For most of the history of mankind, there was no such thing as economic growth. People were born, and died with the same standard of living...which was very low. That all changed with the Industrial Revolution. The annual income of the average person started steadily growing. And on a macro level, it had a multiplier effect and fed on itself. It would increase by 2 - 3% a year. In 10 years the average worker would find that his standard of living had improved by 25%! This growth has lifted mass populations out of abject poverty. Not every country has shared in this growth. It holds generally true that the countries in the vicinity of the equator have not experienced the degree of growth that the rest of the world has.
But are there limits to growth? From Thomas Malthus to Paul Ehrlich, there have been many prophets of doom which have ultimately proven to be wrong. But there certainly must be a limit. The planet only has so many resources, and as the population expands, and as their standard of living improves, they will tax the carrying load of Mother Earth. How could this carrying capacity be measured based on the continued growth? In the early 1970s, Jay Forrester of MIT developed a computer model in an attempt to determine these limits. He fed into the model variables like population growth, agricultural production, natural resources, industrial production, and pollution. The result was growth lines which continued up and up, until various inputs became exhausted, and the entire system would collapse. From this work came the book "Limits To Growth" (Donella Meadows) which predicted catastrophe unless policy makers put drastic curbs on not only population growth, but the steady improvement of people's standard of living which puts added pressure on resource depletion and pollution.
How is their prediction going? Many of the scenarios (there were 10) predicted that by now (2012), many vital resources would be in their final stages. This has proved to be incorrect. For example, by now oil was supposed to have been so depleted that the global economic engine would be severely strained. But new technologies unheard of in Professor Forrester's day have greatly expanded the potential reserves. This is the missing link in most of these clever models which are supposed to be a crystal ball into the future. Looking into the future there are too many unknowns that skew the model's results. But looking at that one resource of oil, ultimately it will be depleted. What the model doesn't take into consideration is the power of economics. As the supply of oil approaches scarcity, the price will be so high that only the rich could afford it, and this will naturally spur a whole new industry of technological replacements. Even today we see the beginnings of that with electric and hybrid cars.
We are also seeing a significant drop in population growth. When their book was written in the early 70's, the world population was expanding at over 2% a year. It has now dropped to around 1.2%. Some countries are even very concerned that they are not producing enough children to support the elderly population in their retirement. It is now predicted that the world population will continue to slowly grow until around 2050 when it will level off at 9 billion people. Pollution levels are still bad in rapidly growing countries like China and India, but this is typical in countries that are in the early stages of their growth cycle when pollution levels rise. Ultimately they will form EPA type structures to control the pollution.
What about issues like global warming? Is it really anthropogenic (man made)? Many will say, "yes", and that it is "settled science". But is it? Once again, the computer models show that a disaster is looming. But the efficacy of these models is questionable. For example, if we set our baseline at the mid-70's and project forward, it does show a significant warming trend. But if we set the base at 1934, or 1998, it show just the opposite. Then there are elements not modeled for like the "Fertilizer Effect". That is, plants thrive on higher levels of green house gases, and will expand acting as a buffer against too high levels. Ken Caldeira, who runs the ecology lab at Stanford for the Carnegie Institution, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide would yield a 70% increase in plant growth....an obvious boon for agriculture. Our planet is filled with self-correcting mechanisms like this.
In short, are there limits to growth? You betcha. But man has proved to be very clever in making adjustments, and simple economics, rather than massive policy changes will drive our behavior. In the meantime, let us all have profound respect for this living planet we call Earth...our home.
