And unchecked growth really, a kind of maniacal, ecologically-destructive growth at all costs that's built into the system.ĬAP: What the system has done, as a mechanism to continue with growth at all costs, is actually to burn the future. WIRED: Presumably economists weren't too fond of it because growth is inherent to capitalism. So from a political point of view, there was a complete denial of what the book was saying. Reagan himself has a discourse in which he says, literally, there are no limits to growth. And then of course, the political mood changed a lot with the rise of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Jimmy Carter, when he was president, was listening to this kind of approach. And that part of the message was completely lost, very rapidly. Did that come from scientists or capitalists or politicians? Or maybe all of the above? What were the main points of contention?ĬAP: We have to be in a good balance with the planet where we live. WIRED: I think you could safely characterize the reaction to Limits to Growth as an uproar. Saying this is like, “Oh, we are proposing going back to the Middle Ages.” No, not at all. I know that it sounds weird, because we are so used to associating well-being with material consumption.
It's a matter of considering that we can dramatically reduce the ecological footprint of the so-called rich countries. It's a matter, in my view, of considering that well-being comes with relationships, not necessarily a high degree of material consumption. It's not so much the fact that we have more people, it's that we have unsustainable lifestyles.ĬAP: We already have an ecological footprint that is far too high compared to what the Earth can carry. But that ignores the fact that the United States alone is responsible for a quarter of historical emissions. WIRED: Right, there's this notion that first and foremost the problem we have is population growth. Typically, the average footprint in the US is 20 to 40 times the average footprint in Africa. And let's remember that ecological footprints are extremely unequal.
We have incredible capacities to develop new technologies, but the point is that we don't use them under the assumption that they should reduce the ecological footprint. It's the quality of our relationships with other humans, with nature, that makes possible the scenarios in which you can decouple well-being and the growth of consumption. Realizing that it's not higher and higher consumption which makes us live in a good way, have a healthy life and well-being. What could lead to a more sustainable scenario, or a scenario of balance? Fundamentally, it is about equity, managing the resources in an equitable way, knowing in advance that they're limited. In the case of fossil fuels, it's both the consumption of the reserves of fossil fuels and the pollution. What produces collapse in most of the scenarios is the combination-it's not all only one thing. We have, as humanity, the capacity to decide what kind of future we want.”ĬAP: The main variables are a set of five: population, food production, industrial production, natural resources, and pollution. It was really about: We have the capacity to choose. We didn't succeed in bringing the message that it was not about that.
“What came from the simulations is that most of the cases-but not all, and it's important to say not all-the evolution of a number of variables like population, production, pollution, was showing that around the mid-21st century, we would have a scenario of collapse of human civilization,” says Carlos Alvarez Pereira, vice president of the Club of Rome and co-editor of the new retrospective book Limits and Beyond: 50 Years on From The Limits to Growth, What Did We Learn and What’s Next? “The whole thing was framed into doomsday prophecy. (As the old quip goes: All models are wrong, but some are useful.) That model spit out scenarios in which humanity either got more sustainable and equitable, and thus flourished, or continued letting capitalists plunder the planet and our civilization to death. And it was making rather grand and consequential predictions.
It was, after all, very early computer modeling-completed on a punch-card machine at MIT-and a highly simplified simulation of complex global systems. The book sold millions of copies and was translated into at least 30 languages, attracting a storm of controversy. But in fact it dropped in the 1972 book The Limits to Growth, published by the Club of Rome, an international organization of intellectuals founded in 1968. It sounds like that modeling could have been done last week, what with climate change, water shortages, and microplastics corrupting every corner of the Earth. The computer modeling made it plain: If people continued to overextract finite resources, pollute on a massive scale, and balloon the human population in an unsustainable way, civilization could collapse within a century.