TED Talks · Level C1 Mixing - Part 3
Can the economy grow forever
Let's say you discover a magical gold coin that doubles every 25 years. 75 years later, you'd only have eight coins.
Level: C1 · 64 sentences
Transcript
- Let's say you discover a magical gold coin that doubles every 25 years.
- 75 years later, you'd only have eight coins.
- But a thousand years later, you'd have over a trillion.
- And in just 4600 years, your gold coins would outweigh the observable universe.
- This periodic doubling is an example of exponential growth,
- and while we're not in any danger of discovering a real-life golden goose-coin,
- something almost as consequential has been growing like this for the past 200 or so years: the global economy.
- Many economists think that an eternally growing economy is necessary to keep improving people's lives,
- and that if the global economy stops growing, people would fight more over the fixed amount of value that exists,
- rather than working to generate new value.
- That raises the question: is infinite growth possible on a finite planet?
- We measure economic growth by tracking the total financial value of everything a country (or the world) produces and sells on the market.
- These products can help us meet basic needs or improve our individual and collective quality of life.
- But they also, crucially, take resources to invent, build, or maintain.
- For example, this smartphone.
- It's valuable in part because it contains aluminum, gallium, and silicon,
- all of which took energy and resources to mine, purify, and turn into a phone.
- It's also valuable because of all the effort that went into designing the hardware and writing the software.
- And it's also valuable because a guy in a black turtleneck got up on stage and told you it was.
- So how do we grow the total financial value of all things?
- One way is to make more things.
- Another way is to invent new things.
- However you do it, growing the economy requires resources and energy.
- And eventually, won't we just run out?
- To answer this question, let's consider what goes into the economy and what comes out of it:
- its inputs are labor, capital - which you can think of as money - and natural resources, like water or energy.
- Its output is value.
- Over the past 200 years, economies have gotten exponentially more efficient at producing value.
- If we, as a species, are able to keep upgrading our economies so that they get ever-more efficient,
- we could theoretically pump out more and more value using the same - or, let's be really ambitious here - fewer resources.
- So, how do we do that?
- How do we increase efficiency?
- With new technologies.
- This is where we hit a snag.
- New tech, in addition to making things more efficient, can also generate new demand, which ends up using more resources.
- We're actually not in imminent danger of running out of most resources.
- But we have a much bigger and more immediate problem:
- the global economy, and in particular those of rich countries, is driving climate change and destroying valuable natural environments on which all of us depend -
- soil, forests, fisheries, and countless other resources that help keep our civilization running.
- So, what should we do?
- This is where economists disagree.
- Most economists think that new ideas will be able to fix most of these problems.
- They argue that, in the same way that exponentially increasing resource and energy use have fueled exponential economic growth,
- human ingenuity has also increased exponentially,
- and will rise to meet these challenges in ways that we simply can't predict.
- For example, between 2000 and 2014,
- Germany grew their GDP by 16%, while cutting CO2 emissions by 12%.
- That's impressive, but it's not cutting emissions fast enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
- For this reason and others, some economists think the solution is to reengineer our economies completely.
- They make the case that what we should really be doing is weaning ourselves from the addiction to growth and shifting to a post-growth economy.
- What would that look like?
- A post-growth economy wouldn't assume that the economy should grow;
- instead, it would require us to focus on improving what we really need,
- things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation.
- To do that, post-growth economists suggest that rich countries should do things like guarantee living wages,
- reduce wealth and income inequality, and ensure universal access to public services, like healthcare.
- In such an economy, people would be theoretically less dependent on their jobs to earn their living or get healthcare,
- so it might be more feasible to scale down production of things deemed less necessary.
- But this raises other questions: who gets to define what's necessary?
- How would we resolve the inevitable disagreements?
- Could we really do away with entire industries?
- The "we'll come up with new ideas to solve these problems" approach can seem as realistic as, well, a magical gold coin.
- And the "we have to fundamentally change our economies" approach can seem politically daunting, particularly in rich countries.
- One way or another, we have to find a way to benefit everyone while also taking care of our planet.