Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth and why they are wrong.

Matthew Ryan1 School of Humanities University of New England Abstract In both o ular and academic discourses! the Club of Rome! and their infamous ublication The Limits to Growth! have been widely ridiculed and consigned be the butt to crude "uddite #o$es% &ut as growth'centric economics is again being challenged in heterodo( olitical economy! it is im erative to return to this $ey te(t ) to e(amine the criticisms of it! com are its forecasts with real e( erience! and! finally! to re'embrace the growth debate%

*+,he earth is finite%%% +he a arent goal of the resent world system is to roduce more eo le with more for each erson%%% if society continues to strive for that goal! it will eventually reach one of many earthly limitations% -Meadows et al%! 1./0! % 12'1/3%

%%%not doom but challenge ) how to bring about a society that is materially sufficient! socially e4uitable! and ecologically sustainable! and one that is more satisfying in human terms than the growth'obsessed society of today% -Meadows et al.! 1..0! % 153

1. Introduction +he current olitical! economic! and social aradigm is built on limitless growth% 6rowth is seen as the anacea to every roblem we face today7 managing climate change! develo ing the global South! navigating us through a global recession! even achieving individual ha iness% 8et the ursuit of ever continuing growth in a closed system of limited resources and ca acities is a significant contributory cause of these roblems in the first lace -+rainer! 1...! % 90:3% Many feel intuitively there is something wrong with a growth telos in a finite world! however it was a grou of MI+ graduate students who first brought the conce t of limits to growth into contem orary
1 Matthew Ryan is a graduand of the &achelor of International Studies! School of Humanities! University of New England! NS;! 09:1! <ustralia% Comments and criticisms are welcomed at mryan:1=myune%edu%au% Many than$s go to >r +ony "ynch -UNE3! for his advice and su ort% ?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy 1

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

olitical discourse%0 >es ite the ublication and wides read dissemination of The Limits to Growth -"63 ) a collaborative wor$ commissioned by +he Club of Rome and ublished by >% Meadows! >% Meadows! ?% Randers! A ;% &ehrens III! in 1./0 ) the growing understanding that resources once considered ine(haustible are not! has largely failed to rom t meaningful changes to the current world system% ;hile we have seen a vogue for various Bshallow environmentalistB o tions -CgreenD consumerism! recycling! energy efficiencies! solar anels and so forth3 in fact the em hasis laced on economic growth as the only ossible means to deliver national and international ros erity has! if anything! increased% How can growth'centered Bbusiness'as'usualB be #ustified as the global res onse to this essential contradiction at the heart of the e( ansionist ca italist modelE ;ithin the olitical'economic conte(t of ongoing neoliberal hegemony! the ur ose of this essay is to consider the continued ideological attac$ u on Blimits to growthB theory! before establishing the contem orary relevance of the theory ) a relevance which has! if anything! increased as many of the concerns raised in "6 are roving to be alarmingly ro hetic% 2. The LG Models The Limits to Growth -Meadows et al%! 1./03 resents and discusses twelve system dynamics com uter models! all of which simulate the interaction of five $ey global Bsub'systemsB ) o ulation! food roduction! industrial roduction! ollution! and consum tion of non'renewable natural resources ) in order to model when global limits will be reached% +hree $ey models among those twelve were7 -13 the Standard Run model! which is best described as Fbusiness'as'usualGH -03 the Com rehensive +echnology model! which had assumed massive technological advances alongside continued growthH and -93 the Stabilised ;orld model which combined neutral growth with technological advance% +he conclusions from this modelling were7
If the resent growth trends in world o ulation! industrialisation! ollution! food roduction! and resource de letion continue unchanged! the limits to growth on this lanet will be reached sometime within the ne(t one hundred years% -ibid! % 093

Significantly! even the o timistic Com rehensive +echnology model redicted an Bovershoot and colla seB of the global system% +his model allowed for the drastic reduction of environmental im act by economic growth! sometimes termed a Bde' cou lingB of the economy and the environment% -<s we will see! this did not sto some commentators from charging that "6 did not factor ade4uately technological innovation -"omborg A Rubin! 0550! % I93%3 +he ur ose of these models is to understand the inter lay of these interconnected factors! and to determine which behaviour modes best correlate to the actual world systemH it is B redictionB only in the most general sense of the word -Meadows et al.! 1./0! % .03% ;hile many critics seem to thin$ it enough to find a single discre ancy between estimates and reality to discount the entire model! the authors are clear that they are interested in scenarios! rather than the im ossible will of the wis of erfectly detailed fore$nowledge%
0 Scarcity was! of course! a dominant element of re'modern olitical discourses% It disa ears from such discourse recisely when ca italism and its Fendless growthG romise and im erative emerge in the 1.C% 0

?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

<nother $ey oint articulated by "6 )often ignored or forgotten by its critics ) is that the solution to one roblem will only delay colla se before we reach the limit on another of the five global sub'systems% Say! for illustration! we overcome the de letion of non'renewable resources ) perhaps through the natural functioning of the rice mechanism% 8et the world systemBs colla se may still be reci itated by ollution'driven climate change% Jurther! should emissions also be sufficiently reduced so as to avert calamitous climate change ) perhaps through the internalisation of what are currently e(ternal economic factors ) the 4uestion of feeding a future o ulation of between nine and twelve billion eo le sets another limit given accelerating loss of to 'soil and soil nutrients -Montgomery! 055/3% . Criticisms and !efence +he res onses to the ublication of "6 were! and are! varied% +here have been several attem ts to classify these res onses! such as Jrancis SandbachBs! which identified a neo'Malthusian readingH an a ro riation by the broader Envrionmentalist movementH a Mar(ist olitical'economic inter retationH and the mainstream neoclassical economic criticism -Sandbach! 1./1! % I.23% ;hile such classificatory schemes are useful! the most im ortant classification concerns civilisational strategy! and here there are really only two cam s% Jirst! the -minority3 cam of those who acce t the dangers outlined by limits to growth theory! and who call for a radical Babandonment of the commitments to high material living standards! to the mar$et system! and to economic growthB -+rainer! 0551! online3 ) an a roach often termed Bdee ecologyB or BstrongB sustainability% Second! the -ma#ority3 cam of those who see the free mar$et and its always immanent miraculous technological advances as the solution to our current roblems -Kelley! 0511! online3% Many in the latter cam either misinter reted "6! or sim ly failed to read the short boo$! referring instead to re resent it as a farrago of im ossible doomsday redictions! -often not actually mentioned in "63! and so a straw man all too easily demolished in the name of Ccommon'senseD% +his essay see$s to e(amine the nature of the ideological attac$ on "6% <fter outlining "6! I wor$ systematically through the criticisms of the theory! and with the hel of forty years worth of observed data! rebut each one% <t the end of this rocess! it will become clear that "6 was discounted olitically rather than em irically% Understanding the renewed significance of "6 ma$es it clear that the minority cam are right7 the future of our civilisation is redicated u on a radical system'change which manages to embrace B ros erity without growthB -?ac$son! 05113% 'Limits' misconstrued < erfect e(am le of the mainstream -mis3re resentation of "6 can be seen in the 95'year anniversary trashing given by &#orn "omborg and Llivier Rubin in the o ular ublication Foreign Policy -"omborg A Rubin! 055037
95 years later! the Club of RomeBs most dire redictions have failed to come true% Mital minerals such as gold! silver! co er! tin! Ninc! mercury! lead! tungsten and oil should have been e(hausted by now% &ut they arenBt% - ibid! % I03%

In fact! as the reader discovers -or would discover if they read the boo$3 such claims are
?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy 9

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

not to be found in "6! but that didnBt sto "omborg and Rubin% +hey go on to criticise "6 by saying that record low food rices contradicted "6 warnings of loss of arable land and water! des ite the fact food rices are largely determined by agricultural subsidies in the US and Euro e rather than indicative of scarcity% <nd they oint to rising life e( ectancy as B roofB that ollution is a non'issue% "omborg was wheeled out again in 0510! this time by Foreign Affairs! to re eat the same tired criticisms7 BThe Limits to Growth also worried about running out of oil -in 1..53 and natural gas -in 1..03B -"omborg! 0510! online3H and Bwhy did the authors get it wrongE &ecause they overloo$ed human ingenuityB -ibid3% In fact! "6 did not redict the end of oil in the 1..5Bs! and did factor in technological innovation% Such attac$s on The Limits to Growth literally ut words ) false and dee ly misleading words ) in the mouths of Meadows et al% <nd while there are more academically res ectable -if not! finally! ersuasive3 criticisms of "6! it is the du licitous "omborgian caricature that has had the most im act% The (neo-classical economic argument < more res ectable criti4ue of "6 loo$s to the beneficent magic of the rice mechanism% +his criticism of the "6 theory holds articular relevance for issues of resource de letion! but it has been e(tended to the other four sub'systems% Here I limit my discussion to the argument that resource de letion will be averted by the natural functioning of the mar$et ) in articular! by the e(haustion of the fossil fuels consumed in the roduction of energy% +he idea is that as a resource is de leted! the conse4uential rise in rice will encourage mar$et actors to invest in other resources! so averting the final e(haustion of the $ey resource -Stilwell! 0511! % 1:23% ItDs a nice idea! but it ignores the real world% +rue! as oil is de leted! the rice may rise! but if the mar$et grows! as develo ing nations start buying cars and consuming fuel for airline services! then the use of oil in absolute terms will continue to grow% +his is the story of the ast forty years -Kelly! 0511! online3% +o ta$e an historical e(am le! one might thin$ the oil shoc$s of the 1./5s would rom t a res ect for the finite nature of this resource! and that that res ect would be reflected in the rice of oil% +o the contrary! after the immediate s i$e in rices! they later fell to even lower levels -Hayden! 0511! online3% In the words of +ed +rainer7 Bthe fact that oil rices have fallen does not mean that the roblem of oil scarcity is being overcomeB -+rainer! 1...! % 9913% +his has been ac$nowledged by E((on'Mobil! one of the largest oil cor orations in the world who acce t that we are ast conventionally available B ea$ oilB% <nd has this rom ted a rush to renewable resourcesE Not at all% In fact the o osite has occurred! with massive investment into unconventional fuels with far worse energy returns from energy invested ) indeed! the energy cost of retrieving one $g of minerals has doubled over the ast 0: years -ibid3% < better e( lanation for the way the mar$et has o erated is that increased rices romise greater returns from investment ) hence! the alarming dis arity between investment going towards hydraulic fracturing technologies! com ared to renewable energy sources% Mar$et signals! far from discouraging investment in a de leting resource! would seem to be rom ting an even greater investment in that same resource% +urning our attention to Bclimate changeB! it has often been noted that the current economic system does not rovide a ro riate signals to the globeBs consumers when it comes to im acts on the bio hysical system% @ollution! for e(am le! often has a
?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy I

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

cost to wildlife! to ecosystems! and to future generations! but that cost is not borne by the roducer or consumer of the olluting rocess ) this is! of course! the Btragedy of the commonsB -Hardin! 1.213% +he argument here is that if these costs can be internalised in the roduction rocess! then the mar$et will be able to eliminate ollution issues such as anthro ogenic carbon'emission driven climate change -"o eN! 1..I! % 1293% +he mar$et will res ond to internalisation by increasing rices! rom ting roducers to change their olluting ways% &ut #ust as the rice mechanism is failing to correct resource de letion! the reality is that even when internalised! environmental costs are -and never will be3 a ro riately costed% +his is because! li$e oil! the rice of carbon ) once it is actually given a rice! either through a Bca and tradeB system! or a direct ta( on emissions ) is always politically determined -Stilwell! 0511! % 991'9903! and as such tends always to be B laying catch'u B% If a costing system is based on a Bca and tradeB model! then the ca oint will most li$ely be an arbitrarily determined limit! whereas a ta(ation' incentive system will on only limit to the oint that the mar$et can bear the -arbitrary3 ta( rate% Neither of these o tions will rove sufficient to curb the current rate of carbon' emission! as they are sim ly modifications on the same non'functional system% <nd! of course! even if we were to accurately rice greenhouse gas emission before the inherent inertia of ollution and feedbac$ loo s caused climate change to s iral out of control! there remain the other factors considered in "6% Jor instance! the idea of ricing to soil loss hasnBt even entered the debate! des ite the fact we have already lost one third of global to soil since the beginning of the industrial revolution -Montgomery! 055/3% +he sim le truth is these neoclassical economic arguments against a limited growth aradigm are hollow! and do not ro erly address the legitimate concerns raised by the Club of Rome% The technological fi! argument +he most significant ro onents of the Btechnological fi(B criticism of the "6 theory are <mory "ovins and ?ulian Simon%9 SimonDs basic argument is that because we havenBt reached any of these limits yet! we will continue free from limits tomorrow -+rainer! 0551! online3% &ut if Bthe most reliable method of forecasting the future costs and scarcity of energy is to e(tra olate the historical trends of energy costs%%%B -Simon! 1.11! % .53! then even ?ulian Simon! the great critic of "6! would des air if he were to read ?ose h +ainterDs The "ollapse of "omple! #ocieties -1..53 or ?ared >iamondBs "ollapse -05113% Historical trends in energy costs have resulted in civilisational colla se for many societies that came before our own% Simon! in fact! is inadvertently forecasting environmental and civilisational colla se% "ovinsBs thesis is that human ingenuity is the answer to all the roblems faced by the world system! and that we must sim ly wait till these miracle anaceas are invented -+rainer! 0551! online3. "ynch and ?en$ins -05513 call this Cthe mon$ey canDt failD thesis! and #ust as with SimonDs revious argument! the historical evidence ulls s4uarely the other way% +hose civilisations that went under clearly did manifest the su osed creativity% @erha s reflecting the faintest of realiNations on SimonDs art on the wea$ness 99! See es ecially SimonBs The $ltimate %esource -1.113! and "ovinBs corroboration with H% "ovins and @%
Haw$en! &atural "aptialism -1...3% ?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy :

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

of this style of argument! SimonDs insists that continued o ulation growth is desirable! as it increases the stoc$ of human ca ital which will thus increase technological advances in the future% &ut a basic understanding of demogra hy tells us that o ulation growth occurs largely in the oorest of develo ing nations! while the develo ed BNorthB has an essentially stable! even declining! o ulation -Rosling! 0515! online3% 6iven lac$ of healthcare and education are often cited as reasons these oorer nations have not yet develo ed socially and economically! it is hard to see the technological advances needed to solve our environmental crisis coming from uneducated and malaria'ridden slums outside of Kinshasa! Congo% +o ma$e the "ovinsOSimon osition even more untenable! the argument of limitless human ingenuity is also used to legitimise the neo'liberal olitical'economic regimeH we must deregulate and lower ta(es to free u entre reneurial ingenuity% 8et under neoliberal BminimalistB governance! ublic service rovision is slashed! including that to education and public science research% So! even if o ulation in the develo ed north was growing at a significant ace! the increase in raw human ca ital would be under'utilised% <nother significant roblem with the technological fi( argument is to be found in the ?evons @arado(% ;illiam ?evons was one of the first classical olitical economistsI to observe that technological im rovements in efficiency often tended to increase overall consum tion! contrary to the neo'classical economic assum tion that increased efficiency would reduce over'all environmental im act -<lcott! 055:! % .3% +his s ea$s immediately to the current em hasis laced on increased efficiency in energy roduction and use as the solution to anthro ogenic climate change ) if demand continues to increase then efficiency cannot solve our current dilemma%: Jurthermore! let us challenge the technological fi( argument on its own grounds% If civilisation is to avoid the limit on ollution ) #ust one of five limits! as detailed by Meadows et al. ) we would need to limit the carbon intensity of economic growth to below //5 grams of carbon er million to #ust si( grams by 05:5! and! beyond that! move to start ulling carbon out of the atmos here% +hat would re4uire a '()-fold im rovement of emissions'to'growth efficiencyH a rate of technological im rovement more than ten times as fast than anything human invention has seen -?ac$son! 0515! online3% +he above statistics were resented by a &ritish economist! +im ?ac$son! at a +E> Conference% <t the end of his resentation! he was as$ed among other 4uestions! if that 195'fold im rovement was made! would he be reconciled to economic growthE
I would still want to $now that you could do that and get below Nero by the end of the century! in terms of ta$ing carbon out of the atmos here! and solve the roblem of biodiversity! and reduce the im act on land use and do something about the erosion of to 'soils! and the 4uality of water% If you can convince me we can do all that! then! yes! I would ta$e the two ercent *of 6>@ growth, -ibid3%

His res onse s ea$s to the decades'old message of +he Club of Rome ) it is not #ust one limit we face! but a lethora of interconnected issues% <n im robable technological fi( to one sim ly delays the larger colla se until a different limit is met%
I Jor! indeed! the disci lines were only se arated at the University of Cambridge in 1.59% : In fact! of course! as the IE< has recently ointed out in its *orld +nergy ,utloo- re ort -05193! efficiency gains generally have not even been ursued with any $ind of real determination by states or business% ?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy 2

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

If our current economic system continues to grow! as it is intended to! economic out ut will be 155'055 times greater than it is now by 05/5 -+rainer! 1...! % 9913%
Is it li$ely that energy use! or ollution er dollar of 6>@ in 052: will be one'si(teenth of what each is now! and reduced by half again every 11 years after thatE +his is what would have to be achieved if the total economy were to grow at IP %a% ;hile the total energy use and environmental im act levels were to be no higher than they are today% -ibid3

+he greatest failing of the technological fi( argument is not its blind faith in the current system! rather! it is the failure to do the sim le arithmetic! and consider the un recedented challenge ahead of usH a challenge the commitment to endless growth can only e(acerbate% ". Toward #ustainable !e$elo%ment &unfortunately' < art from direct criticisms of "6! another significant facet of the olitical attac$ on "6 is dialectical% ;hile economicOtechnical fi( arguments dominated the immediate res onse! later on! through the late 1.15s! and on toward the 01 st century! "6 has been su lanted by the contested conce t of Bsustainable develo mentB% If the initial attac$s based on misre resentation and unhistorical o timism were obvious! and e( ected! this secondary attac$ saw an insidious and hugely successful undermining of the environmentalist movement from the inside out% Second only to BglobalisationB in o ularity and ambiguity! a broadly acce ted general definition of the term is7
develo ment that meets the needs of the resent without com romising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs -;CE>! 1.1/3%

+here are two immediate roblems with this conce t% Jirstly! what are BneedsBE If everyone is entitled to -so CneedsD3 a western! first world life'style! we do not have the resources to maintain that! even for one generation% Indeed! if the entire world was allowed US'levels of consum tion! we would need the resources of roughly four worlds% 8et we are already com romising our world for future generations through the overuse of non'renewable resources! ollution! loss of clean water! and of soil nutrients! etc% &eyond that ideal there is a much dee er roblem with the sustainable develo ment discourse% +he above 4uotation is from the &rundtland Re ort% Significantly it went on from that radical stance of international! and intergenerational! e4uality ) and the rofound challenge to the status 4uo that that suggests ) to suggest that the solution was in continued growthQ Jrom its conce tion! the sustainable develo ment movement was undermining the revolutionary call by the advocates for limits to growth% +here is a tension within the usage of Bsustainable develo mentB7 on one side there are those who believe a BstrongB sustainability which recognises "6! and thus re#ect economic growthH on the other is a far more influential stance $nown by some as Bwea$B sustainability! which believes current trends can be maintained with relatively minor
?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy /

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

modifications such as mar$et mechanisms and technical solutions to solve environmental roblems -;illiams! 0551! % I03% If that last osition sounds familiar! that is because it is ) the Bwea$B sustainability discourse is almost identical to the economicO technical fi( argument! as we shall now e( lore% +he discourse of environmentalists has been subverted! with their ro er concerns being used to legitimise and facilitate the rise of olitical'economic neoliberalism -Khan A "ynch 0519H @aton! 0511! % 015'0113% &y merging environmental concerns with a focus on economic growth! much of the olitical and social ressure to ma$e serious changes to the olitical and economic systems has been relieved -Joster! 0550! online3% Even worse7
%%%this a roach has constrained efforts to develo an alternative aradigm artly by incor orating the goals of environmentalists and develo mentalists and artly by ad#usting the language of the environmental and develo mental movements to other ur oses% +his has contributed to the wea$ening of the environmental movement% -;illiams! 0551! % I93

Not only does this insidious use of environmental discourse relieve ressure on the olitical elites! but it also ma$es advocates of limits to growth a ear as catastro he driven wowsers% If we can achieve sustainability through minor modifications! why suggest a radical aradigm shift! es ecially one that challenges current standards of -wasteful3 livingE +his is the mental climate in which continued calls for limits to growth are received! and art of the reason such a significant ublication was trivialised and ignored% (. And the obser$ed data) &y loo$ing at the direct and indirect criticisms of "6! we have been attem ting to ascertain why and how this significant ublication was so widely discredited and forgottenH an es ecially im ortant and relevant tas$ given that retty much all the available factual evidence reinforces its rescience and im ortance% Consider here the CSIRLDs 6raham +urnerDs recently ublished B< Com arison of The Limits to Growth with +hirty years of RealityB -05513% <s a way of summarising +urnerBs research! ta$e the gra h below -Jigure 13% +urnerBs message is that our global e( erience to date has trac$ed alarmingly close to the Bstandard runB model of Meadows et al! and that even the destined'to'colla se Bcom rehensive technologyB model was Boverly o timisticB -+urner! 0551! % 9/3% +urner! as well as showing the accuracy of the Bstandard runB model through all fi.e indicators! commented on the active cam aign against the "6 both when it was ublished! and continuing to this day7
>es ite these%%% dire warnings of Fovershoot and colla seG! the "6 recommendations on fundamental changes of olicy and behaviour for sustainability have not been ta$en u %%% +his is erha s artly a result of sustained false statements that discredit the "t6%%% +his *and my, a er addresses these claims! showing them to be false% -ibid! % 03

It is hard to believe that anyone who isnDt redis osed to Cbusiness as usualD growth! and who is concerned to be ro erly informed! could re#ect the Club of RomeBs
?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy 1

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

claims ) not only were the $ey criticisms of the original ublication based on misre resentation and faulty logic! but serious eer reviewed em irical studies show the accuracy of "6 theory% *. The #uccess of these &wea+' criticisms +urner says that calls for limits to growth Bhave not been ta$en u %%% erha s artly *as, a result of sustained false statements that discredit the "6B -+urner! 0551! % 03% +his a er has attem ted to show that those criticisms were indeed! false% +urnerBs research shows clearly the em irical accuracy of the Club of RomeBs claims! further validating the case for "6% <nd! certainly! the disregard of the limits to growth theory can artly be e( lained by these Bfalse statementsB% &ut why has this criticism of "6 been so successful on ideological! rhetorical! and olitical levelsE <n initial thought is that it was the result of the so histicated use of ideology and rhetoric as a tool for Bsim lification! distortion! legitimisation! and integrationB -Steger! 055.! % 1:3% +his conce tion of ideology is held by Jran$ Stilwell! who suggests that7 Bthe test of an ideology is not its so histication! but its effectiveness in conveying a sim le and seemingly ersuasive storyB -Stilwell! 0510! % 093% &y these measures! the criticism and dismissal of limits to growth has been ideologically and rhetorically successful! and considering this continued attac$ through the lens of ower olitics goes a long way to understand why "6 was dismissed so easily% Surely! however! mainstream academia! olicy'ma$ing elites! and the global olity as a whole are erce tive enough to see through these such ideologically charged rhetoricE ;hy were so many of us willing to acce t these foolishly ho eful claims of growth'driven innovation as the solution! des ite the fact we all intuitively feel that something is rofoundly wrong with the current systemE +o answer this fundamental 4uestion! we must turn to a a er by +homas Margish! B;hy the @erson Sitting Ne(t to 8ou Hates "imits to 6rowthB -Margish! 1.153! and consider a much broader sycho' s iritual conte(t2% <ccording to Margish! the reason we have been so readily acce ted these criticisms is because if we did indeed confront the issue-s3 this way we would have to acce t res onsibility for our collective future! and this contradicts our historically rooted sychological reliance on some form of @rovidence - ibid3% +he rovidentialist is certain that everything will wor$ out for the best! even if the grand lan is not obvious to us% +hat belief in the system determining the outcome regardless of individual action-s3 is! of course! there in <dam SmithBs conce t of the Binvisible handB of the mar$et% <s long as governments $ee out of the way! the system will always right itself% <nd it is there to in Classical Mar(ismDs historicism% +hose who today see 6>@ growth as the indicator that all is well should be seen in the same light ) as rovidentialists whose religion is economistic rather than theistic% ;hat is ro osed by limits to growth advocates is a aradigmatic shift to a system designed solely by usH but a future designed and lanned by human beings stri$es e(istential terror in a collective syche which has for so long trusted in some $ind of @rovidence%
;hen cast u on our own resources in this way we feel! we intuit a $ind of 2 +o attem t to understand the rece tion and re#ection of The Limits to Growth! we cannot be limited by traditional disci linary boundariesH by focusing sim ly on the olitics of environmentalism! we fail to gras the Bbig ictureB% ?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy .

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth cosmic loneliness that we could not have foreseen% ;e become or hans% ;e no longer see ourselves as children of a cosmic order! or the beneficiaries of the historical rocess% "imits to growth denies us all that% It tells us! erha s for the first time in our e( erience! that the only lan must be our own% ;ith one stro$e it stri s us of the assurance offered by ast forms of @rovidence and rogress and with another it thrusts into our reluctant hands the res onsibility for the future% -/argish! % 11/3

Margish gives us an e( lanation as to why the idea -let alone the fact3 of limits to growth seem so subconsciously re ugnant! that we re#ect the theory $nowing full well its validity% <fter all! what is the motto in <ldous Hu(leyBs 0ra.e &ew *orld -1.903E BCLMMUNI+8! I>EN+I+8H S+<&I"I+8B -ibid1 % 1:3% +he entrenchment of the current growth aradigm causes us to recoil at the idea of BstabilityB% +his is the most fundamental as ect of the conte(t in which "6 has been received and re#ected! and does something to e( lain! beyond the obvious influence of vested olitical and cor orate interests! why the sim listic arguments against the theory have found such urchase on our cognitive ma % ,. Conclusion +hose who re#ect "6 do not re#ect it on the basis of what it says% Jor what it says is retty much what is ha ening% +hey re#ect it ) often! indeed! without seeming even to have read it! and with no regard for accuracy ) for various vested theoretical! olitical! and dialectical reasons which may themselves have dee roots in our rovidentialist history% &y rebutting these arguments! and roving that the "6 has em irical accuracy on its side! we surely erform a service for humanity and our future% Still! esca ing rovidentialism is one thing! ma$ing sense! and attractive sense! of B ros erity without growthB -?ac$son! 05113 is another% &ut we $now humanity is ca able of aradigmatic shiftsH and debun$ing criticism of "6 is a necessary catalyst for such a shift% Some say we cannot overcome the inertia of the status 2uo% Maybe% &ut it is absolutely certain that giving in to des air will cement our fate%

?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy

15

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

-igure 1 -Strauss! 0510! online3%

?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy

11

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

.eference List <lcott! &% 055:! B?evonsB arado(B! in +cological +conomics! Mol% :I! No% 1! % .'01! viewed online 12th Se tember 0519! htt 7OOwww%sciencedirect%comOscienceOarticleO iiOS5.01155.5:55151I <rgyrous! 6% A J% Stilwell -eds3! %eadings in Political +conomy3 +conomics as a #ocial #cience! 9rd edition! +ilde University @ress! @rahan! MIC% >iamon! ?% 0511! "ollapse3 4ow #ocieties "hoose to Fail or #ur.i.e! 9rd edition! @enguin &oo$s! "ondon% >ean! ?% -ed%3! 0551! 5nternational Trade and the +n.ironment! <shgate @ublishers! Sydney% Joster! ?% 0550! BCa italism and Ecology7 +he Nature of the ContradictionB! 6onthly %e.iew3 An 5ndependant #ocialist 6aga7ine! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOmonthlyreview%orgO0550O5.O51Oca italism'and'ecology T% Hayden! <% 0511! BClub of Rome -and "imits to 6rowth3B! in ?% Newman -ed%3! Green +thics and Philosophy3 An A-to-8 Guide! +housand La$s! C<7 S<6E @ublications! Inc% % 1II'1I.% viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OO$nowledge%sage ub%comOviewOgreenethicsOn09%(mlE rs$eyU KUIgKArowU0 T Hu(ley! <% 1.90! re rinted 1./:! 0ra.e &ew *orld! @enguin &oo$s "td <ustralia! Ringwood! MIC% ?ac$son! +% 0515! B<n economic reality chec$B! online! +E>+al$s! viewed online I th <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOwww%ted%comOtal$sOtimV#ac$sonVsVeconomicVrealityVchec$%html T% ?ac$son! +% 0511! Prosperity *ithout Growth3 +conomics for a Finite Planet ! 0nd edition! Earthscan! "ondon% Kelly! ?% 0511! B"imits to 6rowthB! in >% Mulvaney A @% Robbins -eds3! Green Politics3 An A-to-8 Guide! +housand La$s! C<7 S<6E @ublications! Inc% % 02:'02/% viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OO$nowledge%sage ub%comOviewOgreen oliticsOn10%(mlErs$eyU KUIgKArowU1T% "omborg! &% 0510! BEnvironmental <larmism! +hen and Now7 +he Club of RomeBs @roblem ) and LursB! in Foreign Affairs! Mol% .1! No% I! viewed online 12th Se tember 0519! Shtt 7OOwww%foreignaffairs%comOarticlesO19/211Ob#orn'lomborgOenvironmental'alarmism' then'and'now T% "omborg! &% A Rubin! L% 0550! B"imits to 6rowthB! in Foreign Policy! No% 199! % I0'II%

"o eN! R% 1..9! B+he Environment as a Jactor of @roduction7 +he Effects of Economic 6rowth and +rade "iberalisationB! in 9ournal of +n.ironmental +conomics and 6anagement! Mol% 0/! No% 1! % 129'11I! re roduced in ?% >ean -ed%3! 5nternational Trade and the +n.ironment! <shgate @ublishers! Sydney! % 09. ) 025% "ovins! <%! "ovins! H% A Haw$en! @%! 1...! &atural "apitalism3 "reating the &e!t 5ndustrial
?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy 10

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

%e.olution! "ittle! &rown A Com any! "ondon% "ynch! +ony! -forthcoming3! $nderstanding *hat #ustainable :e.elopment 5s ; And *hat 5t 5s &ot! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOmoodle%une%edu%auOcourseOview% h EidU2I22 T% Meadows! >%! Meadows! >%! Randers! ?% A &ehrens III ;% 1./0! The Limits to Growth3 A %eport for The "lub of %ome's Pro<ect on the Predicament of 6an-ind ! Earth Island @ublishers "imited! "ondon% Meadows! >%! Meadows! >%! A Randers! ?% 1..0% 0eyond The Limits to Growth3 "onfronting Global "ollapse1 +n.isioning a #ustainable Future ! Chelsea 6reen @ublishing Com any! Mermont% Mulvaney! >% A Robbins! @% -eds3! 0511! Green Politics3 An A-to-8 Guide! +housand La$s! C<7 S<6E @ublications! Inc%! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OO$nowledge%sage ub%comOviewOgreen oliticsOS<6E%(ml T Montgomery! >% 055/! :irt! University of California @ress! California% Newman! ?% -ed%3 0511! Green +thics and Philosophy3 An A-to-8 Guide! +housand La$s! C<7 S<6E @ublications! Inc%! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OO$nowledge%sage ub%comOviewOgreenethicsOS<6E%(ml T @aton! ?% 0551! BSustainable >evelo mentB! in 6% <rgyrous A J% Stilwell -eds3! %eadings in Political +conomy3 +conomics as a #ocial #cience! 9rd edition! +ilde University @ress! @rahan! MIC! % 052 ) 010% @er$ins! ?% 055/! The #ecret 4istory of the American +mpire3 +conomic 4it 6en1 9ac-als1 and the Truth about Global "orruption! @enguin 6rou ! New 8or$% Randers! ?% 0510! =)>=3 A Global Forecast for the &e!t Forty ?ears ! Chelsea 6reen @ublishing! Mermont% Rosling! H% 0515! B6lobal o ulation growth! bo( by bo(B! online! +E>+al$s! viewed online I th <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOwww%ted%comOtal$sOhansVroslingVonVglobalV o ulationVgrowth%htmlT% Sandbach! J% 1./1! B+he Rise and Jall of the "imits to 6rowth >ebateB! in #ocial #tudies of #cience! Mol% 1! No% I! % I.:':05! accessed Sage database! Ith <ugust 0519% Simon! ?% 1.11! The $ltimate %esource! Martin Robinson @ublishers! L(ford% Stevis! >% A <ssetto! M% -eds3! 0551! The 5nternational Political +conomy of the +n.ironment3 "ritical Perspecti.es1 "ynne Rienner @ublishers! "ondon% Stilwell! J% 0511% Political +conomy3 The "ontest of +conomic 5deas! 9rd edition! L(ford University @ress! L(ford% Strauss! M% 0510! B"oo$ing &ac$ on the "imits to 6rowthB! in #mithsonian 6aga7ine! viewed online
?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy 19

Matthew Ryan

Criticisms of The Limits to Growth

Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOwww%smithsonianmag%comOscience'natureO"oo$ing'&ac$'on'the' "imits'of'6rowth%html T% +rainer! J% 1...! B+he limits to growth argument nowB! in The +n.ironmentalist! Mol% 1.! No% I! % 90:'99:! viewed online 12th Se tember 0519! Shtt 7OOlin$%s ringer%comOarticleO15%1509P0J< P9<15522:9.01099 T% +rainer! J% 0551! &atural "apitalism "annot ,.ercome %esource Limits ! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt s7OOsocialsciences%arts%unsw%edu%auOtswO>:5NatCa CannotLvercome%htmlT% +urner! 6% 0551! A "omparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty ?ears of %eality ! CSIRL! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOwww%csiro%auOfilesOfilesO l#e% df T% Margish! +% 1.15! B;hy the @erson Sitting Ne(t to 8ou Hates "imits to 6rowthB! in Technological Forecasting and #ocial "hange! Mol% 12! % 1/.'11.! viewed online 12 th Se tember 0519! htt 7OOwww%sciencedirect%comOscienceOarticleO iiO55I5120:15.5595W ;illiams! M% 0551! BIn Search of 6lobal Standards7 +he @olitical Economy of +rade and the EnvironmentB! in The 5nternational Political +conomy of the +n.ironment3 "ritical Perspecti.es! >% Stevis A M% <ssetto -eds3! "ynne Rienner @ublishers! "ondon! % 9. ) 21% ;orld Commission on Environment and >evelo ment -;CE>3! 1.1/! ,ur "ommon Future! United Nations >ocuments! viewed online Ith <ugust 0519! Shtt 7OOcons ect%nlO dfOLurVCommonVJuture'&rundtlandVRe ortV1.1/% df T%

?ournal of <ustralian @olitical Economy

1I