Can the economy grow forever?

翻译人员: Sirius Xie 校对人员: Yuwei Wu

Let’s say you discover a magical gold coin that doubles every 25 years.

假设你发现了一个魔法金币， 每 25 年翻一番。

75 years later, you’d only have eight coins.

75 年后， 你只会拥有 8 枚金币。

But 1,000 years later, you’d have over a trillion.

但是一千年后， 你的财富会超过一万亿。

And in just 4,600 years, your gold coins would outweigh the observable universe.

只需要 4600 年， 你的金币就会超过可观宇宙。

This periodic doubling is an example of exponential growth,

这种周期性翻倍 是指数增长的一个例子，

and while we’re not in any danger of discovering a real-life golden goose-coin,

虽然我们现实中没有发现哪种模因币 有这种神奇而迷人的危险性，

something almost as consequential has been growing like this

但在过去的 200 年里， 有一样几乎同样重要的东西

for the past 200 or so years: the global economy.

在爆发式增长全球经济。

Many economists think that an eternally growing economy

许多经济学家认为， 经济的持续增长是必要的

is necessary to keep improving people’s lives,

来维护人类生活的持续改善，

and that if the global economy stops growing,

如果全球经济停止增长，

people would fight more over the fixed amount of value that exists,

人们就会为现有的价值固定价值争斗，

rather than working to generate new value.

而不是去创造新的价值。

That raises the question:

那么问题来了：

is infinite growth possible on a finite planet?

对于有限的星球资源来说 无限的经济增长可能实现吗？

We measure economic growth by tracking the total financial value

我们通过追踪国家或世界生产 和销售的商品总额

of everything a country (or the world) produces and sells on the market.

来衡量经济增长。

These products can help us meet basic needs

这些产品可以满足我们的基本需求

or improve our individual and collective quality of life.

也能提高我们 个人和集体的生活水平。

But they also, crucially, take resources to invent, build, or maintain.

关键在于，发明、建造 甚至是维持现状，都消耗资源。

For example, this smartphone.

例如，智能手机。

It’s valuable in part because it contains aluminum, gallium, and silicon,

它的部分价值来源于 它所含的铝、镓和硅，

all of which took energy and resources to mine, purify, and turn into a phone.

而这些则需要对能源和资源进行 开采和提纯，然后才能制成手机。

It’s also valuable because of all the effort that went

它还因人力的投入而有价值

into designing the hardware and writing the software.

设计硬件、编写软件， 都是其价值所在。

And it’s also valuable because a guy in a black turtleneck got up on stage

当然，它的价值还体现在一个穿着 黑色高领毛衣的人在舞台上对你说

and told you it was.

它是多么有价值。

So how do we grow the total financial value of all things?

那么，我们应该如何 增加所有事物的总金融价值呢？

One way is to make more things.

一种方式是我们制造更多的东西。

Another way is to invent new things.

另一种方式是我们发明新的东西。

However you do it, growing the economy requires resources and energy.

无论你怎么做，经济增长都需要 资源和能源的支持。

And eventually, won’t we just run out?

最终，我们会把它们消耗殆尽吗？

To answer this question, let's consider what goes into the economy

为了回答这个问题，让我们来想想， 经济所需的原料都有什么

and what comes out of it:

经济又生产了什么：

its inputs are labor, capital— which you can think of as money—

它需要劳力、资本—— 或者说钱——

and natural resources, like water or energy.

以及自然资源，比如水或者能源。

Its output is value.

然后它产生了价值。

Over the past 200 years, economies have gotten exponentially more efficient

在过去 200 年里， 经济体在创造价值方面的效率

at producing value.

呈指数级提高。

If we, as a species, are able to keep upgrading our economies

作为一个物种， 若我们可以不断发展我们的经济

so that they get ever-more efficient,

使其产生更多的效益，

we could theoretically pump out more and more value using the same—

理论上来说，我们可以用同样的—— 或者再野心勃勃一点——

or, let’s be really ambitious here— fewer resources.

用更少的资源创造更多的价值

So, how do we do that?

那么，我们该怎么做？

How do we increase efficiency?

我们应该怎样增加效能？

With new technologies.

用新科技吗？

This is where we hit a snag.

这就是问题所在了。

New tech, in addition to making things more efficient,

新技术除了能提高效率外，

can also generate new demand, which ends up using more resources.

还会产生新的需求， 这最终会消耗更多的资源。

We’re actually not in imminent danger of running out of most resources.

事实上，我们并没有面临耗尽 大部分资源的紧迫危险。

But we have a much bigger and more immediate problem:

但我们有一个更大且更紧迫的问题:

the global economy, and in particular those of rich countries,

全球经济，特别是富裕国家的经济，

is driving climate change and destroying valuable natural environments

正在推动气候变化， 破坏我们所有人赖以生存的

on which all of us depend—

宝贵环境——

soil, forests, fisheries, and countless other resources

土壤、森林、渔业和无数其它

that help keep our civilization running.

帮助维持我们文明运转的资源。

So, what should we do?

我们该做些什么？

This is where economists disagree.

这就是经济学家们的争论所在。

Most economists think that new ideas will be able to fix most of these problems.

大多数经济学家认为， 新想法总能解决多数问题。

They argue that,

他们认为，

in the same way that exponentially increasing resource and energy use

对于能源的成倍增长的使用

have fueled exponential economic growth,

也极大程度上促进的增长，

human ingenuity has also increased exponentially,

人类的创造力也成倍增长，

and will rise to meet these challenges in ways that we simply can't predict.

并将以我们无法预测的方式 应对这些挑战。

For example, between 2000 and 2014,

举个例子， 2000 年至 2014 年，

Germany grew their GDP by 16%, while cutting CO2 emissions by 12%.

德国的GDP增长了 16%，同时 也减少了 12% 的二氧化碳排放。

That’s impressive, but it’s not cutting emissions fast enough

这令人印象深刻， 但它的减排速度仍不足以

to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

将气温上涨限定在 1.5 摄氏度以内。

For this reason and others,

出于这样那样的原因，

some economists think the solution is to reengineer our economies completely.

有些经济学家认为，应该彻底改变 我们现存的经济结构和能源消耗。

They make the case that what we should really be doing is weaning ourselves

他们认为，我们真正应该做的是 摆脱对增长的依赖

from the addiction to growth and shifting to a post-growth economy.

转向后增长经济。

What would that look like?

那会是怎样的？

A post-growth economy wouldn’t assume that the economy should grow;

后增长经济不会以 经济一定会增长为前提；

instead, it would require us to focus on improving what we really need—

相反，它需要我们专注于 改善我们真正需要的东西——

things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation.

比如可再生能源、 医疗保健和公共交通。

To do that, post-growth economists suggest that rich countries

为了做到这一点，后增长经济学家 建议富裕国家应该采取措施

should do things like guarantee living wages,

比如保障最低生活工资，

reduce wealth and income inequality,

促进财富和收入平等，

and ensure universal access to public services, like healthcare.

确保普及医疗等公共服务。

In such an economy, people would be theoretically less dependent on their jobs

在这样的经济运转下，理论上来说 人们将不那么依赖工作来谋生，

to earn their living or get healthcare,

so it might be more feasible to scale down production

或获得医疗服务因此， 减少被认为不那么必要的产品的生产

of things deemed less necessary.

可能更可行。

But this raises other questions: who gets to define what’s necessary?

但是这又带来了其它的问题： 谁来定义什么是必要的?

How would we resolve the inevitable disagreements?

我们怎样才能解决不可避免的分歧?

Could we really do away with entire industries?

我们能够从所有的行业中 脱离出来吗？

The “we’ll come up with new ideas to solve these problems” approach

“我们会有新的方针 来解决现有问题”的法案

can seem as realistic as, well, a magical gold coin.

看起来就像那枚 魔法金币一样不现实。

And the “we have to fundamentally change our economies” approach

而“我们必须从根本上 改变我们的经济”的提议

can seem politically daunting, particularly in rich countries.

这在政治上似乎令人望而却步， 尤其是在富裕国家。

One way or another, we have to find a way to benefit everyone

无论如何，我们必须找到一种 既能造福所有人

while also taking care of our planet.

又能保护我们的地球的方法。