Everything Has a Limit to Its Growth

1,081 total words    

4 minutes of reading

Ed. Note: We are happy to share this reader response, which is part of a series submitted by undergraduate students at Loyola University Chicago from a course called ENVS 363: Sustainable Business Management.

The current goal of economic growth is focused too much on the concept of gross domestic product (GDP) growth. GDP is defective in that it is lacking a value system that does not differentiate the kinds of output that it measures. Thus, an increase in jails due to higher crime rates, an increase in weapons due to political tension, and an increase in pollution due to manufacturing all are counted positively toward GDP growth. Since things produced that certainly do not signify positive changes are counted toward GDP growth, the idea that economic growth is beneficial is astoundingly misleading. It is believed that economic growth makes our economy successful, but economic success should be the reflection of the state of society. If unfavorable production is increased in order for the economy to “grow” yet society’s well-being is decreasing, why is this sort of growth what people desire? How is this considered growth at all? It certainly is not an accurate depiction of the state of society.

People’s choice to consume is to improve and ensure quality of life. The demands of all consumers needed to be met first and foremost are basic needs, which are food, water, shelter, and health. The market’s purpose is intended to meet the needs of the consumers and at the very least abstain from doing anything that goes against the ability to meet these needs. Yet, crop yields are diminishing due to mistreatment of land, fresh water is being polluted by industrial and agricultural processes, and health is declining due to exposure to pollutants in our air, water, food, and products. Global warming is even taking away land and shelter, with the increase in sea levels and intense storms wiping out infrastructure and eroding coastal land.

Additionally, consumers in the developed world have the privilege of looking past just basic needs. In the game of economic growth, the idea persists that more consumption is going to make consumers happier. This goal of consuming more puts a demand on more production, which is great for industry in a monetary sense. But it also means more extraction of resources and a piling up of waste. There is only so much an individual can consume and hold onto, not to mention companies design products not to last. At this point, it is almost a guarantee that an average American who consumes something will also be wasting that same product or a replacement of that product. What people fail to see and know is that after a certain point in consumption, levels of happiness are not increasing. In fact, Americans’ happiness level has not increased since the 1950s.[1] Yet, economic consumption keeps growing. It is not making American consumers happier, it is inhibiting them from meeting their basic needs, especially in the long run. Moreover, health is declining. Consuming more is doing nothing but creating additional problems. It is not to the consumer’s benefit, especially since it is actually subjecting consumers to a poorer quality of life.

Although these problems negatively impact humans, consumers aren’t demanding for a change because the majority who cause the problem, the affluent global population, are not yet largely impacted. Thus, the citizens of developed countries do not realize the severity of the problem. As previously stated, a business’s efforts are directed toward meeting the needs and demands of consumers in order to generate a profit. If consumers aren’t changing their demands, businesses won’t change either. However, the problems people face are inevitable on this path of economic growth. If the majority wait to be reactive to a crisis and not proactive to the situation already at hand, it is going to be a much more difficult situation to take on, not to mention more people will suffer first before the situation could ever improve.

The answer is not for markets to cease to exist but growth needs to stop at the peak where costs do not outweigh the benefits. Right now, our economy externalizes a lot of costs, such as environmental damages. Ignoring these externalities such as environmental harm is why it appears as if the economy can keep growing because the market does not reflect those costs. However, if you make those externalities visible, the economy is actually moving on a downward slope where the costs significantly outweigh the benefits.

We need to retract and figure out how to go back to our peak and stay there. The success of the economy needs to be completely redefined. We can function sustainably, produce sustainably, and consume sustainably if we make it a priority to put a higher value on the health of the environment. Instead of extracting resources, recycling and reusing would be the sustainable alternative. Instead of wasting, the solution again would be to recycle and reuse. Resources need to be kept in the market instead of allowing them to fall out and be wasted. Products need to be designed as durable as possible. Then when products have come to an end of their life, they then should be repaired or remanufactured into a new product.

Everything in nature has a limit to its growth. We are foolish to make continuous growth the economic goal because it is scientifically impossible. There is no amount of monetary evidence that can be shown to justify what is happening to the health of humans and to the health of the planet. An average human in developed countries is very detached from nature, but that does not change the fact that humans are a part of nature. Humans came from nature; they depend on the environment. The health of Earth ultimately determines the ability of the economy to function. When one goes to turn on water or lights, those things are available because nature is ultimately providing it for them. Society as a whole needs to take on the responsibility to trace back where all of the things in their lives come from and ensure that the vitality of these resources is guaranteed. However, the economy and society can function sustainably and in fact can thrive. By implementing progressive ideas that promote quality,reuse of materials, and minimum individual consumption, the functioning of systems can persist indefinitely.

[1] Layard, Lord Richard. “Economics Professor: We’re No Closer to Happiness than We Were in the 1950s.” Business Insider. Web. November 3, 2016.

  • Alyson Crutchfield

    Alyson Crutchfield is an undergraduate student at Loyola University Chicago. She is majoring in International Studies with a focus on Global Sustainability.
Scroll to Top