What are the consequences
of constant economic growth?
If you have an economic system like
capitalism that assumes that
year after year, you need to see
more and more growth.
Well, back in the 1970s,
researchers over at MIT looked into
this and they found that if we keep
going the pace that we're going in,
by 2040, society will collapse.
And guess what?
A Harvard researcher decided to
follow up on these findings.
And she found that we're actually
on pace, meaning that these MIT
researchers we're absolutely right.
So let me give you these details.
Just to give you a little more
context or more details about the
study itself that was done by MIT.
In 1972, a team of MIT scientists
got together to study the risks of
civilizational collapse.
Their system dynamics model
published by the Club of Rome,
identified impending limits to
growth.
That meant industrial civilization
was on track to collapse sometime
within the 21st century due to,
this is important,
over exploitation of planetary
resources.
Let's say it again over
exploitation of planetary resources
we're experiencing
the ramifications of climate change
as we speak.
But let me give you the details on
the analysis that was done later
by a Harvard researcher.
So the current business-as-usual
trajectory of global civilization
is heading toward the terminal
decline of economic growth within
the coming decade.
And at worst could trigger societal
collapse by around 2040. So
the Harvard researcher that we're
talking about here her name is
Gaya Harrington, and her new
analysis examines data across ten
key variables. Namely, population,
fertility rates, mortality rates,
industrial output, food production
services, non-renewable resources,
persistent pollution, human
welfare, and ecological footprint.
She found that the latest data most
closely aligns with two particular
scenarios, business-as-usual and
comprehensive technology.
So business-as-usual is what we
keep hearing about in regard
to COVID ending and everything
going back to normal. But
what are the consequences of that?
Can we actually just go back to
normal? Based on these findings?
No, there's some severe
consequences to that. So,
business-as-usual and comprehensive
technology scenarios show a halt in
growth within a decade or so
from now. Both scenarios thus
indicate that continuing
business-as-usual that is pursuing
continuous growth is not possible.
Even when paired with unprecedented
technological development and
adoption, business-as-usual,
as modelled by limits to
growth would inevitably lead
to declines in industrial capital,
agricultural output and welfare
levels within this century. So I've
got more details about this, but
Cenk wanted to get your thoughts.
>> Yes, so I'll say two things
before handing it off to Adrian.
So look she's saying there that
they were right 1972 but
there's a separate story in
the news today about the Amazon and
they're saying, no we were wrong.
It's happening quicker than we
realized. And so
some of the things that we thought
were going to happen way later have
already happened. So for example,
some of the affected regions in
the Amazon temperature has gone up
in the last 40 years by four and
a half degrees.
We are absolutely screwed. Four and
a half degrees in a weather pattern
is no big deal. Okay,
it's 74 degrees, it's 78.5 degrees.
That's not important, right?
But when the entire region is
lifted by 4.5 degrees on average,
then that is epic disaster. And so,
we're deforesting the Amazon that
puts less water in the air,
I can go on and on.
We've created a vicious cycle, we
cannot get past. In fact, some of
the scientists in that story say,
we're not at the tipping point,
we're past the tipping.
>> Yeah, exactly. >> So when they
look back at us in the future,
they're going to say, why didn't
you do something? And in fact, they
look at videos like this and say,
you see, they know, look at this
story about the Amazon they'll say
they knew their look at that story.
My god they knew in 1972 and
then it was reaffirmed in 2021 to
the scientists were exactly right,
right?
And yet they still did nothing.
>> Yeah.
>> It's always wild to me how
the scientists, researchers,
they always have the answer.
They always know how to fix things.
Yet, mainstream doesn't
listen to them because it's not
beneficial economically.
And in this situation, it's exactly
what we're seeing play out.
Where they let us know in
advance that, hey,
it's not going to go well for us.
We're heading toward
Mad Max Thunder Dome part two.
But the reality is that people
won't listen, no because we have
to generate money.
And I love also that this MIT
report came out pre Amazon in terms
of Jeff Bezos.
Because the fact is that even when
I see how that business model
operates and all the boxes I have
stacked up in my home and thinking
of that and everyone else's home,
and just thinking of how much
we waste and use.
It's clear we're not going to make
it for very long and
if not we need to be ready to fight
The Thunder Dome.
>> Right, I mean, the idea of
infinite growth is we really like
think about it insane, right?
It's insane especially when that
growth relies on exploiting the
planet and it's natural resources,
those resources are finite.
And so when you think about
the impact on agriculture, for
instance, which is one
of the variables that was
looked at in this follow up study,
it all makes sense.
I mean, it uses all this fancy
lingo, but in reality,
this is a very simple concept and
we're seeing the ramifications of
this system that we're seeing it in
extreme weather conditions.
We're seeing it in infrastructure
not being able to withstand the
conditions that we're dealing with.
So, I also want to talk a little
bit about, like the timeline,
right?
Because it's not like we
get to 2040 and the world ends.
Now, that's not what
the researchers are saying here.
So, Harrington found in
the MIT World3 models collapse does
not mean that humanity will cease
to exist but rather that economic
and industrial growth will stop and
then decline which will hurt food
production and standards of living.
In terms of timing,
the business-as-usual scenario
shows a steep decline to set
in around 2040.
But to be honest with you,
I feel like we're already
experiencing that steep decline.
But it's not the end of the world,
right?
So this doesn't mean, my god,
the situation is so
dire that at this point we can do
absolutely nothing about it.
She mentions how technological
advancements could actually help us
in mitigating some of
the consequences we're experiencing
but also in creating a more
sustainable model, right?
I mean,
that would require like worldwide
global cooperation, something
that's kind of difficult to do when
the United States is still wanting
to dominate.
And it uses all sorts of hawkish
rhetoric when it comes to China,
when it comes to Russia, when it
comes to other major countries that
whether you love them or not.
You need to cooperate with them in
order to combat climate change and
the decline that we're talking
about here.
So, yeah.
>> Yeah, so I think again, when
people look back they're going to
say wait To Hadrian's Wall, why
didn't they listen to the science?
That's weird.
99% of the scientists told them
that climate change was definitely
happening.
What did you need, 100%?
Do they think that there is
scientists in India, in Brazil,
in US, in Philippines,
were all lying about temperature
recordings is insane, right?
And but then they're going to see,
they didn't even listen
to the scientists when there was
a pandemic.
And the scientist said wear
the mask, get the vaccine, people
were like no I just prefer to die.
They're really going to
be confounded by how stupid we
are in present day; America and
a lot of other parts of the world,
to be honest,
when it comes to climate change.
Some countries are doing amazing
work trying to fix the problem and
a lot of countries or not.
And then to another point by
Adrian, the greed.
That's why I talked about how
the stock market
is basically agreed machine.
It demands 15% growth from each
company every year.
Well, you can't do that, right?
Adrian's right, Anna is right.
You can't have infinite growth,
that doesn't make any sense.
You obviously set yourself up for
some sort of collapse at some
point, right?
Look, the only hope that I have and
it's a weird kind of hope other
than progressive taking over and
American actually doing things that
are sane is we have declining
birth rates.
Both in America and
all across the world.
So, nature is going to find a way
to begin to fix it and one
of the ways is, alright, you guys
are not going to have kids anymore.
And so part of that is because of
the pollution that we're putting
out there plastic pollution and
other factors.
So we're kind of poisoning
ourselves along with the planet and
so then you might get to
equilibrium because we hurt our
ability to reproduce so much that
while we consume less resources
because there's less of us.
But that's not an ideal solution.
So we should get to that point
naturally not through pollution and
climate change.
And then my last point is, Adrian's
cat obviously won this video,
but- >> I didn't even catch that.
[LAUGH] >> You can see him?
Sorry about that.
>> That's okay.
I saw him earlier.
He was enjoying the story.
He was like, wait, what's going on
with climate change?
[LAUGH] >> It all Maverick.
>> [LAUGH] And he was in fact
a Maverick.
>> Yeah, absolutely.