By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As approximately one-eighth of the world’s species face extinction and human activity has significantly altered 75 percent of Earth’s land surface, future prosperity is jeopardized. This degradation is attributed to businesses failing to value biodiversity, “perverse incentives,” insufficient regulatory support, and models promoting increased consumption. While businesses can contribute to solutions, policy, legal frameworks, and collective action are essential to reverse biodiversity loss, even as some regions pursue deregulation and others withdraw from international cooperation.
Read the original article here
It’s a stark warning, and one that’s been a long time coming. Approximately 150 countries are now sounding the alarm, essentially saying that our relentless pursuit of economic growth is actively dismantling the natural world we depend on. It’s a sentiment that echoes a growing unease, a feeling that perhaps we’ve been caught in a collective psychological denial for decades, much like we’ve done with climate change. For a significant portion of the global population, this understanding might even be beyond their cognitive grasp, a concept too abstract to truly internalize.
What this obsession with growth truly signifies is a fixation on economics, an endless pursuit of more at the expense of everything else. This isn’t growth in a healthy, organic sense; it’s more akin to the uncontrolled proliferation of cancer. Yet, ironically, the narrative often pushes for more – more consumption, more production, and, in some misguided ways, even more people, a sentiment often expressed with a heavy dose of sarcasm in these discussions.
The core issue seems to be that this system, deeply intertwined with capitalism and the drive for ever-increasing numbers, is fundamentally unsustainable. It mirrors a warning from Marx, highlighting how the relentless pursuit of profit inherently exploits both people and the environment. Unless we can collectively shift towards a more balanced and sustainable model, the current trajectory points towards the destruction of civilization as we know it.
A significant part of the problem lies with governments, which appear to have forgotten their primary role: to regulate capitalism. We’re meant to have a regulated market economy, not a free-for-all where unchecked corporate power dictates terms. Globalization has significantly eroded the ability of individual nations to impose meaningful regulations. Large international companies can easily threaten to relocate, leaving even powerful countries in a difficult position to hold them accountable. This problem has persisted for decades, with little effective action taken by those in power.
The driving force behind this destructive path is an avaricious demand for short-term economic profit, leading to permanent, irreparable damage to the natural environment. This is the very environment that sustains us, providing food, shelter, clean water, and the raw materials for advancements in medicine, technology, and efficient resource management. Sustainability, in this context, is fundamentally at odds with market economics. Perpetual growth and scarcity are the bedrock of our current global economic system, making meaningful change through policy alone incredibly difficult.
Any attempts at creating green policies or fostering sustainability are actively disincentivized by market forces that prioritize profit above all else. Corporations, driven by the need to maximize their returns, will often find loopholes, exert pressure, or even resort to corrupting governments to maintain their profit margins. This creates a perverse incentive structure where efforts towards genuine abundance and widespread prosperity are undermined by the pursuit of individual gain.
We are essentially caught in a conflict between competition and cooperation, scarcity and abundance, growth and sustainability. Our current economic system, in many ways, functions as an “anti-economy,” driving both political and market forces. Technological advancements, rather than being solely for societal benefit, have often been byproducts of industries seeking to cut costs and increase profits. The system is designed for constant consumption, and it inevitably faces a breaking point when purchasing power declines to a level that can no longer sustain this perpetual demand.
A fundamental shift is needed, not necessarily towards communism or socialism, but towards a system that genuinely considers human needs, the environment, and the principles of abundance and sustainability. The idea of unlimited growth on a finite planet is a thermodynamic impossibility, leading to significant entropy. Yet, the focus remains on metrics like shareholder value, seemingly oblivious to the fundamental requirement of having a habitable planet. The current mindset seems to be captured by the sentiment, “Is having a planet to live on even important if the stock market line isn’t going up?”
Capitalism, by its very nature, is not content with stability; it demands constant expansion, a model that cannot be sustained indefinitely. Critics have been voicing these concerns for at least half a century. While some nations might point to their efforts, the underlying economic structure often remains unchanged. The concept of “biggering and biggering” relentlessly, a process that has another, more sinister name: cancer. This relentless growth imperative extends even to population, which many argue needs to be addressed.
The Earth itself is resilient and will endure long after humanity is gone. However, the question of whether Western nations can preach restraint to developing countries, having themselves industrialized through environmental degradation, is a complex one. If genuinely better and cheaper sustainable methods exist, they must be shared. Otherwise, developing nations prioritizing poverty alleviation will inevitably follow the path of past industrialization, which often came at nature’s expense. It’s seen as unfair to expect poorer nations to curb their growth while wealthier nations benefit from the consequences of their historical environmental impact.
Some argue that population growth, rather than an obsession with economic expansion, is the primary driver of global problems. The perception of “growth” is often conflated with providing more resources and opportunities for a growing population. The historical awareness of these issues stretches back further than commonly acknowledged, with foundational reports like “Limits to Growth” published decades ago, yet the focus on economic expansion has largely overshadowed these concerns.
The current global economy is intrinsically built around perpetual growth, with little to no serious discussion about a sustainable alternative. For businesses, particularly those under pressure from private equity, the concept of zero growth can mean profits stagnating, leading to a concentration of wealth in fewer hands. This can lead to economic stagnation and a lack of opportunity for the broader population.
The notion of a sustainable equilibrium on a planet with an ever-increasing human population presents a significant challenge. The argument is often made that if one country chooses to limit growth, another will inevitably seize the advantage. This creates a “tragedy of the commons” scenario, where individual self-interest, driven by the need to grow or be left behind, overrides collective long-term sustainability.
There’s a nostalgic memory of a time when environmentalism was a prominent concern, with tangible actions like reducing waste and banning harmful chemicals. Somewhere along the line, the focus shifted dramatically towards economic imperatives. While many people acknowledge the problem, those in positions of power have often failed to act decisively.
The question of a viable alternative is crucial. While some advocate for reduced population growth, the idea of imposing such measures is fraught with ethical and practical difficulties. The fundamental issue appears to be a conflict between need and greed. There is enough for everyone’s basic needs, but not enough to satisfy universal greed.
The economic system, driven by a desire for profit, actively discourages simply existing when more consumption is possible. This inherent drive for expansion, for “biggering and biggering,” is the underlying force pushing us towards an ecological precipice, a fact that 150 nations are now acknowledging with a dire warning.