Can the economy grow forever?

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Zoe Walmsley

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

假設你撿到一枚魔法金幣， 每 25 年增生一倍。

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

75 年後，你就擁有八枚金幣。

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

1,000 年後，你就擁有 超過一兆枚金幣。

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

而且只需 4,600 年，

你的金幣總值就會超越可觀測宇宙。

This periodic doubling is an example of exponential growth,

這種週期性倍增 是指數成長的一個例子，

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

雖然現實生活中沒有 生金蛋的鵝之類的金幣危機，

something almost as consequential has been growing like this

卻有一樣相當重要的東西，

在過去的兩百多年間 以同樣的方式增長：

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

全球經濟。

Many economists think that an eternally growing economy

許多經濟學家認為，

不斷繁榮成長的經濟 是改善生活的必要條件，

is necessary to keep improving people’s lives,

and that if the global economy stops growing,

如果全球經濟停止成長，

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

大家會更用力爭奪現存的有限價值，

rather than working to generate new value.

而非努力去創造新的價值。

That raises the question:

這就帶出了一個問題：

is infinite growth possible on a finite planet?

在一個有限的行星上， 無限的成長是可行的嗎？

We measure economic growth by tracking the total financial value

我們衡量經濟增長的方式是：

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

追蹤各國或全球市場上的 生產及銷售總值。

These products can help us meet basic needs

這些產品能幫助滿足我們的基本需求，

or improve our individual and collective quality of life.

或改善個人和總體的生活品質。

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

但更重要地，這些產品也需要資源 才能被生產、製造，甚至維護。

For example, this smartphone.

以這個智慧手機為例。

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

它的價值有部分來自於 它裡面的鋁、鎵，和矽，

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

這些得靠能源和資源去 開採、精鍊、最終製成手機。

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

它之所以有價值的另一個原因是：

投注在硬體設計及軟體編寫上的心力。

into designing the hardware and writing the software.

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

哦，還有，舞台上那個 穿黑色高領毛衣的傢伙，

告訴你它多有價值。

and told you it was.

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

那該如何增加所有商品的金融價值？

One way is to make more things.

有一個方法是製造更多東西。

Another way is to invent new things.

另一個方法是發明新東西。

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

不管如何，經濟要成長 就需要資源和能源。

And eventually, won’t we just run out?

而最終，難道不會有用盡的一天嗎？

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

回答這個問題前，

咱們來思考一下經濟的輸入和輸出：

and what comes out of it:

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

輸入包含勞動力、資本—— 也就是錢——

and natural resources, like water or energy.

以及自然資源，例如水或能源。

Its output is value.

輸出則是價值。

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

過去兩百年間，

經濟在創造價值的效率 正是指數成長。

at producing value.

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

作為一個物種，假設人類 能永無止盡地提升經濟效率，

so that they get ever-more efficient,

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

理論上我們應該能用同樣的資源 創造出越來越多的價值——

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

又甚至，使用更少的資源即可辦到。

So, how do we do that?

那應該怎麼做？我們怎樣提高效率？

How do we increase efficiency?

With new technologies.

應用新的科技技術。

This is where we hit a snag.

那正是我們碰釘子的地方。

New tech, in addition to making things more efficient,

新技術除了可以協助增加效率，

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

也可能產生新需求， 最終反而會用更多資源。

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

其實大部分的資源 還不到短時間內被耗盡的危機。

But we have a much bigger and more immediate problem:

但我們有一個更大、更急迫的問題：

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

全球經濟，特別是富裕國家的經濟，

is driving climate change and destroying valuable natural environments

正在加速氣候變遷、

摧毀全球所有人 賴以生存的珍貴自然環境：

on which all of us depend—

soil, forests, fisheries, and countless other resources

土壤、森林、漁業，

和無數其他人類文明 賴以持續運作的資源。

that help keep our civilization running.

So, what should we do?

到底該怎麽辦？經濟學家眾說紛紜。

This is where economists disagree.

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

多數經濟學家認為， 大多數的問題能靠新點子解決。

They argue that,

他們主張，

in the same way that exponentially increasing resource and energy use

如同資源和能源使用的指數成長

have fueled exponential economic growth,

促成經濟的指數成長，

human ingenuity has also increased exponentially,

人類的才智一路以來也是指數成長，

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

應會能夠因應這些挑戰，

只是我們無法預測會以何種方式。

For example, between 2000 and 2014,

例如，2000 年到 2014 年間，

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

德國的國民生產毛額成長了 16%，

同時，二氧化碳排放減少了 12%。

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

那很不簡單，但減排速度還不夠快，

to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

無法將溫升控制在 攝氏 1.5 度之下。

For this reason and others,

因此，基於這種種原因，

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

某些經濟學家認為 徹底改造經濟才是解決方案。

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

他們說我們真正該做的事是：

戒掉經濟增長的癮， 轉向「後增長型經濟」。

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

What would that look like?

那會是什麽樣子？

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

後增長型經濟少了經濟成長的預設；

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

取而代之的是，要求我們專注 改善我們真正所需的──

things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation.

例如：可再生能源、 醫療照護，和公共運輸。

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

針對這些，後增長經濟學家的建議是：

富裕的國家應該做到保障生活所得、

should do things like guarantee living wages,

reduce wealth and income inequality,

減少財富和收入不均、

and ensure universal access to public services, like healthcare.

以及確保人人皆可取得 健康照護等公共服務。

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

在這種經濟理論下，

人們比較不需要靠工作謀生 或取得醫療照護，

to earn their living or get healthcare,

so it might be more feasible to scale down production

如此一來，要降低生產 非必要產品就容易多了。

of things deemed less necessary.

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

但這又會帶出其他問題：

誰來定義什麽是必要的？

How would we resolve the inevitable disagreements?

又該如何解決不可避免的紛爭？

Could we really do away with entire industries?

我們真的能廢除所有產業嗎？

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

「我們一定會有辦法來解決這些問題」

這個說法就和魔法金幣一樣不切實際。

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

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

至於「重新打造經濟」這個方法，

can seem politically daunting, particularly in rich countries.

在政治上顯然很困難， 尤其是對富裕國家來說。

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

不管怎樣，我們都必須找到 對所有人都有利的方案，

while also taking care of our planet.

同時還能兼顧我們的地球。