growth-oriented capitalist systems by prioritizing
sustainability, reducing inequalities between individuals and socioeconomic groups, and reorienting
economies particularly in high-income nations and emerging economies away from resource-intensive,
and harmful human activities toward public services, local production, and regenerative practices. The
term degrowth was first used the French intellectual Andre Gorz in 1972, who later went on to advocate
the concept extensively; however, technology half a century ago was not what it is today. Current
observations on total fertility rate reductions has not been made then – this was still an area of beliefs in
the Malthusian catastrophe, and Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday predictions – a lot has changed since then,
and as such some observations made then by intellectuals and philosophers may now be considered
rather obsolete, outdated and antiquated. Andre Gorz, a critic of capitalism, was somewhat left leaning,
and his ideas somewhat idealistic. The Soviet Union and the Communist block have all but vanished into
the annals of history since then, and a prospect of their comeback seems bleak, at least as of now. We
not know the failings of Communism and democratic socialism more than people did about have a
century ago.
3
Another famous report during that era was the Limits to growth report. The Limits to Growth report
was a famous and a groundbreaking 1972 report, commissioned by the Club of Rome, a multinational
not-for-profit organization established in 1968, and conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology
researchers, that used computer simulations and extrapolations to predict that continued exponential
growth in population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and use of non-renewable resources
would cause human civilization to collapse by the end of the twenty-first century. The report sought to
emphasize the fact that Earth's resources were finite and that unchecked economic growth and
industrialization would bring the earth’s habitats and ecosystems to utter ruin. A solution then
presented was population control. However, no one – almost no one could have foreseen the rise of
renewable and the sustainable development movement. These were not even anticipated in the 1980’s,
both by laymen and prophets of doom. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen was a Romanian mathematician,
statistician and economist. He is best known today for his 1971 magnum opus “The Entropy Law and the
Economic Process”, in which he argued that all natural resources are irreversibly degraded when put to
use in economic activity. He was also one of the founding fathers of ecological economics or bio-
economics. He based his ideas on the philosophy of Joseph Schumpeter who believed that capitalism
was inherently destructive. However, these intellectuals may not have foreseen the rise of the circular
economy and other modern and contemporary concepts. A lot has indeed changed since then. Jacques
Grinevald, a noted French philosopher and historian of scientific and technological development also
helped pioneer the idea of degrowth. Other thinkers who contributed to the degrowth movement in
some way or the other included degrowth thinkers took part in the symposium, for e.g. Serge
Latouche, Mauro Bonaiuti, Paul Aries, Ivo Rens, Michel Bernard, Francois Schneider and Pierre Rabhi.
The first phase of the degrowth debate occurred in the 1970s, and the emphasis then was on resource
limits. In the second phase, which took off after 2000, there was a general criticism of idea of
‘sustainable development’. A newspaper by the name “La Decroissance, le journal de la joie de
vivre“ was founded in France in the early 2000’s to promote degrowth, and Francois Schneider even
carried out a donkey tour in southern France. In 2002, a conference called “Defaire le developpement,
refaire le monde” took place in Paris at the premises of UNESCO and eight hundred participants
attended it. The same year, the Institute for Economic and Social Studies on Sustainable Degrowth was
founded in Lyon, and in 2003, an international colloquium on sustainable degrowth was organized. The
movement was also associated with the anti-globalization movement, another left leaning movement.
Later, the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology joined the movement, and there was an
attempt to move the movement to other regions and parts of the world as well. The degrowth
movement therefore took off in a big way in the 2000’s in France and elsewhere, and spread for over a
decade, before losing momentum and steam. Other advocates of degrowth have included ecological
economists Giorgos Kallis and Jason Hickel, who are known for their work on degrowth theory and
advocacy in international forums. Pope Francis too is said to have supported this movement. We also
have the International degrowth network, which promotes its ideas and ideals publicly.
The think tank “Research and degrowth international” was launched in 2007. It is currently administered
by Simona Getova, Mariona Bonsfills Clote and others. However, more conferences were organized in
Montreal in 2011, Venice in 2012 and Leipzig in 2014, with degrowth spreading to countries such as
Another famous report during that era was the Limits to growth report. The Limits to Growth report
was a famous and a groundbreaking 1972 report, commissioned by the Club of Rome, a multinational
not-for-profit organization established in 1968, and conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology
researchers, that used computer simulations and extrapolations to predict that continued exponential
growth in population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and use of non-renewable resources
would cause human civilization to collapse by the end of the twenty-first century. The report sought to
emphasize the fact that Earth's resources were finite and that unchecked economic growth and
industrialization would bring the earth’s habitats and ecosystems to utter ruin. A solution then
presented was population control. However, no one – almost no one could have foreseen the rise of
renewable and the sustainable development movement. These were not even anticipated in the 1980’s,
both by laymen and prophets of doom. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen was a Romanian mathematician,
statistician and economist. He is best known today for his 1971 magnum opus “The Entropy Law and the
Economic Process”, in which he argued that all natural resources are irreversibly degraded when put to
use in economic activity. He was also one of the founding fathers of ecological economics or bio-
economics. He based his ideas on the philosophy of Joseph Schumpeter who believed that capitalism
was inherently destructive. However, these intellectuals may not have foreseen the rise of the circular
economy and other modern and contemporary concepts. A lot has indeed changed since then. Jacques
Grinevald, a noted French philosopher and historian of scientific and technological development also
helped pioneer the idea of degrowth. Other thinkers who contributed to the degrowth movement in
some way or the other included degrowth thinkers took part in the symposium, for e.g. Serge
Latouche, Mauro Bonaiuti, Paul Aries, Ivo Rens, Michel Bernard, Francois Schneider and Pierre Rabhi.
The first phase of the degrowth debate occurred in the 1970s, and the emphasis then was on resource
limits. In the second phase, which took off after 2000, there was a general criticism of idea of
‘sustainable development’. A newspaper by the name “La Decroissance, le journal de la joie de
vivre“ was founded in France in the early 2000’s to promote degrowth, and Francois Schneider even
carried out a donkey tour in southern France. In 2002, a conference called “Defaire le developpement,
refaire le monde” took place in Paris at the premises of UNESCO and eight hundred participants
attended it. The same year, the Institute for Economic and Social Studies on Sustainable Degrowth was
founded in Lyon, and in 2003, an international colloquium on sustainable degrowth was organized. The
movement was also associated with the anti-globalization movement, another left leaning movement.
Later, the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology joined the movement, and there was an
attempt to move the movement to other regions and parts of the world as well. The degrowth
movement therefore took off in a big way in the 2000’s in France and elsewhere, and spread for over a
decade, before losing momentum and steam. Other advocates of degrowth have included ecological
economists Giorgos Kallis and Jason Hickel, who are known for their work on degrowth theory and
advocacy in international forums. Pope Francis too is said to have supported this movement. We also
have the International degrowth network, which promotes its ideas and ideals publicly.
The think tank “Research and degrowth international” was launched in 2007. It is currently administered
by Simona Getova, Mariona Bonsfills Clote and others. However, more conferences were organized in
Montreal in 2011, Venice in 2012 and Leipzig in 2014, with degrowth spreading to countries such as
4
Switzerland, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Germany, Canada, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Mexico, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Romania and elsewhere. Several articles were published in peer-
reviewed journals as well, and the term “degrowth” also entered the English lexicon. The concept also
eventually began to be taught in universities. Of course, left-leaning thinkers contributed nothing-
virtually nothing- to technology that has become so vital to the ongoing sustainable development
revolution, and its centrifugal force. Technological innovation has been driven by private enterprise, and
capitalism has been at the heart of it. Left-wing thinkers have remained as always – textbook thinkers,
and champagne and caviar radicals. The degrowth movement was also obviously led by trenchant critics
of capitalism. These critics will naturally find it increasingly difficult to conceal and camouflage the many
failures of democratic socialism, including the Venezuela fiasco, and may even opt to turn a blind eye
towards them.
1
23
4
5
6
7
Core principles and goals of the degrowth movement
The core principles and goals of the degrowth movement are as follows, and many of these may appear
to be idealistic and unachievable to most people. One of the objectives of many practitioners of this
movement is to redefine the concept of well-being. Degrowth seeks to shift the focus from economic
growth (like Gross domestic product and gross domestic product growth rates) to genuine social and
ecological well-being, ensuring a good quality of life for all within environmental boundaries. So far, so
good. This is a good and noble goal, but in cannot obviously be enforced through artificial means.
Advocates also call for planned downscaling of economic activities in a democratic, collective process to
reducing both production and consumption, particularly in areas that are unsustainable or harmful, such
as private jets and fast fashion. This is certainly a noble goal, but it can and must be achieved through
government policy and taxation. The degrowth movement promotes investments in public services (like
transportation and housing) and sustainable practices (like regenerative agriculture) over private
consumption and profit. These are again good and noble ideas, but they need not be necessarily coupled
with growth. Degrowth proponents also argue that infinite economic growth is impossible and
undesirable on a finite planet and is a primary driver of the social-ecological crisis. This is again an
idealistic and a quixotic goals, but we must always understand human nature and work around it instead
of seeking artificial and potentially counter-productive or ephemeral impositions.
The avowed goals and objectives of this movement are to focus on high-income nations too, but
developing countries are also quietly and rapidly catching up, mimicking the consumption patterns of
developed nations. Other ideals such as the reduction of wasteful consumption, promotion of rural
economies, and investing in public good are all noble concepts, but they must not conflict with human
nature if they are to be successful in the long-term. The concept of degrowth has also naturally drawn
1
Saito, Kohei (2024). Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto. Astra House
2
Roth, Steffen (2016). "Growth and function: a viral research program for next organisations". International Journal of Technology Management. 72 (4): 296–309
3
Luhmann, Niklas (1976). "The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society". Social Research. 43: 130–152
4
Meier, Brian P.; Robinson, Michael D. (April 2004). "Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations Between Affect and Vertical Position". Psychological Science. 15 (4): 243–247
5
Robra, Ben; Pazaitis, Alex; Giotitsas, Chris; Pansera, Mario (July 2023). "From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective". Technovation. 125: 102760.
6
Kothari, Ashish; Demaria, Federico; Acosta, Alberto (December 2014). "Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green
Economy". Development. 57 (3–4): 362–375
7
Burkhart, Corinna; Schmelzer, Matthias; Treu, Nina, eds. (2020). Degrowth in movement(s): exploring pathways for transformation. Winchester, UK Washington, USA: Zero Books
Switzerland, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Germany, Canada, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Mexico, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Romania and elsewhere. Several articles were published in peer-
reviewed journals as well, and the term “degrowth” also entered the English lexicon. The concept also
eventually began to be taught in universities. Of course, left-leaning thinkers contributed nothing-
virtually nothing- to technology that has become so vital to the ongoing sustainable development
revolution, and its centrifugal force. Technological innovation has been driven by private enterprise, and
capitalism has been at the heart of it. Left-wing thinkers have remained as always – textbook thinkers,
and champagne and caviar radicals. The degrowth movement was also obviously led by trenchant critics
of capitalism. These critics will naturally find it increasingly difficult to conceal and camouflage the many
failures of democratic socialism, including the Venezuela fiasco, and may even opt to turn a blind eye
towards them.
1
23
4
5
6
7
Core principles and goals of the degrowth movement
The core principles and goals of the degrowth movement are as follows, and many of these may appear
to be idealistic and unachievable to most people. One of the objectives of many practitioners of this
movement is to redefine the concept of well-being. Degrowth seeks to shift the focus from economic
growth (like Gross domestic product and gross domestic product growth rates) to genuine social and
ecological well-being, ensuring a good quality of life for all within environmental boundaries. So far, so
good. This is a good and noble goal, but in cannot obviously be enforced through artificial means.
Advocates also call for planned downscaling of economic activities in a democratic, collective process to
reducing both production and consumption, particularly in areas that are unsustainable or harmful, such
as private jets and fast fashion. This is certainly a noble goal, but it can and must be achieved through
government policy and taxation. The degrowth movement promotes investments in public services (like
transportation and housing) and sustainable practices (like regenerative agriculture) over private
consumption and profit. These are again good and noble ideas, but they need not be necessarily coupled
with growth. Degrowth proponents also argue that infinite economic growth is impossible and
undesirable on a finite planet and is a primary driver of the social-ecological crisis. This is again an
idealistic and a quixotic goals, but we must always understand human nature and work around it instead
of seeking artificial and potentially counter-productive or ephemeral impositions.
The avowed goals and objectives of this movement are to focus on high-income nations too, but
developing countries are also quietly and rapidly catching up, mimicking the consumption patterns of
developed nations. Other ideals such as the reduction of wasteful consumption, promotion of rural
economies, and investing in public good are all noble concepts, but they must not conflict with human
nature if they are to be successful in the long-term. The concept of degrowth has also naturally drawn
1
Saito, Kohei (2024). Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto. Astra House
2
Roth, Steffen (2016). "Growth and function: a viral research program for next organisations". International Journal of Technology Management. 72 (4): 296–309
3
Luhmann, Niklas (1976). "The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society". Social Research. 43: 130–152
4
Meier, Brian P.; Robinson, Michael D. (April 2004). "Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations Between Affect and Vertical Position". Psychological Science. 15 (4): 243–247
5
Robra, Ben; Pazaitis, Alex; Giotitsas, Chris; Pansera, Mario (July 2023). "From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective". Technovation. 125: 102760.
6
Kothari, Ashish; Demaria, Federico; Acosta, Alberto (December 2014). "Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green
Economy". Development. 57 (3–4): 362–375
7
Burkhart, Corinna; Schmelzer, Matthias; Treu, Nina, eds. (2020). Degrowth in movement(s): exploring pathways for transformation. Winchester, UK Washington, USA: Zero Books
5
ire, and substantial criticism, as it is seen as being vague, unimplementable, and impractical. It is also
seen as being anti-progress and anti-development, given that rapid economic growth has played a major
and a vital part in poverty reduction and human and technological progress. Another related term is
agrowth. "Agrowth" is an economic concept proposing indifference to, and non-reliance on Gross
Domestic Product growth rates as the key and central yardstick of economic and societal progress. This
concept was first developed by Dutch environmental economist Jeroen van den Bergh, and proposes
policies that focus on overall welfare, well-being and environmental consciousness rather than
economic expansion alone. It seeks to bring out the best of both worlds, i.e. growth and degrowth. We
however represent a more natural way, and one that will invariably and inevitably occur over time.
8
9
10
11
Types of degrowth
We now attempt to review the various types of degrowth that have been proposed below. These in
sum, refers to various forms of policy proposals and practical actions advocated by the degrowth
movement over the years, all of which aim to reduce economies' material and energy outputs and
prioritize societal well-being over profit. These include, among other proposals, a shift to less resource
intensive lifestyles, the reclaiming of public spaces, and the suppression of wasteful competition,
planned product obsolescence and even excessive advertising. These proposals generally come across
as being highly left-leaning for the most part, representing policies that have utterly failed over the years
in more context than one. They may also represent Eurocentric views in some sense of the term. Some
types of degrowth advocated have included GDP degrowth, resources and energy consumption
degrowth, production degrowth, work life balance, and social and lifestyle shifts. Most of these
recommendations are highly impractical and will never work; these endeavours, also at best represent
hackneyed and esoteric attempts at scholarship. On the contrary technological advancements will work,
coupled with environmental regulation. Welfare states have worked admirably in the recent past, along
with a focus on overall well-being. Right-wing radicals like conservative Republicans in the USA have
opposed these too on ideological grounds. We need via media approaches, and data-driven approaches
always.
12
13
14
15
Why socialism never works
Socialism as a solution for the world’s environmental problems may therefore be doomed to fail, just as
socialism has always been doomed to catastrophic failure, right from the very start. But what exactly is
socialism? Socialism usually refers to an economic and political system where the state represented by
the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution, and the role of private
8
Adams, Simon; David Lambert (2006). Earth Science: An illustrated guide to science. New York NY 10001: Chelsea House. p. 20
9
Allaby, Michael, and Chris Park, eds. A dictionary of environment and conservation (Oxford University Press, 2013), with a British emphasis
10
Smil, V. (2000). Cycles of Life. New York: Scientific American Library
11
Christopherson, Robert W. (1996). Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography. Prentice Hall
12
Werhane, P. H. (1994). "Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism". The Review of Metaphysics. 47 (3).
13
Wolf, Harald (2004). "Capitalism". In Ritzer, George (ed.). Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Sage Publications. pp. 76–80
14
Crosland, Anthony (1956). The Future of Socialism. United Kingdom: Jonathan Cape
15
Goldberg, Victor P. (21 November 2012). "Contracts". The Oxford Handbook of Capitalism. Oxford University Press. pp. 250–274
ire, and substantial criticism, as it is seen as being vague, unimplementable, and impractical. It is also
seen as being anti-progress and anti-development, given that rapid economic growth has played a major
and a vital part in poverty reduction and human and technological progress. Another related term is
agrowth. "Agrowth" is an economic concept proposing indifference to, and non-reliance on Gross
Domestic Product growth rates as the key and central yardstick of economic and societal progress. This
concept was first developed by Dutch environmental economist Jeroen van den Bergh, and proposes
policies that focus on overall welfare, well-being and environmental consciousness rather than
economic expansion alone. It seeks to bring out the best of both worlds, i.e. growth and degrowth. We
however represent a more natural way, and one that will invariably and inevitably occur over time.
8
9
10
11
Types of degrowth
We now attempt to review the various types of degrowth that have been proposed below. These in
sum, refers to various forms of policy proposals and practical actions advocated by the degrowth
movement over the years, all of which aim to reduce economies' material and energy outputs and
prioritize societal well-being over profit. These include, among other proposals, a shift to less resource
intensive lifestyles, the reclaiming of public spaces, and the suppression of wasteful competition,
planned product obsolescence and even excessive advertising. These proposals generally come across
as being highly left-leaning for the most part, representing policies that have utterly failed over the years
in more context than one. They may also represent Eurocentric views in some sense of the term. Some
types of degrowth advocated have included GDP degrowth, resources and energy consumption
degrowth, production degrowth, work life balance, and social and lifestyle shifts. Most of these
recommendations are highly impractical and will never work; these endeavours, also at best represent
hackneyed and esoteric attempts at scholarship. On the contrary technological advancements will work,
coupled with environmental regulation. Welfare states have worked admirably in the recent past, along
with a focus on overall well-being. Right-wing radicals like conservative Republicans in the USA have
opposed these too on ideological grounds. We need via media approaches, and data-driven approaches
always.
12
13
14
15
Why socialism never works
Socialism as a solution for the world’s environmental problems may therefore be doomed to fail, just as
socialism has always been doomed to catastrophic failure, right from the very start. But what exactly is
socialism? Socialism usually refers to an economic and political system where the state represented by
the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution, and the role of private
8
Adams, Simon; David Lambert (2006). Earth Science: An illustrated guide to science. New York NY 10001: Chelsea House. p. 20
9
Allaby, Michael, and Chris Park, eds. A dictionary of environment and conservation (Oxford University Press, 2013), with a British emphasis
10
Smil, V. (2000). Cycles of Life. New York: Scientific American Library
11
Christopherson, Robert W. (1996). Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography. Prentice Hall
12
Werhane, P. H. (1994). "Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism". The Review of Metaphysics. 47 (3).
13
Wolf, Harald (2004). "Capitalism". In Ritzer, George (ed.). Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Sage Publications. pp. 76–80
14
Crosland, Anthony (1956). The Future of Socialism. United Kingdom: Jonathan Cape
15
Goldberg, Victor P. (21 November 2012). "Contracts". The Oxford Handbook of Capitalism. Oxford University Press. pp. 250–274
6
individuals or corporations in this regard is limited or non-existent. This approach therefore mandates
collective ownership of economic assets and centralized planning mechanisms to meet societal needs of
all its people. Private or corporate profit is sometimes actively discouraged, and social ownership,
cooperation and collaboration between individuals, and a more equitable distribution of wealth and
resources based on equity and fairness is emphasized and encouraged. There is no one size fits all bill
here, and democratic socialism has been advocated in many quarters – a variant of this is known as
Fabian socialism, and this was advocated in India for decades along with dirigisme, and a centrally
planned economy or a mixed economy. Even the much touted model of democratic socialism appears to
have failed catastrophically, and is rarely or seldom followed in today’s world.
Problems with socialism and degrowth solutions
The following are the common problems and criticisms associated with both socialism and degrowth
policies. Of course, there could be, and indeed are many, many more. We only present the more
important and vital ones here, albeit from an environmental and to a significant extent, a technological
perspective:
1. It leads to over the top centralization: Socialism – communism being a more extreme form or
variant is inexorably associated with the concentration of political power at the top. In some
countries such as India, it began to be associated with bureaucracy and red tape. This puts it
somewhat at odds with dynamism, innovation and creativity which are so essential for tackling
environmental challenges.
2. It leads to arbitrariness and randomness in decision making: Socialism may lead to arbitrariness
and randomness in decision-making. This is because there are no checks and balances involved,
and because communism, even socialism, have bred dictatorships and authoritarian leaders.
This has almost always been the case, but with some minor exceptions. This stymies and hinders
true long-term progress
3. It is associated with planned development models which have failed already; over-centralized
economic models have failed for the most part, and this is for all practical purposes, a non-
controversial no-brainer. This is because such models by their very nature, tend to be non-
dynamic, and immune to market forces. Nations pursuing such economic development models
have tended to lag behind technologically, and technology is vital to solving environmental
problems.
4. It is notoriously hard to implement; it would create a large number of paradoxes, and make
leaders and politicians unpopular. This is because political and economic leaders want to do the
best for their people, and make their lot better. Therefore, degrowth is hard to implement and
make successful.
5. It is also unnatural because individuals and nations want to grow; there is a competition not only
among individuals, but also among nations. This is quite natural as a process, and it cannot be
done away with by any means and under any circumstances. For example, we have written
about identity theory, vested interests, conflicts of interest, and win win paradigms. We have
also written extensively about the clash of civilizations in the past. Socialism may interfere with
natural processes using artificial methods and techniques, and this is naturally unworkable.
individuals or corporations in this regard is limited or non-existent. This approach therefore mandates
collective ownership of economic assets and centralized planning mechanisms to meet societal needs of
all its people. Private or corporate profit is sometimes actively discouraged, and social ownership,
cooperation and collaboration between individuals, and a more equitable distribution of wealth and
resources based on equity and fairness is emphasized and encouraged. There is no one size fits all bill
here, and democratic socialism has been advocated in many quarters – a variant of this is known as
Fabian socialism, and this was advocated in India for decades along with dirigisme, and a centrally
planned economy or a mixed economy. Even the much touted model of democratic socialism appears to
have failed catastrophically, and is rarely or seldom followed in today’s world.
Problems with socialism and degrowth solutions
The following are the common problems and criticisms associated with both socialism and degrowth
policies. Of course, there could be, and indeed are many, many more. We only present the more
important and vital ones here, albeit from an environmental and to a significant extent, a technological
perspective:
1. It leads to over the top centralization: Socialism – communism being a more extreme form or
variant is inexorably associated with the concentration of political power at the top. In some
countries such as India, it began to be associated with bureaucracy and red tape. This puts it
somewhat at odds with dynamism, innovation and creativity which are so essential for tackling
environmental challenges.
2. It leads to arbitrariness and randomness in decision making: Socialism may lead to arbitrariness
and randomness in decision-making. This is because there are no checks and balances involved,
and because communism, even socialism, have bred dictatorships and authoritarian leaders.
This has almost always been the case, but with some minor exceptions. This stymies and hinders
true long-term progress
3. It is associated with planned development models which have failed already; over-centralized
economic models have failed for the most part, and this is for all practical purposes, a non-
controversial no-brainer. This is because such models by their very nature, tend to be non-
dynamic, and immune to market forces. Nations pursuing such economic development models
have tended to lag behind technologically, and technology is vital to solving environmental
problems.
4. It is notoriously hard to implement; it would create a large number of paradoxes, and make
leaders and politicians unpopular. This is because political and economic leaders want to do the
best for their people, and make their lot better. Therefore, degrowth is hard to implement and
make successful.
5. It is also unnatural because individuals and nations want to grow; there is a competition not only
among individuals, but also among nations. This is quite natural as a process, and it cannot be
done away with by any means and under any circumstances. For example, we have written
about identity theory, vested interests, conflicts of interest, and win win paradigms. We have
also written extensively about the clash of civilizations in the past. Socialism may interfere with
natural processes using artificial methods and techniques, and this is naturally unworkable.
7
6. It may at best have a minimal impact even if it works: Trying to reduce consumption through
artificial means may barely work as it has the propensity to conflict with human nature. Even if it
does indeed work, its effects may be both minimal and temporary. We will have to loosen the
noose at some point.
7. It may interfere with human rights: Socialism and communism have a notoriously bad human
right track record. According to the black book of communism, communism – at least
totalitarian communism, if not Fabian and democratic socialism, killed at least one hundred
million people either directly or indirectly through underproduction or artificially created
famines. This figure is only an approximation, and may not be completely reliable. The Soviet
gulags, the Chinese Great Leap forward, the Chinese Cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge under
Pol Pot or Saloth Sar also reportedly killed millions of people. These regimes undermined the
importance of intellectuals and intellectualism as well, to make matters worse.
8. It may also impact the poor adversely: An obsession and a preoccupation with socialism may
also impact the poor adversely. For example, China till 1978, and India till 1991 remained poor,
and hundreds of millions of people could not afford even the bare necessities. China became a
miracle economy and an industrial powerhouse only after socialism was abandoned, and India is
now growing at a relatively faster pace too. Therefore, degrowth solutions will adversely impact
the poor. The rich will anyways, manage.
9. Socialism may also lead to the perpetuation of middle class values: Socialism may also lead to
the perpetuation of middle class values, and boost consumerism and production. Therefore,
socialism cannot lead the world to a zero net emissions super system by itself, and without the
use of technology. Technology is a must for progress on environmental issues.
10. It ignores the importance of technology in solving environmental issues: When the degrowth
movement took off, solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy (all bundled together under the
term renewable) were nascent, or in their infancy. So were electric cars. Technology has
catapulted ahead since then, (even since the 2010’s for that matter) and the world may even be
on target to becoming a zero emissions ecosystem, without of course, the ideological overload
of socialism. Former communist nations were also associated with notoriously polluting
industries, but of course, there were the norm way back then. Some former communist nations
also promoted nuclear power – this technology is non-polluting, though it is associated with
other problems.
11. It may even hamper innovation and undermine technological progress: This is because few if
any technological solutions have come from socialist countries. There have of course been
exceptions here; for example, the former USSR was a world leader in space research and space
exploration besides a few other crucial and critical technologies. It however, badly lagged
behind in consumer products and many other vital technologies. They also eventually lagged
behind Asian growth tigers in terms of innovation, and Mikhail Gorbachev had to call for
Pererstroika and Glasnost in the 1980’s. Government-led innovation has failed badly for the
most part, though there have been stellar exceptions such as the Indian Space Research
Organization.
12. Socialism also leads to less efficient economies, and this will reduce the motivation of individuals
and organizations to think up of environmental solutions. As former British Prime Minister
6. It may at best have a minimal impact even if it works: Trying to reduce consumption through
artificial means may barely work as it has the propensity to conflict with human nature. Even if it
does indeed work, its effects may be both minimal and temporary. We will have to loosen the
noose at some point.
7. It may interfere with human rights: Socialism and communism have a notoriously bad human
right track record. According to the black book of communism, communism – at least
totalitarian communism, if not Fabian and democratic socialism, killed at least one hundred
million people either directly or indirectly through underproduction or artificially created
famines. This figure is only an approximation, and may not be completely reliable. The Soviet
gulags, the Chinese Great Leap forward, the Chinese Cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge under
Pol Pot or Saloth Sar also reportedly killed millions of people. These regimes undermined the
importance of intellectuals and intellectualism as well, to make matters worse.
8. It may also impact the poor adversely: An obsession and a preoccupation with socialism may
also impact the poor adversely. For example, China till 1978, and India till 1991 remained poor,
and hundreds of millions of people could not afford even the bare necessities. China became a
miracle economy and an industrial powerhouse only after socialism was abandoned, and India is
now growing at a relatively faster pace too. Therefore, degrowth solutions will adversely impact
the poor. The rich will anyways, manage.
9. Socialism may also lead to the perpetuation of middle class values: Socialism may also lead to
the perpetuation of middle class values, and boost consumerism and production. Therefore,
socialism cannot lead the world to a zero net emissions super system by itself, and without the
use of technology. Technology is a must for progress on environmental issues.
10. It ignores the importance of technology in solving environmental issues: When the degrowth
movement took off, solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy (all bundled together under the
term renewable) were nascent, or in their infancy. So were electric cars. Technology has
catapulted ahead since then, (even since the 2010’s for that matter) and the world may even be
on target to becoming a zero emissions ecosystem, without of course, the ideological overload
of socialism. Former communist nations were also associated with notoriously polluting
industries, but of course, there were the norm way back then. Some former communist nations
also promoted nuclear power – this technology is non-polluting, though it is associated with
other problems.
11. It may even hamper innovation and undermine technological progress: This is because few if
any technological solutions have come from socialist countries. There have of course been
exceptions here; for example, the former USSR was a world leader in space research and space
exploration besides a few other crucial and critical technologies. It however, badly lagged
behind in consumer products and many other vital technologies. They also eventually lagged
behind Asian growth tigers in terms of innovation, and Mikhail Gorbachev had to call for
Pererstroika and Glasnost in the 1980’s. Government-led innovation has failed badly for the
most part, though there have been stellar exceptions such as the Indian Space Research
Organization.
12. Socialism also leads to less efficient economies, and this will reduce the motivation of individuals
and organizations to think up of environmental solutions. As former British Prime Minister
8
Margaret Thatcher once put it, socialists will some day run out of other people’s money. Other
economists have proposed concepts such as the principle of self-interest, and concepts of a self-
regulating hand or a self-adjusting economy. The latter is also referred to sometimes as an
invisible hand. All principles and concepts however, will need to be validated and ratified on a
case to case basis.
13. Reduces incentives and motivation for work: Socialism also almost always reduces incentives
and motivation for work and productivity. In the former Soviet Union, for example, there were
endless shortages of bread and other essential commodities. As one individual put it, people
pretended to work, and the government pretended to pay them. This leads to less efficient
economies overall, and these will not be conducive to dynamic and creative thinking, least of all
for coming up with visionary environmental solutions.
14. Socialism, if anything also perpetuated the hegemony of the west, and prevented the rise of the
rest; all this only changed with the rise of globalization, which the left also incidentally opposed.
The left, is also interestingly, a bundle of startling contradictions and paradoxes. This will be
obvious from the fact that the rise of what was formerly called the third world, began only in the
1990’s and not in the 1950’s, when the process of decolonization began in right earnest.
15. Social security and welfarism: Of late, social security systems, and welfare states have
blossomed and flourished all over the world. These did not naturally exist during the time of Karl
Marx. These naturally dent the case for socialism, and undermine its position greatly. There are
now much better ways of achieving technological and civilizational progress today. Degrowth
proponents may be stuck in a time warp. We have critiqued Marxist forays into academic and
intellectual activities extensively in the past in the form of “The ten Gods that failed.” The very
fact that so much criticism exists implies that all concepts need to be thought through from
scratch, and from basics.
16. We had also proposed concepts such as the cultural limit, anthropological limit, cultural
equilibrium, and anthropological equilibrium. This will determine the rate and direction of
economic activity along with technology, technological productivity, technological efficiency,
economic productivity, and economic efficiency. This is a motor machine that cannot be stopped
or reversed through artificial means or methods.
The tragedy of commons
The Tragedy of the Commons as proposed by ecologist Garrett Hardin (who was also known for his
controversial pronouncements on population growth) in 1968, describes the depletion of a shared or a
common resource due to individuals acting in their own self-interest, and without restraint, ultimately
leading to the depletion of the resource for all parties concerned. This takes place because individuals
exploit public and pooled resources, which are scarce and non-replenishable, without considering the
long-term effects or their responsibility of their own unrestrained actions for the resource's long-term
and continued availability. Before Garrett Hardin, the great Greek thinker Aristotle discussed this
concept briefly, and Nobel-prize winning author Elinor Ostrom's eight design principles for
managing common-pool resources were clearly defined boundaries, proportional equivalence between
benefits and costs, collective-choice arrangements, effective monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-
Margaret Thatcher once put it, socialists will some day run out of other people’s money. Other
economists have proposed concepts such as the principle of self-interest, and concepts of a self-
regulating hand or a self-adjusting economy. The latter is also referred to sometimes as an
invisible hand. All principles and concepts however, will need to be validated and ratified on a
case to case basis.
13. Reduces incentives and motivation for work: Socialism also almost always reduces incentives
and motivation for work and productivity. In the former Soviet Union, for example, there were
endless shortages of bread and other essential commodities. As one individual put it, people
pretended to work, and the government pretended to pay them. This leads to less efficient
economies overall, and these will not be conducive to dynamic and creative thinking, least of all
for coming up with visionary environmental solutions.
14. Socialism, if anything also perpetuated the hegemony of the west, and prevented the rise of the
rest; all this only changed with the rise of globalization, which the left also incidentally opposed.
The left, is also interestingly, a bundle of startling contradictions and paradoxes. This will be
obvious from the fact that the rise of what was formerly called the third world, began only in the
1990’s and not in the 1950’s, when the process of decolonization began in right earnest.
15. Social security and welfarism: Of late, social security systems, and welfare states have
blossomed and flourished all over the world. These did not naturally exist during the time of Karl
Marx. These naturally dent the case for socialism, and undermine its position greatly. There are
now much better ways of achieving technological and civilizational progress today. Degrowth
proponents may be stuck in a time warp. We have critiqued Marxist forays into academic and
intellectual activities extensively in the past in the form of “The ten Gods that failed.” The very
fact that so much criticism exists implies that all concepts need to be thought through from
scratch, and from basics.
16. We had also proposed concepts such as the cultural limit, anthropological limit, cultural
equilibrium, and anthropological equilibrium. This will determine the rate and direction of
economic activity along with technology, technological productivity, technological efficiency,
economic productivity, and economic efficiency. This is a motor machine that cannot be stopped
or reversed through artificial means or methods.
The tragedy of commons
The Tragedy of the Commons as proposed by ecologist Garrett Hardin (who was also known for his
controversial pronouncements on population growth) in 1968, describes the depletion of a shared or a
common resource due to individuals acting in their own self-interest, and without restraint, ultimately
leading to the depletion of the resource for all parties concerned. This takes place because individuals
exploit public and pooled resources, which are scarce and non-replenishable, without considering the
long-term effects or their responsibility of their own unrestrained actions for the resource's long-term
and continued availability. Before Garrett Hardin, the great Greek thinker Aristotle discussed this
concept briefly, and Nobel-prize winning author Elinor Ostrom's eight design principles for
managing common-pool resources were clearly defined boundaries, proportional equivalence between
benefits and costs, collective-choice arrangements, effective monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-
9
resolution mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize, and nested enterprises. These
principles, detailed in her book "Governing the Commons," are crucial for the sustainable management
of shared resources by communities.
While this lesson teaches us the importance of self-responsibility, some other thinkers did discuss
breaking up of shared resources into private pools as a possible solution. Over-exploitation of the
earth’s natural resources is indeed extremely dangerous – but there are now ready solutions at hand
such as gradual and managed depopulation; this is not a distant pipedream, but a reality; it is an
inevitability, and is already happening at differing rates in almost half the world. This will also contribute
to sustainable development, which refers to the ability of present populations to meet their needs
without compromising or jeopardizing future generations to meet their own needs. This will also satisfy
the objectives of a circular economy. Let populations fall naturally; in many cases, low fertility rates
cannot even be reversed. Fertility rates are still high in Africa and other places; people can be coaxed
and cajoled into having less children, but only within democratic frameworks. They cannot be coerced
under any circumstances, as the ultimate choices in theirs. Socialists also fail to take into account an
important observation. Development is the best contraceptive. This catch phrase was popularized by
India’s Dr Karan Singh in 1974. It has been validated almost without exception from data taken from
most parts of the world.
16
17
18
19
20
2122
How technology will solve many but not all issues
Let us now discuss how mankind is already moving gradually – surely and inevitably towards sustainable
development frameworks and paradigms – not just unidimensionally, but in multiple, and in crucial and
path-breaking ways. These are not thing that could have been imagined in the early days – or what we
may call the heyday of the degrowth movement. In spite of all this, we may never move towards
perfectly sustainable development, or 100% renewables – metals and other commodities are non-
replenishable and non-renewable by their own very intrinsic nature. In spite of all this, it will become
possible to shift to circular economies not only because of new research and development on
alternative materials, but also naturally and gradually declining populations. New research is needed; at
the same time, new intellectualism is also needed to avoid dogma and Trump-like fiascos and
catastrophes.
The rise of renewables
Renewable energy which is also sometimes known as green energy or renewable, refers to various
forms of energy that are derived entirely from natural sources that can be replenished at the same or a
16
Bajema, Carl Jay. "Garrett James Hardin: Ecologist, educator, ethicist and environmentalist." Population & Environment 12.3 (1991): 193–212
17
Soroos, Marvin S. "Garrett Hardin and tragedies of global commons." Handbook of Global Environmental Politics (2005): 35–50
18
Hardin, Garrett (1982). "Chapter 22: Conservation's Secret Question". Naked Emperors. William Kaufmann, Inc. pp. 190–195
19
Ottinger, Gwen (2011). "Rupturing Engineering Education: Opportunities for Transforming Expert Identities Through Community-Based Projects". In Ottinger, Gwen; Cohen, Benjamin
(eds.). Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. MIT Press. pp. 229–248
20
Heidegger, Martin (1977). "The Question Concerning Technology". The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by Lovitt, W. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 25–26
21
Dietrich, Oliver; Notroff, Jens; Schmidt, Klaus (2017). "Feasting, Social Complexity, and the Emergence of the Early Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: A View from Göbekli Tepe". Feast,
Famine or Fighting?. Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation. Vol. 8. pp. 91–132
22
Guston, David H. (2000). Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. New York: Cambridge University Press
resolution mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize, and nested enterprises. These
principles, detailed in her book "Governing the Commons," are crucial for the sustainable management
of shared resources by communities.
While this lesson teaches us the importance of self-responsibility, some other thinkers did discuss
breaking up of shared resources into private pools as a possible solution. Over-exploitation of the
earth’s natural resources is indeed extremely dangerous – but there are now ready solutions at hand
such as gradual and managed depopulation; this is not a distant pipedream, but a reality; it is an
inevitability, and is already happening at differing rates in almost half the world. This will also contribute
to sustainable development, which refers to the ability of present populations to meet their needs
without compromising or jeopardizing future generations to meet their own needs. This will also satisfy
the objectives of a circular economy. Let populations fall naturally; in many cases, low fertility rates
cannot even be reversed. Fertility rates are still high in Africa and other places; people can be coaxed
and cajoled into having less children, but only within democratic frameworks. They cannot be coerced
under any circumstances, as the ultimate choices in theirs. Socialists also fail to take into account an
important observation. Development is the best contraceptive. This catch phrase was popularized by
India’s Dr Karan Singh in 1974. It has been validated almost without exception from data taken from
most parts of the world.
16
17
18
19
20
2122
How technology will solve many but not all issues
Let us now discuss how mankind is already moving gradually – surely and inevitably towards sustainable
development frameworks and paradigms – not just unidimensionally, but in multiple, and in crucial and
path-breaking ways. These are not thing that could have been imagined in the early days – or what we
may call the heyday of the degrowth movement. In spite of all this, we may never move towards
perfectly sustainable development, or 100% renewables – metals and other commodities are non-
replenishable and non-renewable by their own very intrinsic nature. In spite of all this, it will become
possible to shift to circular economies not only because of new research and development on
alternative materials, but also naturally and gradually declining populations. New research is needed; at
the same time, new intellectualism is also needed to avoid dogma and Trump-like fiascos and
catastrophes.
The rise of renewables
Renewable energy which is also sometimes known as green energy or renewable, refers to various
forms of energy that are derived entirely from natural sources that can be replenished at the same or a
16
Bajema, Carl Jay. "Garrett James Hardin: Ecologist, educator, ethicist and environmentalist." Population & Environment 12.3 (1991): 193–212
17
Soroos, Marvin S. "Garrett Hardin and tragedies of global commons." Handbook of Global Environmental Politics (2005): 35–50
18
Hardin, Garrett (1982). "Chapter 22: Conservation's Secret Question". Naked Emperors. William Kaufmann, Inc. pp. 190–195
19
Ottinger, Gwen (2011). "Rupturing Engineering Education: Opportunities for Transforming Expert Identities Through Community-Based Projects". In Ottinger, Gwen; Cohen, Benjamin
(eds.). Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. MIT Press. pp. 229–248
20
Heidegger, Martin (1977). "The Question Concerning Technology". The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by Lovitt, W. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 25–26
21
Dietrich, Oliver; Notroff, Jens; Schmidt, Klaus (2017). "Feasting, Social Complexity, and the Emergence of the Early Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: A View from Göbekli Tepe". Feast,
Famine or Fighting?. Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation. Vol. 8. pp. 91–132
22
Guston, David H. (2000). Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. New York: Cambridge University Press
10
higher rate than their consumption. Solar power, wind energy and ocean energy, for example, are
examples of such sources that do not pose a major environmental hazard. Hydropower, bioenergy
and geothermal power are also widely used in some countries. Some experts also consider nuclear
power a renewable power source, although this is controversial, given the fact that nuclear energy
requires mining uranium, which is a nonrenewable resource. Renewable energy has taken off in a big
way since 2000, and as of 2025 roughly half of India’s power generation comes from renewables. They
have become significantly cheaper too, undercutting coal in some cases. This is also because of rapidly
improving technology. For examples, perovskites and cadmium telluride have been used to male solar
cells better and cheaper. Roof top solar, community solar, concentrated solar power, space solar, and
floating solar have also have become more widespread. Wind energy is booming too, and has largely
become more efficient due to bigger and more efficient turbines. Tidal energy has taken off too, not in a
big way, though not at the same rate as solar and wind. Hydro energy, also known as hydropower or
water power, is an older but still widely used renewable energy source that uses the kinetic energy of
water to generate electricity: Hydropower is a renewable energy source because it does not reduce the
amount of water used to produce electricity, and for future requirements. Green hydrogen, a fully
renewable resource, is also being produced on a large scale, and this might change the future of
transportation one day. In some cases, bioenergy is also being produced from biomass. It share is
expected to rise in the coming years.
Electric cars have also taken off in a big way; they are cheaper, better and faster than ever before. In
addition to lithium ion batteries, lithium ferrous phosphate and sodium in batteries are being
increasingly used. Solid state batteries and aluminum ion batteries are also being explored. Some
countries want to transition away from fossil fuels completely. Hydrogen cars, also known as fuel cell
electric vehicles are also promising, though their mass adoption may take a while. The rise of bioplastic
is also an interesting phenomena. There are made entirely from renewable and organic sources.
Sustainable agriculture and regenerative agriculture are also taking off in a big way along with precision
farming and organic farming. Permaculture is taking off in a big way too, along with the use of
polyhouses, drip irrigation, and organic manure. Sustainable building and sustainable construction is
another area that is catching people’s attention, though real progress is some way off. We also then
have the rise of artificial meats along with better and less resource-intensive meat, dairy and poultry
practices. However, people may not shift to artificial meats due to cultural factors and the fear of over-
processed foods. This is something that we much warn as anthropologists. Other concepts such as
biopaper, and regenerative wood are also being explored, though progress in these areas is limited.
Some people are also exploring carbon capturing and sequestration methods, though these tend to be
relatively expensive. The end of coal is also being predicted, and the UK and Ireland have already said
goodbye to it. The end of other fossil fuels may also follow suit.
We will inevitably move towards a circular economy. A circular economy is a regenerative economic
structure that is designed to eliminate waste and pollution by recirculating products and materials for as
long as possible, or infinitely. It contrasts with the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" model. This is
achieved by implementing strategies like repair, reuse, refurbishment, and recycling to create a
continuous loop of resource use, thereby reducing reliance on new raw materials and promoting
higher rate than their consumption. Solar power, wind energy and ocean energy, for example, are
examples of such sources that do not pose a major environmental hazard. Hydropower, bioenergy
and geothermal power are also widely used in some countries. Some experts also consider nuclear
power a renewable power source, although this is controversial, given the fact that nuclear energy
requires mining uranium, which is a nonrenewable resource. Renewable energy has taken off in a big
way since 2000, and as of 2025 roughly half of India’s power generation comes from renewables. They
have become significantly cheaper too, undercutting coal in some cases. This is also because of rapidly
improving technology. For examples, perovskites and cadmium telluride have been used to male solar
cells better and cheaper. Roof top solar, community solar, concentrated solar power, space solar, and
floating solar have also have become more widespread. Wind energy is booming too, and has largely
become more efficient due to bigger and more efficient turbines. Tidal energy has taken off too, not in a
big way, though not at the same rate as solar and wind. Hydro energy, also known as hydropower or
water power, is an older but still widely used renewable energy source that uses the kinetic energy of
water to generate electricity: Hydropower is a renewable energy source because it does not reduce the
amount of water used to produce electricity, and for future requirements. Green hydrogen, a fully
renewable resource, is also being produced on a large scale, and this might change the future of
transportation one day. In some cases, bioenergy is also being produced from biomass. It share is
expected to rise in the coming years.
Electric cars have also taken off in a big way; they are cheaper, better and faster than ever before. In
addition to lithium ion batteries, lithium ferrous phosphate and sodium in batteries are being
increasingly used. Solid state batteries and aluminum ion batteries are also being explored. Some
countries want to transition away from fossil fuels completely. Hydrogen cars, also known as fuel cell
electric vehicles are also promising, though their mass adoption may take a while. The rise of bioplastic
is also an interesting phenomena. There are made entirely from renewable and organic sources.
Sustainable agriculture and regenerative agriculture are also taking off in a big way along with precision
farming and organic farming. Permaculture is taking off in a big way too, along with the use of
polyhouses, drip irrigation, and organic manure. Sustainable building and sustainable construction is
another area that is catching people’s attention, though real progress is some way off. We also then
have the rise of artificial meats along with better and less resource-intensive meat, dairy and poultry
practices. However, people may not shift to artificial meats due to cultural factors and the fear of over-
processed foods. This is something that we much warn as anthropologists. Other concepts such as
biopaper, and regenerative wood are also being explored, though progress in these areas is limited.
Some people are also exploring carbon capturing and sequestration methods, though these tend to be
relatively expensive. The end of coal is also being predicted, and the UK and Ireland have already said
goodbye to it. The end of other fossil fuels may also follow suit.
We will inevitably move towards a circular economy. A circular economy is a regenerative economic
structure that is designed to eliminate waste and pollution by recirculating products and materials for as
long as possible, or infinitely. It contrasts with the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" model. This is
achieved by implementing strategies like repair, reuse, refurbishment, and recycling to create a
continuous loop of resource use, thereby reducing reliance on new raw materials and promoting
11
environmental sustainability by reducing the pollution that is associated with the production of
resources. This kind of an economy may become more likely as populations fall gradually in due course.
This kind of an economy is also known as a regenerative economy.
There are other alternatives to laissez-faire capitalism, which is its traditional and canonical form, may
already be passé, or may be doomed to fail. We have advocated trickle up bottom up growth models
particularly for developing countries with large inequalities. These may eventually come to pass, as
more and more countries change their economic development models. While increased economic
activity may lead to more resource consumption, populations will most like fall, and technology will
most likely improve. These will prove to be a major compensating factor. This can also happen due to
the emergence of grassroots movements such as the solar mamas movement and the movement led by
Wangari Mathai, self help groups, poverty reduction programs, better education, and just and fair
taxation. There are via media solutions always possible, particularly for developing countries. We need
more investment in technology, and more mass afforestation movements. For example, the Indian state
of Telangana has launched an afforestation programme called Haritha Haram, and Saudi Arabia is
planning to green its desert as well. Public transportation must be made available and incentivized if
necessary, though its use made optional. There must be a broad range of incentives made available to
individuals and companies for adopting sustainable development models. We had also proposed a
concept called the human trusteeship of the planet principle, though this may take some time to take
hold and take root.
23
24
Population management
We now provide some suitable examples where pronatalist policies have not worked. We now provide
some examples below as of the year 2025. South Korea's Total Fertility Rate is currently the lowest
recorded worldwide, now said to at around 0.68 children, significantly below the replacement level of
2.1 children per woman. While minor rebounds have been noticed, the situation remains largely
unchanged. Populations are expected to age, shrink, and even halve by the end of the present century.
Pronatalist policies have also not helped significantly. Japan’s TFR is much higher than South Korea’s, at
around 1.2 children per woman, though it is also rapidly ageing. Pronatalist policies in Japan have largely
failed for several years. The causes of low fertility may however vary on a case to case basis, and
ethnography-driven and data-driven research is required as each case may be different. China’s TFR
currently hovers at the one child woman mark. China once has a one child policy which was revised to
two, and then three children per woman. Pronatalist policies such as baby bonuses, and maternity leave
(even paternity leave) are barely helping. TFR’s in Macau, Taiwan and Singapore are below one child per
woman, and even Thailand and Malaysia are now below replacement. The same is the case for Europe,
and among all European nations, Italy and Spain are the lowest. The TFR in USA has tended to buck the
trend, though it is now falling. The TFR in Canada is lower than the USA, though it is now flooded by
immigrants, particularly Indian ones. The TFR in Australia, and the TFR in New Zealand are low too, and
23
Kutscher, Charles F.; Milford, Jana B.; Kreith, Frank (2019). Principles of sustainable energy systems. Mechanical and aerospace engineering (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group
24
Petter Jelle, Bjørn; Breivik, Christer; Drolsum Røkenes, Hilde (May 2012). "Building integrated photovoltaic products: A state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities". Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells. 100: 69–96
environmental sustainability by reducing the pollution that is associated with the production of
resources. This kind of an economy may become more likely as populations fall gradually in due course.
This kind of an economy is also known as a regenerative economy.
There are other alternatives to laissez-faire capitalism, which is its traditional and canonical form, may
already be passé, or may be doomed to fail. We have advocated trickle up bottom up growth models
particularly for developing countries with large inequalities. These may eventually come to pass, as
more and more countries change their economic development models. While increased economic
activity may lead to more resource consumption, populations will most like fall, and technology will
most likely improve. These will prove to be a major compensating factor. This can also happen due to
the emergence of grassroots movements such as the solar mamas movement and the movement led by
Wangari Mathai, self help groups, poverty reduction programs, better education, and just and fair
taxation. There are via media solutions always possible, particularly for developing countries. We need
more investment in technology, and more mass afforestation movements. For example, the Indian state
of Telangana has launched an afforestation programme called Haritha Haram, and Saudi Arabia is
planning to green its desert as well. Public transportation must be made available and incentivized if
necessary, though its use made optional. There must be a broad range of incentives made available to
individuals and companies for adopting sustainable development models. We had also proposed a
concept called the human trusteeship of the planet principle, though this may take some time to take
hold and take root.
23
24
Population management
We now provide some suitable examples where pronatalist policies have not worked. We now provide
some examples below as of the year 2025. South Korea's Total Fertility Rate is currently the lowest
recorded worldwide, now said to at around 0.68 children, significantly below the replacement level of
2.1 children per woman. While minor rebounds have been noticed, the situation remains largely
unchanged. Populations are expected to age, shrink, and even halve by the end of the present century.
Pronatalist policies have also not helped significantly. Japan’s TFR is much higher than South Korea’s, at
around 1.2 children per woman, though it is also rapidly ageing. Pronatalist policies in Japan have largely
failed for several years. The causes of low fertility may however vary on a case to case basis, and
ethnography-driven and data-driven research is required as each case may be different. China’s TFR
currently hovers at the one child woman mark. China once has a one child policy which was revised to
two, and then three children per woman. Pronatalist policies such as baby bonuses, and maternity leave
(even paternity leave) are barely helping. TFR’s in Macau, Taiwan and Singapore are below one child per
woman, and even Thailand and Malaysia are now below replacement. The same is the case for Europe,
and among all European nations, Italy and Spain are the lowest. The TFR in USA has tended to buck the
trend, though it is now falling. The TFR in Canada is lower than the USA, though it is now flooded by
immigrants, particularly Indian ones. The TFR in Australia, and the TFR in New Zealand are low too, and
23
Kutscher, Charles F.; Milford, Jana B.; Kreith, Frank (2019). Principles of sustainable energy systems. Mechanical and aerospace engineering (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group
24
Petter Jelle, Bjørn; Breivik, Christer; Drolsum Røkenes, Hilde (May 2012). "Building integrated photovoltaic products: A state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities". Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells. 100: 69–96
12
are well below replacement, just as they are below all developed countries, and many developing
countries. Many nations have therefore been trying out pronatalist policies for years, sometimes even
decades with limited to no success. Therefore, let populations fall naturally; there are many ways to deal
with low fertility rates as we had discussed previously.
25
26
The myth of sustainable development
There is myth of perfectly sustainable development. While the world is racing towards a new zero
carbon dioxide emissions environment with coal and to a lesser extent fossil fuels already being phased
out, it is a myth that humans will ever be able to live in perfect and absolute harmony with the
environment, though they can, and indeed must try. Solar power is vastly better for the environment
than unabated coal – by several orders of magnitude and must indeed be promoted at any costs.
However, solar cells contain some toxic elements such as nickel and cadmium and must be recycled.
Plastics are another nightmare, and so is paper. Bioplastics involve agriculture, and so does bagasse
based paper production. While there are indeed solutions to every problem which must be aggressively
promote, there is always some trade off involved. Even lithium ion batteries involve rare earth
materials, upcoming sodium ion batteries promise to be a whole lot better though. Electric cars are also
only as clear as the power that produces them. We must ditch coal and fossil fuels first. Agriculture
degrades the environment and consumes natural resources such as water, and so does livestock and
poultry. Some people promote veganism, but this involves cultural changes and may not happen for the
most part. The world’s top most polluting industries include aviation, fashion, and construction which
may not become green any time soon. As people get richer and richer, the environmental footprint
created by sectors such as aviation will increase rapidly. Therefore, humans will create an environmental
footprint always. If humans want to maintain high standards of living, there must be some trade off;
socialism has largely failed, but there are other solutions available, both technological and non-
technological. Humans must exercise reproductive and non-reproductive restraint, though technology
must play a crucial and a critical part.
As world populations inevitably and eventually fall, we will attain our goals of a circular economy. We
will also inevitably attain our goals of achieving a regenerative economy. A regenerative economy is an
economic system that is extensively focused on restoring and improving the health of social and
ecological systems, rather than extracting resources mindlessly and senselessly and causing resource
depletion. This idea borrows heavily from the concept of regenerative agriculture and views the
economy as a living system that must be in a healthy, symbiotic relationship with nature. Key principles
and requirements of a regenerative economy include circularity, cooperation, sufficiency, participatory
empowerment, and a focus on overall human and ecological well-being to create long-term resilience
and prosperity. These goals can also be achieved as populations fall. Desertification can be reversed in
many parts of the world such as Africa, China and India, and major afforestation projects launched all
over the world.
25
Craig, J (1994). "Replacement level fertility and future population growth". Population Trends (78): 20–22
26
Kligman, Gail. "Political Demography: The Banning of Abortion in Ceausescu's Romania". In Ginsburg, Faye D.; Rapp, Rayna, eds. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of
Reproduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995 :234–255. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE KIE/49442
are well below replacement, just as they are below all developed countries, and many developing
countries. Many nations have therefore been trying out pronatalist policies for years, sometimes even
decades with limited to no success. Therefore, let populations fall naturally; there are many ways to deal
with low fertility rates as we had discussed previously.
25
26
The myth of sustainable development
There is myth of perfectly sustainable development. While the world is racing towards a new zero
carbon dioxide emissions environment with coal and to a lesser extent fossil fuels already being phased
out, it is a myth that humans will ever be able to live in perfect and absolute harmony with the
environment, though they can, and indeed must try. Solar power is vastly better for the environment
than unabated coal – by several orders of magnitude and must indeed be promoted at any costs.
However, solar cells contain some toxic elements such as nickel and cadmium and must be recycled.
Plastics are another nightmare, and so is paper. Bioplastics involve agriculture, and so does bagasse
based paper production. While there are indeed solutions to every problem which must be aggressively
promote, there is always some trade off involved. Even lithium ion batteries involve rare earth
materials, upcoming sodium ion batteries promise to be a whole lot better though. Electric cars are also
only as clear as the power that produces them. We must ditch coal and fossil fuels first. Agriculture
degrades the environment and consumes natural resources such as water, and so does livestock and
poultry. Some people promote veganism, but this involves cultural changes and may not happen for the
most part. The world’s top most polluting industries include aviation, fashion, and construction which
may not become green any time soon. As people get richer and richer, the environmental footprint
created by sectors such as aviation will increase rapidly. Therefore, humans will create an environmental
footprint always. If humans want to maintain high standards of living, there must be some trade off;
socialism has largely failed, but there are other solutions available, both technological and non-
technological. Humans must exercise reproductive and non-reproductive restraint, though technology
must play a crucial and a critical part.
As world populations inevitably and eventually fall, we will attain our goals of a circular economy. We
will also inevitably attain our goals of achieving a regenerative economy. A regenerative economy is an
economic system that is extensively focused on restoring and improving the health of social and
ecological systems, rather than extracting resources mindlessly and senselessly and causing resource
depletion. This idea borrows heavily from the concept of regenerative agriculture and views the
economy as a living system that must be in a healthy, symbiotic relationship with nature. Key principles
and requirements of a regenerative economy include circularity, cooperation, sufficiency, participatory
empowerment, and a focus on overall human and ecological well-being to create long-term resilience
and prosperity. These goals can also be achieved as populations fall. Desertification can be reversed in
many parts of the world such as Africa, China and India, and major afforestation projects launched all
over the world.
25
Craig, J (1994). "Replacement level fertility and future population growth". Population Trends (78): 20–22
26
Kligman, Gail. "Political Demography: The Banning of Abortion in Ceausescu's Romania". In Ginsburg, Faye D.; Rapp, Rayna, eds. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of
Reproduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995 :234–255. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE KIE/49442
13
What is the way forward?
So what is the way forward? We have had many successes in the environmental movement as discussed
in our previous papers and publications, and earlier in this one. We will be faced with the problem of
expanding per capita footprint for a long time, perhaps even forever. This would of course depend on
how technology progresses and matures. We may or may not reach a carbon-neutral economy by 2070,
but we will remain a nuisance for the environment for a long time to come, perhaps virtually forever.
Need new metrics and measurements both in population management and in environmental
management, and in relation to these two put together. We particularly need new metrics and
measurements for India and other developing countries. This may be a time consuming process, but it
must be done. For example, we may measure changes in population tendencies, population densities in
relation to natural resources endowments, TFR by sociocultural groups, TFR by socioeconomic groups,
TFR for occupational groups, TFR based on income levels, TFRs based on parents educational
attainment, correlation (positive or negative) between TFR’s and parents ability to educate their
children.
The natures of economies are also not exactly the same worldwide. For example, India is not a primarily
consumption driven economy like the USA, and even Japan is different from the USA. Likewise, South
Korea is different from Japan. In India, we have plenty of reserve labour particularly of the unskilled
variety which will keep it growing for a long time to come. However, internal migration within India may
be an inevitability. In India we have chronic underutilization of labour and chronic underemployment
(disguised and shadow unemployment) which is a huge untapped reserve for future economic growth.
We also have poor-quality education in India, and improving the quality of education on the lines we
have been discussing all along, will greatly improve economic outcomes, and expand economic
opportunities for its citizens. We have crowded cities and crumbling infrastructure in India and all these
must be borne in mind as well. The impact of better education on resource consumption patterns, and
the impact of increased consumption on the environment also need to be understood. The impact of
different TFRs on different types of economic activities and wealth creation patterns also likewise needs
to be understood. All these need to be evaluated scientifically, and on a case to case basis through
better ethnographic methods. We need scientific method, proper epistemology, and epistemic
coherentism. There can be no one size fits all approach, and we must be aware of the dangers and
limitations of copy paste scholarship. Synchronic diachronic analysis must also be performed wherever
possible. Studies may be required on the impact of low birth rates on different types of economies and
studies may be required on the impact of affluence on the environment . A negative correlation must be
established between population growth and the impact on the environment. Success stories must be
studied and replicated. For example, Tamil Nadu has been doing well in spite of a low birth rate.
We also propose to categorize activities (for the purpose of any environmental study, and particularly in
relation to populations, though not always) into the following three categories:
Type A activities: Type A activities may refer to those activities whose effects we may counter or
significantly mitigate though scientific progress, or existing and anticipated technology. For example we
may do away with fossil fuels completely and switch to electric propulsion, hydrogen vehicles, wind and
What is the way forward?
So what is the way forward? We have had many successes in the environmental movement as discussed
in our previous papers and publications, and earlier in this one. We will be faced with the problem of
expanding per capita footprint for a long time, perhaps even forever. This would of course depend on
how technology progresses and matures. We may or may not reach a carbon-neutral economy by 2070,
but we will remain a nuisance for the environment for a long time to come, perhaps virtually forever.
Need new metrics and measurements both in population management and in environmental
management, and in relation to these two put together. We particularly need new metrics and
measurements for India and other developing countries. This may be a time consuming process, but it
must be done. For example, we may measure changes in population tendencies, population densities in
relation to natural resources endowments, TFR by sociocultural groups, TFR by socioeconomic groups,
TFR for occupational groups, TFR based on income levels, TFRs based on parents educational
attainment, correlation (positive or negative) between TFR’s and parents ability to educate their
children.
The natures of economies are also not exactly the same worldwide. For example, India is not a primarily
consumption driven economy like the USA, and even Japan is different from the USA. Likewise, South
Korea is different from Japan. In India, we have plenty of reserve labour particularly of the unskilled
variety which will keep it growing for a long time to come. However, internal migration within India may
be an inevitability. In India we have chronic underutilization of labour and chronic underemployment
(disguised and shadow unemployment) which is a huge untapped reserve for future economic growth.
We also have poor-quality education in India, and improving the quality of education on the lines we
have been discussing all along, will greatly improve economic outcomes, and expand economic
opportunities for its citizens. We have crowded cities and crumbling infrastructure in India and all these
must be borne in mind as well. The impact of better education on resource consumption patterns, and
the impact of increased consumption on the environment also need to be understood. The impact of
different TFRs on different types of economic activities and wealth creation patterns also likewise needs
to be understood. All these need to be evaluated scientifically, and on a case to case basis through
better ethnographic methods. We need scientific method, proper epistemology, and epistemic
coherentism. There can be no one size fits all approach, and we must be aware of the dangers and
limitations of copy paste scholarship. Synchronic diachronic analysis must also be performed wherever
possible. Studies may be required on the impact of low birth rates on different types of economies and
studies may be required on the impact of affluence on the environment . A negative correlation must be
established between population growth and the impact on the environment. Success stories must be
studied and replicated. For example, Tamil Nadu has been doing well in spite of a low birth rate.
We also propose to categorize activities (for the purpose of any environmental study, and particularly in
relation to populations, though not always) into the following three categories:
Type A activities: Type A activities may refer to those activities whose effects we may counter or
significantly mitigate though scientific progress, or existing and anticipated technology. For example we
may do away with fossil fuels completely and switch to electric propulsion, hydrogen vehicles, wind and
14
solar energy. Nuclear energy too holds some promise, though it is not without its attendant dangers. We
may therefore achieve a carbon neutral economy in due course, say by the year 2070. In such a case,
metrics and measurements are also easy to develop and use. This might pose no dangers at all. We
might claim victory here for the time being.
Type B activities: Type B activities include activities such as agriculture, livestock rearing, fishing and
poultry farming. These activities are directly related to human consumption, but are relatively difficult to
control and measure. Technological progress will be limited here, though some is indeed possible. For
example, drip irrigation and organic farming may help to some extent and degree. The negative impacts
of these activities will therefore increase more or less linearly with increases in population, including
due to increases in land requirements. However, they may not increase linearly with affluence. This is
because of the income elasticity of demand, a cornerstone of traditional and classical economics. Rich
people tend to splurge more money on other goods, and this will have different kinds of impacts on the
environment.
Type C activities: Type C activities refer to indirect activities whose expansion will be curtailed or
derailed with expansions in population, though not directly. These cannot be easily or directly measured
to increases in population. For example, population increases may curtail afforestation efforts, as more
agricultural land will be required as well as more land for housing. Even if we adopt vertical growth
models, ground water restoration will be impacted. Population growth will naturally lead to
desertification, and encroachment of deserts on human habitats, though not uniformly in all places.
There are some places on earth where this is already happening.
Therefore, from the above analysis we can easily infer and understand that humans will never be able to
live in perfect harmony with the environment. We may at best make some progress. Countries may not
be able to raise their populations through artificial mechanisms as these will mostly fail. Our best bet is
to improve the quality of education systems – as these will greatly boost economic growth. However,
even this may have some negative impact on the environment. The effects of this will gradually be
countered as populations begin to decline. We have had metrics such as environmental footprints and
ecological footprints in the recent past. We must gravitate towards consumption analysis based models
in environmental studies, sooner than later. The sooner, the better. Our weapons are therefore
technology, better research and development, gradual depopulation as it is already happening, suitable
and appropriate government policy (most importantly workable policy), with government services as an
option – for example, example public transportation. We must also promote afforestation and other
ecological movements on a large scale through private or private-public initiatives– there are indeed
global warming hotspots, and we also always need localized solutions in addition to broader and more
general ones- for example, we have the Himalayan glacier melting which can wreck havoc in the lives of
millions of people by leading to the drying up of crucial rivers– We must shift towards a circular
economy and a regenerative economy in the long run, and this is indeed largely possible over time. This
is also something that could not have been anticipated just a few decades ago. In all likelihood, we will
see far more impressive progress in the next couple of decades before the rate and pace of progress
begins to gradually taper off and wither away.
solar energy. Nuclear energy too holds some promise, though it is not without its attendant dangers. We
may therefore achieve a carbon neutral economy in due course, say by the year 2070. In such a case,
metrics and measurements are also easy to develop and use. This might pose no dangers at all. We
might claim victory here for the time being.
Type B activities: Type B activities include activities such as agriculture, livestock rearing, fishing and
poultry farming. These activities are directly related to human consumption, but are relatively difficult to
control and measure. Technological progress will be limited here, though some is indeed possible. For
example, drip irrigation and organic farming may help to some extent and degree. The negative impacts
of these activities will therefore increase more or less linearly with increases in population, including
due to increases in land requirements. However, they may not increase linearly with affluence. This is
because of the income elasticity of demand, a cornerstone of traditional and classical economics. Rich
people tend to splurge more money on other goods, and this will have different kinds of impacts on the
environment.
Type C activities: Type C activities refer to indirect activities whose expansion will be curtailed or
derailed with expansions in population, though not directly. These cannot be easily or directly measured
to increases in population. For example, population increases may curtail afforestation efforts, as more
agricultural land will be required as well as more land for housing. Even if we adopt vertical growth
models, ground water restoration will be impacted. Population growth will naturally lead to
desertification, and encroachment of deserts on human habitats, though not uniformly in all places.
There are some places on earth where this is already happening.
Therefore, from the above analysis we can easily infer and understand that humans will never be able to
live in perfect harmony with the environment. We may at best make some progress. Countries may not
be able to raise their populations through artificial mechanisms as these will mostly fail. Our best bet is
to improve the quality of education systems – as these will greatly boost economic growth. However,
even this may have some negative impact on the environment. The effects of this will gradually be
countered as populations begin to decline. We have had metrics such as environmental footprints and
ecological footprints in the recent past. We must gravitate towards consumption analysis based models
in environmental studies, sooner than later. The sooner, the better. Our weapons are therefore
technology, better research and development, gradual depopulation as it is already happening, suitable
and appropriate government policy (most importantly workable policy), with government services as an
option – for example, example public transportation. We must also promote afforestation and other
ecological movements on a large scale through private or private-public initiatives– there are indeed
global warming hotspots, and we also always need localized solutions in addition to broader and more
general ones- for example, we have the Himalayan glacier melting which can wreck havoc in the lives of
millions of people by leading to the drying up of crucial rivers– We must shift towards a circular
economy and a regenerative economy in the long run, and this is indeed largely possible over time. This
is also something that could not have been anticipated just a few decades ago. In all likelihood, we will
see far more impressive progress in the next couple of decades before the rate and pace of progress
begins to gradually taper off and wither away.
15
Conclusion
The core objective of this paper was to trace the history of the degrowth movement, define its broad
and overarching principles, goals and objectives, and to show why the idea is almost always likely to fail
given the fact that it is intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to human nature, the natural tendencies
of economies to grow, and also because it leads to governmental interference, inefficiency, and
arbitrariness. We therefore not only discussed the different types of degrowth proposals made, but also
delved into the various drawbacks and deficiencies of degrowth movements in depth. We therefore also
proposed in this paper that investments in technology, public resources, afforestation and land
restoration, population management, and other ecological movements would be the only way to tackle
the growing menace of global warming and climate change. We also discussed the concepts of
sustainable development, circular economy, and regenerative economics in this paper. We also
discussed the state of various technologies such as sustainable power generation, sustainable
transportation, sustainable construction, bioplastic, biopaper, and other technologies besides reviewing
their limitations. While perfectly sustainable development is a myth and a mirage, we can slowly inch
towards a circular economy in the long-term. This paper therefore lies at the intersection of our
publications on the environmental movement and population management, and might as such help to
initiate some course-corrections in public debate and thought.
Conclusion
The core objective of this paper was to trace the history of the degrowth movement, define its broad
and overarching principles, goals and objectives, and to show why the idea is almost always likely to fail
given the fact that it is intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to human nature, the natural tendencies
of economies to grow, and also because it leads to governmental interference, inefficiency, and
arbitrariness. We therefore not only discussed the different types of degrowth proposals made, but also
delved into the various drawbacks and deficiencies of degrowth movements in depth. We therefore also
proposed in this paper that investments in technology, public resources, afforestation and land
restoration, population management, and other ecological movements would be the only way to tackle
the growing menace of global warming and climate change. We also discussed the concepts of
sustainable development, circular economy, and regenerative economics in this paper. We also
discussed the state of various technologies such as sustainable power generation, sustainable
transportation, sustainable construction, bioplastic, biopaper, and other technologies besides reviewing
their limitations. While perfectly sustainable development is a myth and a mirage, we can slowly inch
towards a circular economy in the long-term. This paper therefore lies at the intersection of our
publications on the environmental movement and population management, and might as such help to
initiate some course-corrections in public debate and thought.
Categories
GeneralDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 367
- Slides 15
- Age 95 days
Related Slideshows
22
Pray For The Peace Of Jerusalem and You Will Prosper
RodolfoMoralesMarcuc
30 views
26
Don_t_Waste_Your_Life_God.....powerpoint
chalobrido8
32 views
31
VILLASUR_FACTORS_TO_CONSIDER_IN_PLATING_SALAD_10-13.pdf
JaiJai148317
30 views
14
Fertility awareness methods for women in the society
Isaiah47
29 views
35
Chapter 5 Arithmetic Functions Computer Organisation and Architecture
RitikSharma297999
26 views
5
syakira bhasa inggris (1) (1).pptx.......
ourcommunity56
28 views