Ever since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the societal mission has been endless economic growth.\u00a0 Every country wants to report that its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose. It didn\u2019t matter if the workers exhausted their health or if many products were harmful (guns, cigarettes).<\/p>\n
Marketers played an important role in pumping up the economic growth engine.\u00a0 It was not enough just to produce an endless stream of products.\u00a0 The product had to be sold to get counted in GDP. Marketers made their best use of advertising, salesmen, promotion, and pricing to get all the product sold.<\/p>\n
Only in recent years have criticisms arisen about the pursuit of endless economic growth.\u00a0 Some critics wondered if non-stop Capitalism was harming or depleting our natural resources and causing poorer soil and the loss of important minerals.\u00a0 Other critics worried that industrial activity was producing pollution and hurting our air and water. Finally, some critics accused endless growth as threatening the survival of our Planet.<\/p>\n
The emergence of sustainability raised the question of the Planet\u2019s survival. Sustainability is the hope that our economic activity today would leave the next generation with as good or even a better life quality than our generation.<\/p>\n
The sad truth is that sustainability is now less likely to be achieved.\u00a0 We have learned that industrial and consumer activity generate so much carbon and greenhouse gas emissions that the earth will inevitably heat up. People living near the equator will find it difficult to breathe. They will flee to cooler climates and overwhelm urban areas with growing shortages of food, clothing and shelter.\u00a0 As the Planet warms, the climate worsens with more intense hurricanes, floods, wildfires and soil blanching, all of which contribute further to the growing deficit of food, clothing and shelter.<\/p>\n
The Limits to Growth Study<\/strong><\/p>\n The problem of endless economic growth was highly debated in the 1970s under the name Limits to Growth (LTG).\u00a0 The Limits to Growth is a 1972 report studying the consequences of interactions between the earth and human systems.\u00a0 The report used computer simulation to project the impact of exponential economic and population growth on the earth\u2019s finite supply of resources.\u00a0 The findings were reported by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, J\u00f8rgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III.\u00a0 The report warned that, without substantial changes in resource consumption, “the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity”.<\/p>\n The simulation model used five variables: population, food production, industrialization, pollution, and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources.\u200a All these variables were increasing and were assumed to continue growing exponentially, while the ability of technology to increase resources grew only linearly. The authors examined three scenarios. Two of the scenarios saw “overshoot and collapse” of the global system by the mid- to latter-part of the 21st century, while a third scenario resulted in a “stabilized world”. A subsequent review held that if the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continued unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.<\/p>\n Critics complained that the entire endeavor behind Limits to Growth was to get economies to slow their growth rate. Many critics rejected the idea of limiting consumption and held that technological advances will solve all the so-called problems of resource depletion. As a precious resource ran down, its price would rise and humans would use less and be motivated to find substitute materials. Critics warned that intervention and restraint of growth would be bad moves and \u201cconsign billions to permanent poverty\u201d.<\/p>\n Four groups saw the LTG findings to be a threat: businesses, professional economists, the Catholic Church that promoted high population growth, and the political left who worried that workers would no longer believe that a proletarian paradise would be possible.<\/p>\n Yet others saw LTG as a rigorous and creditable study that sadly lost 30 years of necessary action. They held that endless economic growth on a finite planet will ultimately lead to an overshoot of the Earth\u2019s support capacity or a societal collapse.<\/p>\n What Can Be Done<\/strong><\/p>\n Marketers were specifically blamed for the endless growth of consumption. Marketers used their art and scientific tools to nudge consumers into endless buying. Marketers were in no position to tell their companies to slow down consumption. For their livelihood, commercial marketers must push for endless consumption.<\/p>\n Will some companies willingly slow down their production and consumption to protect the planet from over warming?\u00a0 This is unlikely. Most companies want to pursue strong profits. Companies need profits to satisfy their investors if they are to obtain needed capital. They need profits to provide jobs and money for workers and consumers.<\/p>\n This leaves primarily government as the force that might restrain endless economic growth.\u00a0 Governments could propose policies to slow down population growth and convince families to have fewer children. Government might put limits on car production on the grounds that not everyone needs to have a car. Government might discourage the introduction of new models of products that really don\u2019t make the product much better.<\/p>\n Some consumers may also join the movement to slow down consumption. These consumers would reject the mantra \u201cMore is Better.\u201d\u00a0 People buy more clothes than they need, eat more food than they need, and many have more housing than they need. Some consumers may escape from this Capitalist plot by buying less and believing that \u201cLess is More.\u201d\u00a0 They might keep their car longer and wear their clothes longer before replacement. They might eat less and choose to diet more and exercise more.\u00a0 They may grow to a new consciousness that \u201cless is more.\u201d<\/p>\n This new consciousness of \u201cless is more\u201d won\u2019t come from commercial marketers, it might come from social marketers.\u00a0 Many social marketers work for nonprofit organizations that use marketing to change behavior and lifestyles.\u00a0 Social marketers fought the cigarette industry\u2019s glamorization of cigarette smoking by pointing out the health harm caused by cigarettes.\u00a0 Social marketers are busy helping overweight people find new ways to reduce their food intake.<\/p>\n The Emergence of \u201cLess is More\u2019 and the DeGrowth Movement<\/strong><\/p>\n Nonstop Capitalism pushes consumption far beyond what mankind needs.\u00a0 Powerful advertising persuades people that they need the latest car, clothing, appliances and homes.\u00a0 Many citizens end up feeling stressed and unhappy when they can\u2019t do more shopping and buying and accumulating more goods.<\/p>\n William Wordsworth pointed out, in his poem The World is too Much with Us, that \u201cGetting and spending, we lay waste our powers.\u201d\u00a0 We work too hard to accumulate wealth and leave little time to enjoy our lives.<\/p>\n Nonstop Capitalism is leading to deforestation, overfishing, soil erosion, mass extinction of species, and more fires, extreme storms, and floods.<\/p>\n What is the Alternative to Nonstop Capitalism?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201dDegrowth\u201d, namely growing our economy and our population at a slower rate, is one answer.\u00a0 Jason Hickel spelled this out in his thoughtful book Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. He spells out how Capitalism\u2019s pursuit of endless growth destroys our natural ecological lives and processes.<\/p>\n A Harvard study reports that 51% of young Americans (ages 18-39) no longer support American capitalism. Regarding the statement \u201cCapitalism does more harm than good,\u201d 69% of French agree and 74% of Indians agree. \u00a0A Yale University study in 2018 reported that 70% of Americans agreed with the statement that \u201cenvironmental protection is more important than growth.\u201d\u00a0 New Zealand\u2019s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made headlines in 2019 promising to abandon GDP growth in favor of well-being.\u00a0 The leaders of Scotland and Iceland followed suit.\u00a0 Note that all these leaders are women.\u00a0 And there is young Greta Thunberg speaking to global elites:<\/p>\n \u201cWe are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of endless economic growth.\u00a0 How dare you!\u201d<\/p>\n A major consumer research study found that 70% of people in middle and high-income countries believe that over-consumption is putting our planet and society at risk, that we should buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness or well-being. Many people are yearning for a better system.<\/p>\n What Actual Steps Can be Taken?<\/strong><\/p>\n Persons in advanced economies need to cut down on their consumption.\u00a0 Jason Hickel, in his book Less is More, proposed five actions that would help save the planet and improve people\u2019s lives. They are:<\/p>\n I would add Putting higher taxes on the rich and using the money to finance poorer families to have livable incomes.<\/p>\n Questions Still to be Answered I confess that there are still questions to be answered in trying to curb consumption in the interest of preserving a healthy planet. Here are key questions and my speculations.<\/p>\n Growth is the unquestioned goal in politics, in economics, and in societies. But this goal will ultimately lead to disaster in a world of diminishing resources. Transitioning to slower growth is the answer.\u00a0 The challenge is to promote wellbeing, equity, and sustainability as our guideposts in moving toward more sensible growth. Our aim is to embrace a more sustainable and equitable path of growth.\u00a0 We need to lead leaner, happier, healthier and more satisfying lives.<\/p>\n Sources:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n