The Fallacy of Infinite Growth: Rethinking Economic Progress in the Anthropocene
Abstract
The Anthropocene further sees a critique of the paradigm of infinite economic growth, whereby pressing environmental degradation and obvious social inequalities have kept on exposing the limits of conventional economics time and again. It traces a genealogy of growth-centric economics, focusing on its theoretical underpinning in neoclassical economics but underlining that it has failed to consider planetary boundaries as premises, for example, Rockström et al. (2009). It further talks about how growth leads to global inequalities piling up in the Global North while the Global South has to deal with its environmental negative costs. Further, this article is going to propose a model of degrowth-reduced consumption, social equity, and environmental sustainability. Case studies on Barcelona’s Urban Degrowth Initiatives, Gross National Happiness of Bhutan, and a 35-hour workweek of France demonstrate the practicalities of degrowth. It also encompasses the critiques, including those on economic stability and political feasibility, and advances the case for reforms that would provide the well-being without growth, such as universal basic services or circular economies. This article concludes by calling for a redefinition of prosperity in terms of well-being metrics rather than GDP, underlining that a post-growth society could offer a more sustainable and equitable future.
1. The concept of an environmental constraint could be explained more clearly.
While the article mentions environmental degradation and resource scarcity, it
might be helpful to define a formal limit to support the discussion of degrowth.
2. If the degrowth framework were to be implemented, it would be useful to clarify
how wealth redistribution might work in practice. The article touches on
redistribution, but more detail on possible mechanisms or policies could
strengthen the argument.
3. Some of the proposed public policy measures are already being implemented in
various contexts, often promoting renewable energy investment, which can also
support economic growth. It could be interesting to explore whether ecological
goals might be achieved through green growth as well as degrowth.
4. The argument seems to suggest that if the Global North slows its growth while the
Global South continues to expand, the overall outcome would be more
sustainable. Examining this assumption in more depth could help clarify the
potential impacts.
5. The rationale for pursuing degrowth at a national or global level, rather than
targeting the most polluting industries, might benefit from further explanation.
This could help readers understand why a broader approach is preferred.
6. Population dynamics are not discussed in detail. Considering how population size
interacts with resource use and environmental impact could add valuable
context.
7. The case studies provided are quite localized and small-scale. Including more
diverse or larger-scale examples could help support the argument for degrowth as
a global strategy, particularly in the Global North.
8. Exploring how industrial production and highly polluting sectors could adapt
within a degrowth framework might strengthen the practical applicability of the
article’s ideas.