Sustainability Critics II: Growth

-- an SWMTHiNKTANK article

edited: 2012-05-25 (ws),

Sustainability and 'growth' (as observed and interpreted today) is a contradiction. The first term has (under today's conditions) nothing to do with the latter and vice versa. Why is this the case?

First of all 'growth' (up to now and prevailing) refers to a purely quantitative growth. For example, the GDP [1], mobility growth [2], car market growth [3]-[6], profit growth [7], unemployment growth [8]. A return to growth (away from the current 'anemic growth' [9a]-[9c]) is reported [e.g. 9] which, however, may have disadvantageous consequences, i.e. another growth in CO2-emissions despite a decrease [10]. The list could easily be expanded. 

The overall impression from the above brief list however is, that the society is inescapable doomed to grow, in particular (and actually exclusively) in quantitative/physical terms/dimensions. Cancer, perhaps a rather drastic nevertheless certainly tolerable example, is a prominent example for a disease which is characterized by uncontrolled growth of cells, that in the end (if not successfully medicated) results in death.

Cars grow in size  and weight (Who is really in need of a SUV?), the average flat-size per resident has increased in the past years [11]-[13] and (unfortunately) counterbalances all efforts to, for example, lower the energy consumption [14]. Mobile phones (driven by the displays) grow again. Likewise the planar dimensions of TV-devices grow more or less unlimited. The storage size (of hard-disks) grows more or less ad infinitum. What also grows is the renewal rate of products, i.e. it accelerates. Conversely the life time of a product decreases substantially. A necessary condition in order to grow the sales [15] and thus the profit. Now, overall, what may this kind of growth in quantitative/physical terms prove? The 'demand' (in its broadest sense) will grow. For example, the energy demand will grow [16], [17]. Global food demand is said to double by 2050 [18], [19]. The amount of building materials demanded will grow as well [20] as the mobility will do [21] - the distances will grow as well.

Reflecting about all the above 'growth-'aspects one may, perhaps, arrive at the question: why is there growth? What is growth good for? Aren't the available resources limited? Doesn't the present growth in its final consequence lower the opportunities of future generations? And isn't it then a contradiction of sustainable development [22]?

The number of commentators documenting that welfare (well-being) does not necessarily correlate with economic growth is substantial [23]-[27]. Satisfaction levels are dropping world-wide [28]-[31], in particular the employment satisfaction is dropping [32]-[34]. Also this list could be expanded substantially.

Conclusion

Overall and briefly summarised, the impression appears that here a system is (to put it politely) slightly out of balance. And a certain conviction evolves such that a fair pause, i.e. a net zero-growth (in terms of quantitative growth, in terms of resource depletion, etc.) along with a real  investment into qualitative aspects/growth (of products, services, social issues) would rather be predestined to guarantee for sustainable development than the current back and forth between austerity measures and new growth pacts. Such an 'investment' may, as one example, include the decrease of the currently prevailing competition behavior between individuals up to nations (cf. current situation between Greece and EU-member states and Germany). It may also include real harmonization efforts (where reasonable) facilitating, for example, effective modularity, compatibility, flexibility and universality/versatility**.

Further readings: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [9a], [9b], [9c], [10], [11]*, [12], [13], [14]*, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

* German only
** Will be discussed in Blog-posts published in the near future.