Let’s say you discover a magical gold coin that doubles every 25 years. 75 years later, you’d only have eight coins. But 1,000 years later, you’d have over a trillion. And in just 4,600 years, your gold coins would outweigh the observable universe.
Recimo, da odkriješ čaroben zlatnik, ki se podvoji vsakih 25 let. 75 let kasneje bi imel samo 8 kovancev. A čez tisoč let bi jih imel več kot bilijon. In v samo 4600 letih bi bili tvoji zlatniki težji kot znano vesolje.
This periodic doubling is an example of exponential growth, and while we’re not in any danger of discovering a real-life golden goose-coin, something almost as consequential has been growing like this for the past 200 or so years: the global economy.
To periodično podvajanje je primer eksponentne rasti in čeprav ne bomo nikoli odkrili resnične kokoši, ki nese zlatnike, nekaj skoraj tako pomembnega raste na tak način in to že 200 let: globalno gospodarstvo.
Many economists think that an eternally growing economy is necessary to keep improving people’s lives, and that if the global economy stops growing, people would fight more over the fixed amount of value that exists, rather than working to generate new value.
Veliko ekonomistov meni, da je neskončno rastoče gospodarstvo nujno za nenehno izboljševanje življenj ljudi, in če svetovno gospodarstvo preneha rasti, bi se ljudje spopadli zaradi omejene količine vrednosti, namesto da bi z delom proizvedli novo vrednost.
That raises the question: is infinite growth possible on a finite planet?
To postavlja vprašanje: je neskončna rast mogoča na omejenem planetu?
We measure economic growth by tracking the total financial value of everything a country (or the world) produces and sells on the market. These products can help us meet basic needs or improve our individual and collective quality of life. But they also, crucially, take resources to invent, build, or maintain.
Ekonomsko rast merimo s sledenjem celotne finančne vrednosti vsega, kar država (ali svet) proizvede in proda na trgu. Ti proizvodi nam lahko zadovoljijo osnovne potrebe ali izboljšajo našo osebno ali skupno kvaliteto življenja. Ali pa, pomembno, porabljajo vire za izume, gradnjo, popravila.
For example, this smartphone. It’s valuable in part because it contains aluminum, gallium, and silicon, all of which took energy and resources to mine, purify, and turn into a phone. It’s also valuable because of all the effort that went into designing the hardware and writing the software. And it’s also valuable because a guy in a black turtleneck got up on stage and told you it was.
Na primer, ta pametni telefon. Vrednost ima deloma zato, ker vsebuje aluminij, galij in silikon, kar zahteva energijo za izkop surovin, njihovo prečiščenje in izdelavo telefona. Prav tako ima vrednost zaradi truda, ki je šel v oblikovanje strojne opreme in pisanje programske opreme. Prav tako pa ima vrednost, ker je tip v črnem puliju stopil na oder in vam rekel, da jo ima.
So how do we grow the total financial value of all things? One way is to make more things. Another way is to invent new things. However you do it, growing the economy requires resources and energy. And eventually, won’t we just run out?
Kako torej povečamo skupno finančno vrednost vseh stvari? En način je, da izdelamo več stvari. Drugi način je, da izumimo nove stvari. Kakorkoli to storimo, rast gospodarstva potrebuje vire in energijo. In sčasoma, ali ne bo vsega kar zmanjkalo?
To answer this question, let's consider what goes into the economy and what comes out of it: its inputs are labor, capital— which you can think of as money— and natural resources, like water or energy. Its output is value. Over the past 200 years, economies have gotten exponentially more efficient at producing value.
Da bi odgovorili na to vprašanje, poglejmo, kaj gre v gospodarstvo in kaj pride iz njega: njegovi vložki so delo, kapital -lahko si zamišljate denar- in naravni viri, recimo voda ali energija. In ven pride vrednost. Zadnjih 200 let so gospodarstva eksponentno rasla pri ustvarjanju vrednosti.
If we, as a species, are able to keep upgrading our economies so that they get ever-more efficient, we could theoretically pump out more and more value using the same— or, let’s be really ambitious here— fewer resources.
Če smo mi, kot vrsta, zmožni izboljšave naših gospodarstev, da so vedno bolj učinkovita, bi lahko teoretično ustvarjali več in več vrednosti z enako- no, bodimo res ambiciozni- z manj viri.
So, how do we do that? How do we increase efficiency? With new technologies.
Kako torej to storimo? Kako povečamo učinkovitost? Z novimi tehnologijami.
This is where we hit a snag.
Tu pa se zatakne.
New tech, in addition to making things more efficient, can also generate new demand, which ends up using more resources.
Nova tehnologija ne naredi stvari samo bolj učinkovite, lahko ustvari novo povpraševanje, kar na koncu porabi več virov.
We’re actually not in imminent danger of running out of most resources. But we have a much bigger and more immediate problem: the global economy, and in particular those of rich countries, is driving climate change and destroying valuable natural environments on which all of us depend— soil, forests, fisheries, and countless other resources that help keep our civilization running.
Pravzaprav nismo v neposredni nevarnosti, da bi nam zmanjkalo večine virov. A imamo večji in bolj nujen problem: globalno gospodarstvo, predvsem v bogatih državah, povzroča klimatske spremembe in uničuje pomembna naravna okolja, od katerih smo odvisni vsi- prst, gozdove, ribe in nešteto drugih virov, zaradi katerih naša civilizacija nemoteno teče.
So, what should we do?
Kaj naj torej storimo?
This is where economists disagree.
Tu se ekonomisti ne strinjajo.
Most economists think that new ideas will be able to fix most of these problems. They argue that, in the same way that exponentially increasing resource and energy use have fueled exponential economic growth, human ingenuity has also increased exponentially, and will rise to meet these challenges in ways that we simply can't predict. For example, between 2000 and 2014, Germany grew their GDP by 16%, while cutting CO2 emissions by 12%.
Večina ekonomistov meni, da bodo nove ideje rešile večino teh problemov. Trdijo, da tako kot je eksponentna rast rabe virov in energije poganjala eksponentno ekonomsko rast, je človeška iznajdljivost prav tako rasla eksponentno, in bo tem izzivom kos na načine, ki jih enostavno ne moremo predvideti. Na primer, med letoma 2000 in 2014 je nemški BDP zrasel za 16%, hkrati pa so zmanjšali emisije CO2 za 12%.
That’s impressive, but it’s not cutting emissions fast enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. For this reason and others, some economists think the solution is to reengineer our economies completely. They make the case that what we should really be doing is weaning ourselves from the addiction to growth and shifting to a post-growth economy.
To je občudovanja vredno, a ne zmanjšuje emisij dovolj hitro, da bi omejili segrevanje na 1,5 stopinje Celzija. Iz tega in drugih razlogov nekateri ekonomisti menijo, da je rešitev v popolnem preoblikovanju gospodarstva. Trdijo, da bi se morali odvaditi obsedenosti z rastjo in se premakniti k gospodarstvu po rasti.
What would that look like? A post-growth economy wouldn’t assume that the economy should grow; instead, it would require us to focus on improving what we really need— things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation. To do that, post-growth economists suggest that rich countries should do things like guarantee living wages, reduce wealth and income inequality, and ensure universal access to public services, like healthcare. In such an economy, people would be theoretically less dependent on their jobs to earn their living or get healthcare, so it might be more feasible to scale down production of things deemed less necessary.
Kako bi to izgledalo? Gospodarstvo po rasti ne predvideva, da mora gospodarstvo rasti; namesto tega bi se osredotočili na izboljšanje tega, kar zares potrebujemo- stvari kot je obnovljiva energija, zdravstvo in javni prevoz. Da bi to dosegli, ekonomisti “po rasti” predlagajo, naj bogate države zagotovijo dostojne plače, zmanjšajo neenakosti v premoženju in zaslužku in zagotovijo dostop do javnih storitev, kot je zdravstvena oskrba. V takem gospodarstvu bi bili ljudje teoretično manj odvisni od svojih služb, da bi zaslužili dovolj ali dostopali do zdravstva, zato bi bilo možno zmanjšati proizvodnjo stvari, ki niso tako nujne.
But this raises other questions: who gets to define what’s necessary? How would we resolve the inevitable disagreements? Could we really do away with entire industries?
A tu se pojavijo druga vprašanja: kdo določa, kaj je nujno? Kako bi razrešili neizogibna nestrinjanja? Bi res lahko ukinili celotne industrije?
The “we’ll come up with new ideas to solve these problems” approach can seem as realistic as, well, a magical gold coin. And the “we have to fundamentally change our economies” approach can seem politically daunting, particularly in rich countries. One way or another, we have to find a way to benefit everyone while also taking care of our planet.
Pristop “Našli bomo nove ideje, da bomo rešili te probleme,” se zdi tako realističen kot, no, magični zlatnik. In pristop, pri katerem moramo spremeniti temelje našega gospodarstva, se zdi politično zastrašujoč, še posebej v bogatih državah. Tako ali drugače moramo najti način, ki bo koristil vsem, in zraven poskrbeti še za naš planet.