Rethinking Value: Ecology, Population, and the Limits of Economic Growth

The Failing Metrics of the Modern World

The global landscape is shifting dramatically. The post-war obsession with Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a cornerstone of neoliberalism and globalization, is now revealed as not only a flawed measure of economic health, but a key driver of ecological destruction and international instability (Allan 2018, 29-74, 263-284; Bonneuil and Fressoz 2017, 99-287; Davies 2019, 298-311; Monbiot and Hutchison 2024, 16-68; Stråth 2023, 272-295). Fuelled by a military-industrial-technological complex dependent on oil, automation, and intellectual property monopolies, our civilization finds itself locked in a self-destructive race for material excess (Bishop and Ross 2021, 1-23; Syll 2023, 52-137).

The urgent question now becomes: how do we navigate a world grappling with climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation, and democratic erosion? Future diplomacy demands a shift away from GDP and towards a deeper understanding of our planet’s capacity to support life (Röckstrom et al 2023). We must move beyond measuring potential markets and start evaluating the health of the very habitats that sustain us (Cato 2013, 145-163; Hall and Klitgaard 2018, 487-502; Lovelock 2000; Quilligan 2017).

Ecology and Population: A Historical Perspective

In 1838, Pierre-François Verhulst's discovery of the sigmoid curve illuminated the dynamic relationship between limited resources and population growth. This S-curve, a visual representation of logistic growth, reveals how populations initially expand rapidly in resource-rich environments, then slow as resources become scarce, eventually stabilizing at the environment's carrying capacity.

Verhulst's work established a crucial connection between the available resources within a habitat and the needs of the species inhabiting it. This stands in stark contrast to the unchecked expansion implied by exponential growth, which ignores these fundamental ecological constraints.

The Carrying Capacity Controversy

The concept of carrying capacity, popularized by Howard Odum (Odum 1953), has become a flashpoint of debate. While ecologists see it as a vital bridge between resource availability and population needs (Sayre 2008, 120-134), critics worry about its potential misuse as a justification for population control (Malthus and Stimson 2018). However, a broader perspective suggests that understanding carrying capacity can lead to more sustainable consumption patterns, reducing overshoot and environmental degradation (Daly and Farley 2004, 413-476).

While acknowledging the complexity of human-environmental interactions, proponents of carrying capacity emphasize the ongoing refinement of measurement techniques through advances in remote sensing, GIS, AI, and stoichiometric testing (Davies 2019, 104-129; Karveia et al 2007, 1866-1869; Lewis and Maslin 2018, 269-294; Liu et al 2021, 1-6). These advancements allow for a more nuanced understanding of the metabolic relationship between resources and populations.

Measuring Carrying Capacity: A Primer

Calculating carrying capacity involves a clear understanding of the biophysical objectives, consistent quantitative analysis, careful data selection, and consideration of physiological needs. The fundamental formula, K = LA / (SY/RN), connects land area (LA), sustainable yield (SY), and resource needs (RN), providing a crucial link between geography, physics, and biology. This metabolic perspective, grounded in the logistic curve, distinguishes carrying capacity calculations from simplistic exponential projections (Odum 2007, 102-216).

The Entropic Economy: Weights, Measures, and Misplaced Value

Our current economic system, built on the assumption of a self-regulating market and the pursuit of exponential growth, fundamentally misrepresents the value of natural resources (Davies 2019, 130-144; Smith 2008). By prioritizing market demand and monetary debt over ecological limits and human needs, we have created an entropic system that ignores the true cost of resource depletion (Davies 2019, 268-297; Fullbrook 2019, 15-91; Mauldin and Tepper 2011, 109-292; Quilligan 2010, 115-152). The focus on weights and measures within the supply chain fails to capture the thermodynamic value of energy, neglecting the interconnectedness of the biosphere and the needs of all living things (Chapin et al 2009; Fullbrook 2019; Fullbrook and Morgan 2019, 72-196; Stiegler and Ross 2021, 18-62).

This disconnect between economic activity and ecological reality has led to unsustainable levels of consumption and a growing disconnect from nature (Alombert 2024; Victor 2008, 47-98). Biophysical economics offers a crucial corrective, highlighting the asymmetrical flow of energy through ecosystems and the limitations of the supply-and-demand model (Hall and Klitgaard 2018, 6-65; Saito 2017, 64-137).

Revaluing the Earth: A Path to Sustainability

Addressing the current polycrisis requires a fundamental revaluation of our relationship with the Earth (Illich 1977, 93-143; MacAskill 2022, 9-163; Saito 2017, 25-61; Victor 2008, 72-98). We must move beyond extractive practices and embrace an economy that prioritizes both supply and need, recognizing the limits of our planet's resources (Evanoff 2011, 130-164; Fullbrook and Morgan 2019, 288-564; Victor 2008, 191-224; Quilligan, 2024). This requires a global dialogue encompassing diverse perspectives, from planetary councils to local activists, to develop new indicators and incentives for sustainable resource management (Cabrera 2004, 71-104; Elo et al 2014, 189-230).

Achieving a truly sustainable future necessitates a shift in power, with greater authority granted to planetary institutions and more economic control devolved to bioregional and local communities (Blake and Gilman 2024, 41-162; MacAskill 2022, 191-252; Quilligan 2024). By tracking the metabolic flow between nature and humanity, we can redistribute resources more equitably and build healthier ecosystems, fostering biodiversity, and promoting human well-being (Fullbrook and Morgan 2021, 384-422; Han 2020; Max-Neef 1992; Pratt 2022, 234-275; West 2017, 411-426). This is the challenge, and the opportunity, of our time.