Conor here: The following perspective offers a hopeful alternative to our current path of decline, driven by conflict and environmental degradation. While the reasons behind this vision are apparent, the execution remains the biggest challenge, and several hurdles are likely to arise along the way.
By Charles Gasparovic, a neuroscience researcher residing in Spain. Originally published at Common Dreams.
We find ourselves in a world plagued by wars, riots, autocracies, fragile democracies, stark poverty, and rampant wealth, alongside significant environmental crises. But must this be our reality?
A grassroots movement suggests otherwise. This vision has permeated academia and international policy-making, with various proposals outlining the path forward. All of them converge on a singular conclusion: we must cease our relentless pursuit of growth.
The notion of endless growth on a finite planet appears illogical to many. Yet, this concept remains the foundation of most national economies today, rooted in the gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of economic and, by extension, societal well-being for over 90 years. Economists and politicians in leading capitalist nations have perpetuated constant growth, justifying the ongoing extraction of resources from impoverished nations to create products and services that enrich a tiny segment of the population, leaving nearly half of humanity in poverty.
Imagine children toiling in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and juxtapose this with the life of Elon Musk. This stark contrast encapsulates our reality. Of course, some of us, particularly those living in the Global North—not just billionaires—enjoy relative comfort with stable lives: children in school, secure housing, food on the table, and health insurance.
However, none of us will evade the pitfalls of the flawed infinite growth model. The global machinery converting resources into products continues to pump carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change and threatening the stability of our food and water supplies. As rising sea levels loom and climate change’s impacts grow more severe, the neoliberal adage “a rising tide lifts all boats” takes on a new and troubling significance.
So, what is the alternative?
Instead of economic expansion built on unnecessary consumption, let us focus on social progress. The degrowth movement embodies this philosophy, advocating for improvement that includes everyone, from Ugandan children to those attending New England prep schools.
At a recent citizens’ assembly on degrowth in Gijón, an industrial town in northern Spain, a participant expressed concerns regarding the regional government’s plans for a massive data center. These concerns are echoed by many citizens in the US and across Europe, who worry about the immense strain such centers place on local water and energy resources, the associated pollution, and the lack of public involvement in decision-making processes.
Additionally, attendees questioned the true benefits of the data center, wondering who would really gain from it.
No one at the meeting found the government’s assurance that local workers and the economy would benefit credible. The truth is that transnational corporations, particularly those in digital commerce, social networks, and the burgeoning AI and surveillance industries—think Google, Amazon, Meta, OpenAI, and Palantir—are the ones poised to profit.
Governments, whether in democratic Spain or capitalistic America, follow a similar script: position massive data centers as vital to our modern existence and economic competitiveness—fearing that rivals from China or Russia may gain an advantage—while simultaneously shrouding them in obscurity. Regulations are manipulated to sidestep public scrutiny, as seen in some Spanish communities and through initiatives by the Trump Environmental Protection Agency.
As one citizen poignantly remarked, “They wish to establish a data center yet refuse to provide us with the data about it.”
Since its revival in France earlier this century, the degrowth movement seeks to dismantle the world’s dependence on GDP growth—along with the environmental damage and widening wealth disparities it produces. The movement has gained traction, especially in Europe, despite various fits and starts and ongoing debates about how to implement it effectively. Thousands of academic articles have been written, numerous books published, international conferences convened, and grassroots organizations, such as the one in Gijón, mobilized.
This year has seen the release of two landmark reports, synthesizing insights from hundreds of economists, social and political scientists, and environmental experts, detailing not just the “what” and “why” of the degrowth imperative, but also the all-important “how.”
The Global Justice Report, published in June by the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics and contributed to by over 40 experts, including economist Thomas Piketty, proposes a strategy for overhauling labor, healthcare, education, taxation, and trade, aiming to foster pro-social global growth rather than mere material accumulation, leading to a substantive decrease in income, wealth, and power inequality.
In July, the United Nations released its Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth, which shares similar goals, while offering more detailed methodologies for implementation, led by UN poverty expert Olivier de Schutter and hundreds of collaborators. Their plan aims to leverage existing institutions and past regional successes in poverty alleviation and labor conditions improvement.
The reports recommend reducing work hours significantly and shifting focus from certain manufacturing jobs to those with livable wages in essential sectors like education, healthcare, child and elder care, and other social support infrastructure. Workers would receive fair compensation and play a vital role in company governance, equally with stockholders. This new paradigm would reduce production and shift away from unsustainable consumption patterns exacerbated by aggressive marketing of low-lifetime goods, thus benefiting consumers instead of primarily enriching stockholders.
To further combat poverty, unpaid family caregivers would receive fair wages, and a livable allowance would be provided for the unemployed, effectively eliminating poverty. Local and sustainable agriculture initiatives would promote food security and self-sufficiency in all nations, countering the socially and environmentally harmful practice of monoculture exports.
This comprehensive approach would also put an end to neocolonialism, allowing impoverished countries to receive fair compensation for their valuable resources, rather than forcing them into exploitative labor conditions. Furthermore, it would significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions and restrict humanity’s further transgressions of the ecological boundaries essential for life on this finite planet.
How would such a vision be funded? Initially, it would come from increased taxes on corporations and the ultra-wealthy. New global institutions or restructured existing ones, such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, would finance various transition projects, prioritizing pro-social investments over pro-GDP-growth models, which often lead to austerity measures and perpetual indebtedness. The Global Justice Report envisions these new funding entities becoming self-sustaining through their bonds and investment portfolios, eventually negating the need for constant reliance on taxes from wealth and income.
Why would self-interested billionaires or the plutocracies they dominate support such measures? They might resist. In fact, even nations like China, currently making strides in capitalism, might be reluctant to engage.
The authors of the Global Justice Report anticipated this resistance, crafting scenarios where the countries likely to benefit the most are the ones willing to participate, irrespective of the involvement of wealthier nations. Notably, these poorer regions encompass the vast majority of the global population, and the affluent nations are heavily reliant on their natural resources and labor for their continued wealth. This illustrates the mechanics of neocolonialism. Thus, even if transformations begin without the participation of the affluent, it’s likely they’ll soon have no choice but to join in.
Is this vision utopian? Perhaps. Many participants at the citizens’ assembly in Gijón expressed a pragmatic awareness of the challenges in effecting real change, yet they remained committed to striving for progress. They understand that while utopias may seem unrealistic, they serve a crucial, aspirational role in guiding us away from dystopian outcomes.
