The arithmetic of more
We’ve watched this argument cycle for forty years and it always hits the same wall. Every economy runs on a physical base — land, biomass, energy — and a growing one needs more of it each year. The extinction wave is not a puzzle to out-clever. It is the exhaust of an economy that converts habitat into product faster than anything can adapt.
So we find the technologists sincere and beside the point. You can clone a ferret while bulldozing the grassland it needs in the same quarter and book the first thing as progress. The labs scale linearly. Habitat loss scales with GDP. That race has a known loser.
The conservationists are our allies, but their wins are defensive — a fence here, a listing there — inside a system whose default setting is conversion. Half-measures inside a growth economy buy time, not safety. The only durable path to anything near zero is to shrink the footprint: less land in production, less throughput, an economy that stops treating a forest as inventory waiting to be booked.
We know how that sounds. Telling people to want less has lost every election it entered. But some problems now exceed what any single clever fix can reach.
Where we concede ground: Degrow
with no plan for the poor who’d pay first is a slogan, not a policy. We owe an answer we don’t fully have.
What would change our mind: If a high-growth economy decoupled enough to halt habitat loss outright for two decades.
Read the full synthesis: Is zero extinctions achievable, or is that hubris?