Economic growth?

Part 1

by Theobald Tiger

I’ve been thinking a lot about why some people want to travel to Mars. I think I’ve found a possible explanation, and the answer is to be found in economics.

The refrain that we constantly hear from most politicians, namely that economic growth will instantly end all crises, is a nice story, but it is a myth. Believing in it is enough to move mountains, all by itself. The government tells us that economic growth will bring full employment and solve all social and financial problems, especially problems related with taxation.

However, scientists tell us that all economic growth will eventually reach its own natural limit, if only because all raw materials, and therefore all goods, on our planet are finite and thus have limited uses. Is this true, asks ECO123?

Portugal’s economy grew by 1.8% in 2025, while the UK economy grew by only 1.3 percentage points. Even if we were to make full use of all recyclable raw materials, economic growth would eventually reach a point where it came to a standstill. Only then would we understand that growth must be viewed as a matter of quality rather than quantity, with each of us being afforded the necessary economic and political education to deal with this question. I’m talking about our brain: it cannot grow quantitatively because our mind, the physical shell, doesn’t expand physically; it only allows for qualitative growth within. In this way, linear growth would be transformed into a kind of circular growth. Is this true?

Economic growth is also countered by population growth. The land we inhabit is finite, so that this growth would inevitably grind to a halt once we have fully occupied the space available to each of us. The greater the population growth, the less space there is for each individual. Eventually, we would reach our peak and then begin to shrink again. We should use this moment for reflection; we should pause and take time to expand our imagination. According to the UN, the world’s population growth is expected to peak at around ten billion people. These are estimates, resulting in figures that might still increase slightly before the population stagnates. And this stagnation would thereafter manifest itself as a form of collapse. Our existence on this planet can be compared to living in an oasis in the desert, in the midst of an escalating climate crisis. Sooner or later, the resources, the goods, the harvests that currently sustain humanity, the water that we drink, all of this would be exhausted in the end! Would you like to comment on this?

Let me now shift the focus slightly and examine the issue of mobility. Manufacturers will not be able to produce more than ten billion cars, because then there would be a lack of buyers, resulting in a lack of capital to purchase something entirely new. Everyone should have their own car. Market saturation is a fact that must be factored into every calculation. But does any politician ever consider market saturation?

The same rules apply to feeding humanity from the harvests of world agriculture. When the space available for growing rice and wheat becomes scarce and the areas set aside for the production of fruits and vegetables reach their limits, then the human population will naturally shrink in size. Hunger and hardship are the natural limits. The charitable organisation known as Oxfam has considered this question. According to its own description, this non-profit organisation works worldwide to enable people in poor countries to establish sustainable and secure livelihoods, gain access to education, healthcare, clean water and sanitation, and receive support during crises and disasters. Oxfam originated in England and now has a national branch in almost every country. Each of us experiences a decisive moment when we realise that so-called economic growth has reached its limits and qualitative growth begins to take root in each of us, which may mean that Less Is More. Our current economic model then recognises this as a crisis. It is not economic growth that will lay the foundations for our being able to overcome the law of poverty for many and wealth for a few; instead, what we need is an economic order that focuses on how we, as people, can live together and manage our resources responsibly. This raises the question as to how future generations can live successfully on this planet, and on what? Because if we claim all the resources today, nothing will be left for future generations. And the question then arises: how can those who have more than others be taxed fairly? Only when we ensure a fair distribution of the wealth that Mother Earth bestows upon us daily and learn to live frugally with the available resources will we grow within ourselves. Growing within ourselves and developing the awareness that we will not be able to take any of this wealth with us when we bid farewell and depart forever. Earthly goods are nothing more than a temporary loan. Let us use them more wisely and distribute them more fairly. We end today’s commentary by referring to a recent Oxfam study that scientifically examines the question of climate change and discusses the inequality between rich and poor. Are you interested? Then stay tuned and read ECO 123 again this coming Saturday in a new issue, starting at 9 am. And let us know your opinion on this topic of “economic growth”…