Editing Economic growth (section)

==Considerations==
===Quality of life===
One theory that relates economic growth with quality of life is the "Threshold Hypothesis", which states that economic growth up to a point brings with it an increase in quality of life. But at that point – called the threshold point – further economic growth can bring with it a deterioration in quality of life.<ref><!-- Economic Growth and Quality of Life: A Threshold Hypothesis -->{{cite Q|Q56032205}}</ref> This results in an upside-down-U-shaped curve, where the vertex of the curve represents the level of growth that should be targeted. Happiness has been shown to increase with [[GDP per capita]], at least up to a level of $15,000 per person.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8179 "In Pursuit of Happiness Research. Is It Reliable? What Does It Imply for Policy?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110219211701/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8179 |date=2011-02-19 }} [[The Cato Institute]]. April 11, 2007</ref>

Economic growth has the indirect potential to alleviate [[poverty]], as a result of a simultaneous increase in employment opportunities and increased [[labor productivity]].<ref name="ODI2">Claire Melamed, Renate Hartwig and Ursula Grant 2011. [http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5752&title=jobs-growth-poverty-employment Jobs, growth and poverty: what do we know, what don't we know, what should we know?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120918140511/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5752&title=jobs-growth-poverty-employment |date=2012-09-18  }} London: [[Overseas Development Institute]]</ref> A study by researchers at the [[Overseas Development Institute]] (ODI) of 24 countries that experienced growth found that in 18 cases, poverty was alleviated.<ref name="ODI2" />

In some instances, quality of life factors such as healthcare outcomes and educational attainment, as well as social and political liberties, do not improve as economic growth occurs.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Drèze|first1=Jean|last2=Sen|first2=Amartya|title=An uncertain glory India and its contradictions|date=2013|publisher=Princeton University Press|location=Princeton|isbn=9781400848775}}</ref>{{dubious|date=May 2016}}

Productivity increases do not always lead to increased wages, as can be seen in the [[United States]], where the gap between productivity and wages has been rising since the 1980s.<ref name="ODI2" />

===Equitable growth===
{{Main|Inclusive growth}}

While acknowledging the central role economic growth can potentially play in [[Human development (humanity)|human development]], [[poverty reduction]] and the achievement of the [[Millennium Development Goals]], it is becoming widely understood amongst the development community that special efforts must be made to ensure poorer sections of society are able to participate in economic growth.<ref name="ODI">Claire Melamed, Kate Higgins and Andy Sumner (2010) [http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=4892&title=millennium-development-goals-equitable-growth-policy-brief Economic growth and the MDGs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717041456/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=4892&title=millennium-development-goals-equitable-growth-policy-brief |date=2011-07-17  }} [[Overseas Development Institute]]</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Anand |first1=Rahul|title=Inclusive growth revisited: Measurement and evolution|url=http://www.voxeu.org/article/inclusive-growth-revisited-measurement-and-evolution|access-date=13 January 2015|work=VoxEU.org|publisher=Centre for Economic Policy Research|date=17 August 2013|display-authors=etal}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Anand|first1=Rahul|date=May 2013|title=Inclusive Growth: Measurement and Determinants|number=WP/13/135|publisher=International Monetary Fund |location=Asia Pacific Department |url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13135.pdf |access-date=13 January 2015|series=IMF Working Paper|display-authors=etal}}</ref> The effect of economic growth on poverty reduction – the [[growth elasticity of poverty]] – can depend on the existing level of inequality.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ranieri|first1=Rafael|last2=Ramos|first2=Raquel Almeida|title=Inclusive Growth: Building up a Concept |date=March 2013|volume=104|url=http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCWorkingPaper104.pdf |access-date=13 January 2015|series=Working Paper|publisher=International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth|location=Brazil|issn=1812-108X}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Bourguignon |first=Francois |chapter=Growth Elasticity of Poverty Reduction: Explaining Heterogeneity across Countries and Time Periods |date=February 2002 |title=Forthcoming in T. Eichler and S. Turnovsky (eds), Growth and Inequality, MIT Press |s2cid=1574390 |url=http://www.delta.ens.fr/abstracts/wp200203.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040330010906/http://www.delta.ens.fr/abstracts/wp200203.pdf |archive-date=2004-03-30}}</ref> For instance, with low inequality a country with a growth rate of 2% per head and 40% of its population living in poverty, can halve poverty in ten years, but a country with high inequality would take nearly 60 years to achieve the same reduction.<ref>Ravallion, M. (2007) Inequality is bad for the poor in S. Jenkins and J. Micklewright, (eds.) Inequality and Poverty Re-examined, Oxford University Press, Oxford.</ref><ref>Elena Ianchovichina and Susanna Lundstrom, 2009. [http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/03/03/000158349_20090303083943/Rendered/PDF/WPS4851.pdf "Inclusive growth analytics: Framework and application"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111163449/http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/03/03/000158349_20090303083943/Rendered/PDF/WPS4851.pdf |date=2014-11-11  }}, Policy Research Working Paper Series 4851, The World Bank.</ref> In the words of the [[Secretary-General of the United Nations|Secretary-General]] of the United Nations [[Ban Ki-moon]]: "While economic growth is necessary, it is not sufficient for progress on reducing poverty."<ref name="ODI" />

==={{visible anchor|Environmental impact|Environmental impacts}}===
{{See also|The Limits to Growth|Overconsumption}}
Critics such as the [[Club of Rome]] argue that a narrow view of economic growth, combined with globalization, is creating a scenario where we could see a systemic collapse of our planet's natural resources.<ref>Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Dennis L. Meadows. ''Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update''. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green, 2004.</ref><ref><!-- Allan Schnaiberg (1980) The environment: From surplus to scarcity-->{{cite Q|Q111450348}}</ref>

[[File:Uneconomic Growth diagram.jpg|thumb|The marginal costs of a growing economy may gradually exceed the marginal benefits, however measured.]]

Concerns about negative environmental effects of growth have prompted some people to advocate lower levels of growth, or the abandoning of growth altogether. In academia, concepts like [[uneconomic growth]], [[steady-state economy]], [[eco-taxes]], green investments, [[Guaranteed minimum income|basic income guarantees]], along with more radical approaches associated with [[degrowth]], [[Commons|commoning]], [[eco-socialism]] and [[Green anarchism|eco-anarchism]] have been developed in order to achieve this and to overcome possible [[Growth imperative|growth imperatives]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wiedmann|first1=Thomas |last2=Lenzen|first2=Manfred |last3=Keyßer|first3=Lorenz T. |last4=Steinberger|first4=Julia K.|author-link4=Julia Steinberger|title=Scientists' warning on affluence |journal=[[Nature Communications]] |date=2020 |volume=11 |issue=3107 |page=3107 |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y |pmid=32561753 |pmc=7305220 |bibcode=2020NatCo..11.3107W }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hickel|first1=Jason|author-link1=Jason Hickel|last2=Kallis|first2=Giorgos|author-link2=Giorgos Kallis|last3=Jackson|first3=Tim|author-link3=Tim Jackson (economist)|last4=O’Neill|first4=Daniel W.|last5=Schor|first5=Juliet B.|author-link5=Juliet Schor|display-authors=etal.|date=December 12, 2022|title=Degrowth can work — here's how science can help|url= |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=612|issue=7940|pages=400–403|doi=10.1038/d41586-022-04412-x|pmid=36510013 |bibcode=2022Natur.612..400H |s2cid=254614532 |access-date=|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=E. T. |date=2024-01-23 |title=Practising Commoning |url=https://commonslibrary.org/practising-commoning/ |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Nelson |first=Anitra |date=2024-01-31 |title=Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction |url=https://commonslibrary.org/degrowth-as-a-concept-and-practice-introduction/ |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}</ref> In politics, [[Green party|green parties]] embrace the [[Global Greens Charter]], recognising that "... the dogma of economic growth at any cost and the excessive and wasteful use of natural resources without considering Earth's [[carrying capacity]], are causing extreme deterioration in the environment and a massive extinction of species."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.globalgreens.org/sites/globalgreens.org/files/GG_charter_2012_english.pdf |format=PDF contains full charter |title=Charter of the Global Greens |place=Dakar |date=2012 |website=Global Greens |access-date=2024-02-23  |archive-date=2020-10-17  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201017102418/https://www.globalgreens.org/sites/globalgreens.org/files/GG_charter_2012_english.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{rp|2}}

The 2019 ''[[Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services]]'' published by the [[United Nations]]' [[Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services]] warned that given the [[Holocene extinction|substantial loss of biodiversity]], society should not focus solely on economic growth.<ref>{{cite web|title=One million species at risk of extinction, UN report warns|website=National Geographic|date=6 May 2019|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/ipbes-un-biodiversity-report-warns-one-million-species-at-risk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506164806/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/ipbes-un-biodiversity-report-warns-one-million-species-at-risk/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 May 2019 | access-date=18 May 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=World must undergo huge social and financial transformation to save future of human life, major report finds|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/un-biodiversity-report-2019-human-future-nature-food-green-farming-waste-action-a8901776.html|date=6 May 2019|access-date=18 May 2019|newspaper=The Independent}}</ref> Anthropologist Eduardo S. Brondizio, one of the co-chairs of the report, said "We need to change our narratives. Both our individual narratives that associate wasteful consumption with quality of life and with status, and the narratives of the economic systems that still consider that [[environmental degradation]] and social inequality are inevitable outcomes of economic growth. Economic growth is a means and not an end. We need to look for the quality of life of the planet."<ref>{{cite news |last= McKenzie|first=A. D.|date=7 May 2019 |title=Loss of Biodiversity Puts Current and Future Generations at Risk|url=http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/05/loss-biodiversity-puts-current-future-generations-risk/|work=[[Inter Press Service]]|access-date=18 May 2019 }}</ref> 

Those more optimistic about the environmental impacts of growth believe that, though localized environmental effects may occur, large-scale ecological effects are minor. The argument, as posited by commentator [[Julian Lincoln Simon]], stated in 1981 that if these global-scale ecological effects exist, human ingenuity will find ways to adapt to them.<ref>''[[The Ultimate Resource]]'', Julian Simon, 1981</ref> Conversely [[Partha Dasgupta]], in a 2021 report on the economics of biodiversity commissioned by the British Treasury, argued that [[Biodiversity loss|biodiversity is collapsing]] faster than at any time in human history as a result of the demands of contemporary human civilization, which "far exceed nature's capacity to supply us with the goods and services we all rely on. We would require 1.6 Earths to maintain the world's current living standards." He says that major transformative changes will be needed "akin to, or even greater than, those of the Marshall Plan," including abandoning GDP as a measure of economic success and societal progress.<ref>{{cite news |last=Carrington |first=Damian |date=February 2, 2021 |title=Economics of biodiversity review: what are the recommendations? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/02/economics-of-biodiversity-review-what-are-the-recommendations |work= [[The Guardian]]|location= |access-date=8 February 2021}}</ref> Philip Cafaro, professor of philosophy at the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at [[Colorado State University]], wrote in 2022 that a scientific consensus has emerged which demonstrates that humanity is on the precipice of unleashing a major [[extinction event]], and that "the cause of global biodiversity loss is clear: other species are being displaced by a rapidly growing human economy."<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Cafaro|first1=Philip|date=2022 |title=Reducing Human Numbers and the Size of our Economies is Necessary to Avoid a Mass Extinction and Share Earth Justly with Other Species|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359182950|journal=Philosophia|volume=50 |issue= 5|pages=2263–2282 |doi=10.1007/s11406-022-00497-w|s2cid=247433264 |access-date=}}</ref>

In 2019, a [[World Scientists' Warning to Humanity#2019 warning on climate change and 2021 and 2022 updates|warning on climate change]] signed by 11,000 scientists from over 150 nations said economic growth is the driving force behind the "excessive extraction of materials and [[overexploitation]] of ecosystems" and that this "must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sustainability of the biosphere." They add that "our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality."<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Ripple |first1=William J|last2=Wolf|first2=Christopher |last3= Newsome |first3=Thomas M |last4=Barnard |first4= Phoebe  |last5= Moomaw |first5=William R |date=November 5, 2019 |title=World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency |url=https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806 |journal=[[BioScience]] |volume=70|pages=8–12|doi=10.1093/biosci/biz088 |access-date=November 8, 2019|author-link1=William J. Ripple|hdl=1808/30278 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last= Carrington |first=Damian |date=November 5, 2019 |title=Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=November 8, 2019}}</ref> A 2021 paper authored by top scientists in ''Frontiers in Conservation Science'' posited that given the environmental crises including [[biodiversity loss]] and [[climate change]], and possible "ghastly future" facing humanity, there must be "fundamental changes to global capitalism," including the "abolition of perpetual economic growth."<ref>{{cite news |last= Weston |first=Phoebe |date=January 13, 2021 |title=Top scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/top-scientists-warn-of-ghastly-future-of-mass-extinction-and-climate-disruption-aoe |work=[[The Guardian]] |location= |access-date=January 21, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bradshaw |first1=Corey J. A. |last2=Ehrlich |first2=Paul R. |last3=Beattie |first3=Andrew |last4=Ceballos |first4=Gerardo |last5=Crist |first5=Eileen |last6=Diamond |first6=Joan |last7=Dirzo |first7=Rodolfo |last8=Ehrlich |first8=Anne H. |last9=Harte |first9=John |last10=Harte |first10=Mary Ellen |last11=Pyke |first11=Graham |last12=Raven |first12=Peter H. |last13=Ripple |first13=William J. |last14=Saltré |first14=Frédérik |last15=Turnbull |first15=Christine |last16=Wackernagel |first16=Mathis |last17=Blumstein |first17=Daniel T. |date=2021 |title=Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future |journal=Frontiers in Conservation Science |volume=1 |issue= |pages= |doi=10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Specktor |first=Brandon |date=January 15, 2021|title=The planet is dying faster than we thought |url=https://www.livescience.com/ghastly-future-global-crises.html |work=[[Live Science]] |location= |access-date=January 21, 2021}}</ref>

===Global warming===
{{see also|Economics of global warming}}

Up to the present, there is a close correlation between economic growth and the rate of [[carbon dioxide emissions]] across nations, although there is also a considerable divergence in [[carbon intensity]] (carbon emissions per GDP).<ref>Stern Review, Part III Stabilization. Table 7.1 p. 168</ref> Up to the present, there is also a direct relation between global economic wealth and the rate of global emissions.<ref name="Garrett 2011">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1007/s10584-009-9717-9| title = Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?| journal = Climatic Change| volume = 104| issue = 3–4| page = 437| year = 2009| last1 = Garrett | first1 = T. J. | arxiv = 0811.1855| s2cid = 5287353}}</ref> The [[Stern Review]] notes that the prediction that, "Under business as usual, global emissions will be sufficient to propel greenhouse gas concentrations to over 550 ppm {{CO2}} by 2050 and over 650–700 ppm by the end of this century is robust to a wide range of changes in model assumptions." The scientific consensus is that planetary ecosystem functioning without incurring dangerous risks requires stabilization at 450–550 ppm.<ref>Stern Review Economics of Climate Change. Part III Stabilization p. 183</ref>

As a consequence, growth-oriented environmental economists propose government intervention into switching sources of energy production, favouring [[wind power|wind]], [[solar power|solar]], [[hydroelectric]], and [[Nuclear power|nuclear]]. This would largely confine use of fossil fuels to either domestic cooking needs (such as for kerosene burners) or where [[carbon capture and storage]] technology can be cost-effective and reliable.<ref>{{cite book |last=Jaccard |first=M. |year=2005 |title=Sustainable Fossil Fuels |location=New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-67979-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/sustainablefossi0000jacc }}</ref> The [[Stern Review]], published by the United Kingdom Government in 2006, concluded that an investment of 1% of GDP (later changed to 2%) would be sufficient to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk climate-related costs equal to 20% of GDP. Because carbon capture and storage are as yet widely unproven, and its long term effectiveness (such as in containing carbon dioxide 'leaks') unknown, and because of current costs of alternative fuels, these policy responses largely rest on faith of technological change.

British conservative politician and journalist [[Nigel Lawson]] has deemed [[carbon emission trading]] an 'inefficient system of [[rationing]]'. Instead, he favours [[carbon tax]]es to make full use of the efficiency of the market. However, in order to avoid the migration of energy-intensive industries, the whole world should impose such a tax, not just Britain, Lawson pointed out. There is no point in taking the lead if nobody follows suit.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtclimate/170/7051604.htm|title=Examination of Witnesses (Questions 32–39)|date=16 May 2007|access-date=2007-11-29}}</ref>

=== Resource constraint ===
{{See also|Energy returned on energy invested|Substitute good|Mining|Peak minerals|Steady-state economy#Present situation: Exceeding global limits to growth}}
Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as [[Thomas Malthus]]' 1798 predictions about approaching famines in Europe, ''[[The Population Bomb]]'',<ref name="oswego.edu">{{cite web |url=http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch17.html |title=Chapter 17: Growth and Productivity-The Long-Run Possibilities |publisher=Oswego.edu |date=1999-06-10 |access-date=2010-12-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101218063522/http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch17.html |archive-date=2010-12-18 }}</ref><ref name="reason.com">{{cite web|first=Ronald | last = Bailey |url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/34758.html |title=Science and Public Policy |publisher=Reason.com |date=2004-02-04 |access-date=2010-12-22}}</ref> and the [[Simon–Ehrlich wager]] (1980)<ref name="wired.com">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html |title=The Doomslayer |magazine=Wired |first=Ed |last=Regis |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516050031/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html |archive-date=2008-05-16 }}</ref> have not materialized. Diminished production of most resources has not occurred so far, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have allowed some previously unavailable resources to be produced.<ref name="wired.com" /> In some cases, [[Substitute good|substitution]] of more abundant materials, such as plastics for cast metals, lowered growth of usage for some metals. In the case of the limited resource of land, famine was relieved firstly by the revolution in transportation caused by railroads and steam ships, and later by the [[Green Revolution]] and chemical fertilizers, especially the [[Haber process]] for ammonia synthesis.<ref name="Wells1891">{{cite book
|title=Recent Economic Changes and Their Effect on Production and Distribution of Wealth and Well-Being of Society
|last=Wells
|first=David A.
|year=1891 |publisher= D. Appleton and Co.|location= New York|isbn= 978-0-543-72474-8 |url= https://archive.org/details/recenteconomicc01wellgoog }}Opening line of the Preface.</ref><ref>{{cite book |title= Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production
|last=Smil
|first=Vaclav |year=2004
|publisher= MIT Press
|isbn= 978-0-262-69313-4
}}</ref>

Resource quality is composed of a variety of factors including ore grades, location, altitude above or below sea level, proximity to railroads, highways, water supply and climate. These factors affect the capital and operating cost of extracting resources. In the case of minerals, lower grades of mineral resources are being extracted, requiring higher inputs of capital and energy for both extraction and processing. [[Copper]] ore grades have declined significantly over the last century.<ref>{{cite book |title= Energy and Resource Quality: The ecology of the Economic Process
|last1=Hall |first1=Charles A.S. 
|last2= Cleveland |first2=Cutler J.
|last3=Kaufmann |first3=Robert
|year=1992 |publisher= University Press of Colorado |location= Niwot, Colorado }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web
 | last = Lyon
 | first =Christioher
 | title = Declining South America copper ore grades require ingenuity
|publisher=Mining Weekly
 | date = July 3, 2015
 | url = http://www.miningweekly.com/article/declining-copper-ore-grades-require-ingenuity-2015-07-03/rep_id:3650
}}</ref> Another example is [[natural gas]] from shale and other low permeability rock, whose extraction requires much higher inputs of energy, capital, and materials than conventional gas in previous decades. Offshore oil and gas have exponentially increased cost as water depth increases.

Some physical scientists like Sanyam Mittal regard continuous economic [[Exponential growth#Limitations of models|growth]] as unsustainable.<ref name="Bartlett 2013">{{cite web |url=http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html |title=Arithmetic, Population and Energy |last=Bartlett |first=Albert Allen |author-link=Albert Allen Bartlett |publisher=albartlett.org |date=2013 |access-date=2014-07-22 |quote=You cannot sustain population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources.}}</ref><ref name="Murphy 2011">{{cite web |url=http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ |title=Galactic-Scale Energy |last=Murphy |first=Tom |work=Do the Math |date=2011-07-12 |access-date=2014-07-22 |quote=continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes ... all economic growth must similarly end. }}</ref> Several factors may constrain economic growth – for example: finite, peaked, or [[resource depletion|depleted resources]].

In 1972, ''[[The Limits to Growth]]'' study modeled limitations to infinite growth; originally ridiculed,<ref name="oswego.edu" /><ref name="reason.com" /><ref name="aei.org">{{cite web |last=Hayward |first=Steven F. |url=http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21588/pub_detail.asp |title=That Old Time Religion |publisher=AEI |access-date=2010-12-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418014446/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21588/pub_detail.asp |archive-date=2009-04-18 }}</ref> some of the predicted trends have materialized, raising concerns of an impending [[societal collapse|collapse]] or decline due to resource constraints.<ref name="Turner 2010">{{cite journal |last=Turner |first=Graham |title=A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality |journal=Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion |issn=1834-5638 |series=CSIRO Working Paper Series|date=June 2008 |url=http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf|access-date=2010-10-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101128151523/http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf |archive-date=2010-11-28 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hall |first1=C. |last2=Day |first2=J. |year=2009 |title=Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil |journal=American Scientist |volume=97 |issue=3| pages=230–238 |doi=10.1511/2009.78.230}}</ref><ref>{{cite book
 | last = Meadows
 | first = D H
| author2 =Randers
 | title = Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update
 | publisher =Chelsea Green Publishing
| year =2004
| isbn =978-1-931498-58-6
}}</ref>

[[Malthusianism|''Malthusians'']] such as [[William R. Catton, Jr.]] are skeptical of technological advances that improve resource availability. Such advances and increases in efficiency, they suggest, merely accelerate the drawing down of finite resources. Catton claims that increasing rates of resource extraction are "...stealing ravenously from the future".<ref>"Overshoot" by William Catton, p. 3 [1980]</ref>

===Energy===
{{further|topic=Energy role in economy|Econodynamics}}
{{further|topic=Energy efficiency|Productivity improving technologies (historical)#Energy efficiency}}
Energy economic theories hold that rates of energy consumption and [[Efficient energy use|energy efficiency]] are linked causally to economic growth.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kümmel |first1=Reiner |author-link1=Reiner Kümmel |date=2013 |title=Why energy's economic weight is much larger than its cost share |url= |journal=Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions |volume=9 |publisher=Elsevier |pages=33-37 |doi=10.1016/j.eist.2013.09.003 |access-date=}}</ref> The Garrett Relation holds that there has been a fixed relationship between current rates of [[global energy consumption]] and the historical accumulation of world GDP, independent of the year considered. It follows that economic growth, as represented by GDP growth, requires higher rates of energy consumption growth. Seemingly [[Jevons paradox|paradoxically]], these are sustained through increases in energy efficiency.<ref name="Garrett 2014a">{{Cite journal|last1=Garrett|first1=T. J.|year=2014|title=Long-run evolution of the global economy: 1. Physical basis |journal=Earth's Future|volume=2|issue=3|page=127 |doi=10.1002/2013EF000171|arxiv=1306.3554|bibcode=2014EaFut...2..127G|s2cid=204937958 }}</ref> Increases in energy efficiency were a portion of the increase in [[Total factor productivity]].<ref name="Kendrick_1961"/> Some of the most technologically important innovations in history involved increases in energy efficiency. These include the great improvements in efficiency of conversion of heat to work, the reuse of heat, the reduction in friction and the transmission of power, especially through [[electrification]].<ref>{{cite book|title=The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present|last=Landes|first=David. S.|publisher=Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge|year=1969|isbn=978-0-521-09418-4|location=Cambridge, New York|pages=289, 293|author-link=David Landes}}</ref><ref name="Devine83">{{Cite journal|last1=Devine |first1=Warren D. Jr.|year=1983|title=From Shafts to Wires: Historical Perspective on Electrification |journal=Journal of Economic History|volume=43|issue=2|pages=347–372 [p. 355] |doi=10.1017/S0022050700029673|s2cid=153414525}}</ref> There is a strong correlation between per capita electricity consumption and economic development.<ref>
{{cite book|url=http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=900|title=Electricity in Economic Growth|last1=Committee on Electricity in Economic Growth Energy Engineering Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council|publisher=National Academy Press|year=1986|isbn=978-0-309-03677-1|location=Washington, DC|pages=16, 40}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite book|title=The Evolution of Progress: The End of Economic Growth and the Beginning of Human Transformation|last1=Paepke|first1=C. Owen|publisher=Random House|year=1992|isbn=978-0-679-41582-4|location=New York, Toronto|page=[https://archive.org/details/evolutionofprogr00paep/page/109 109]|url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionofprogr00paep/page/109}}
</ref>