design driven (only) by growth

#article #2023/ Today, *capitalism* serves as the dominant economic model for most nations, becoming the standard for economic and material progress. This model stems from the free trade doctrine advocated by *Adam Smith* in his famous 1776 treatise, [An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3637045.html). Smith’s core thesis was that trade should not face restrictions, that self-improvement occurs through diligent work, that this labor accumulates financial and human capital, and that such individual betterment automatically improves society overall. Over time, Smith’s depiction of self-interest facilitating market functionality was expanded and oversimplified, resulting in the caricature defined by Raworth as *Homo economicus*. In [Doughnut Economics](https://www.kateraworth.com/), Raworth criticizes the history of the notion of Homo economicus as an iconic portrait of humans which assumes them to be fundamentally individualistic, competitive, and rationally calculating. Raworth names *Paul Samuelson*, considered the *Father of Modern Economics*, as one of the primary creators of a hubristic illusion, stating: “The trouble, however, lies in what it leaves invisible...It makes no mention of the energy and materials on which economic activity depends, nor of the society within which those activities take place: they are simply missing from its cast of characters. Did Samuelson omit them on purpose?” The MIT economist, who drew the famous *Circular Flow Diagram*, simplified economics to the point where [social and environmental costs were no longer considered](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618300856?via%3Dihub). *Raworth* examines the work and damage done by Samuelson’s famous diagram, which depicts technology and innovation as input that pumps through the economic system, generating investment that pushes along wages, creating public savings that stimulate consumption and boosts businesses, and all of this efficiently circulating back into technology and investment. ![[urn_cambridge.org_id_binary-alt_20160708213627-51344-mediumThumb-S1053837210000143_fig1g.jpg]] Circular Flow Diagram, Paul Samuelson (1948) _ _ But Samuelson’s vision conveniently *excludes externalities* - like environmental degradation or a social factors and invisible unpaid actors, as women’s work. According to [Oxfam report](https://www.oxfam.org.uk/documents/307/PPL_-_Impact_Report_2020.pdf) , the 2,153 wealthiest richest people in the world controlled more money than the 4.6 billion poorest combined in 2019. In the same report, it is possible to read that “economic inequality is out of control”, and this is due to the failure of the economic system that privileges the wealth of the few, mostly men, in favour of 2.5 billion hours of work combined every day without pay or recognition by adult and young women around the world. We can observe that the capitalist economic thinking make us believe that the world is not really alive, and certainly not part of us, but is just an object, an *externality*, to be extracted and discarded - and, in the (non-)humanistic Western-centric view, this also means that the majority of human beings are not included. ![[oxfam-stats-on-cw-and-inequality-781x1024.png]] Time to care, Oxfam _ _ The consolidation of capitalist consumer societies was the consecration of the constant increase in productivity due to the increase in consumption as a central element for capital accumulation. There is an urgent need to recognise and address the fact that environmental and social problems result from political economies that systematically prioritise profit-driven options - for example, *planned obsolescence* - over more sustainable options. In his critique of consumer culture, *The Waste Makers*, [Vance Packard](https://www.igpub.com/the-waste-makers/) identified both functional obsolescence, in which the product loses quality quickly, and emotional obsolescence, in which products are designed to become obsolete in “the mind” of the consumer, even sooner than the components used. [Tony Fry](https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/defuturing-9781350089570/) describes the profound implications of modern individualism in terms of design characterising advanced industrial society as an aspect of *defuturing,* a term defining evolution that has created systemic unsustainability and made other possible futures impossible. Inevitably associated with war and technology, for him defuturing became a worldwide impulse with *the rise of industrialism, productivism, Americanism or Fordism*. We can look at the effects of defuturing by analysing the figure below. ![[GLOBAL MATERIAL FOOTPRINT.JPG]] Global Material Footprint 1980-2019, Material Flows _ _ As gross domestic product (GDP) growth becomes entrenched as a core political objective around the world , material use explodes: it reaches 38 billion tons by 1980, hits 60 billion tons by 2002, and then screams up to 97 billion tons by 2019. There is no doubt that some of this increase represents important improvements in people’s access to necessary goods - what *Karl Marx* defined as *use-value*. But at what price? Scientists estimate that the planet can support a total material footprint of about [50 billion tons per year](https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf). This is regarded as the safe upper limit, but, as we can read on the chart, we are almost exceeding it twice over. And virtually all of this excess is being driven by overconsumption in high-income countries - consumption that is organised not around *use value*, but the *exchange value*. ![[lmi.JPG]] Material footprint per capita 2000 - 2017, United Nations _ _ The influential 1972 [book *The Limits to Growth* ](https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/)demonstrated that if humanity continued pursuing economic growth—as measured by GDP—without accounting for environmental costs, global society would sharply decline in the first half of the 21st century, potentially culminating in collapse. The authors, Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens III, predicted that under Business as Usual (BAU) conditions, available food, living standards, and ultimately, human population would decline without changes. As part of the *Earth4All project*,[ *Herrington’s 2022 report The Limits to Growth Model: Still Prescient 50 Years Later*](https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf) compared empirical data to the World3 model’s 1992 projections, recalibrating to verify the real consequences of maintaining the status quo and define possible future scenarios. The BAU represents the attitude of ever-increasing growth that is [“tacitly ubiquitous in society”](https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf). In the BAU chart, the demand for growth continues until the collapse caused by resource scarcity. The Business as Usual 2 (BAU2) scenario also represents business as usual but with twice as many natural resources. This scenario was added to respond to the actual reality of a larger supply of natural resources compared to the 1970s. But more abundant resources do not prevent collapse since[ “the cause of the collapse merely changes from a resource scarcity crisis to a pollution crisis”](https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf). BAU2 tells the story of the ecosystem collapse due to accumulated pollution and thus can be considered as the approximate climate change scenario. Comprehensive Technology (CT) represents the belief in technology and humanity’s ability to innovate beyond environmental constraints. In this scenario, the assumptions include unprecedented technological innovation in a world that otherwise does not change its ultimate goal of growth. Technological solutions do indeed help to avoid a total meltdown but still result in declines because [“so many resources need to be diverted towards technological innovation that not enough remain for agricultural production and health and education services”](https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf). In the Stabilised World (SW), humanity consciously renounces continuous expansion as its ultimate pursuit. We have shifted societal priorities from [“material consumption and industrial growth towards health and education services, as well as pollution abatement and resource-efficient technologies”](https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf). Essentially, society limits its material footprint and changes priorities to meet human needs and protect the environment. This prevents collapse and leaves humanity at the highest levels of well-being. After this analysis, we observe that the BAU2, the scenario that most closely represents the current state, shows that until then, continuous increase in global levels of well-being should stop around the year 2030 and the collapse will happen around 2040. Therefore, we can conclude that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. Several economists argue that contemporary markets are heavily reliant on economic growth fueled by the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, which has led to significant environmental degradation. This development model, characterized by pollution and depletion of natural resources, has resulted in the destabilization of planetary systems to an alarming extent. Renowned economist Lord Nicholas Stern has referred to climate change as [the most significant and far-reaching example of market failure ever witnessed](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-of-climate-change/A1E0BBF2F0ED8E2E4142A9C878052204). ![[earth4all.jpg]] BAU, BAU2, CT and SW scenarios of the 2004 The Limits to Growth book _ _ The reason for this is the fact that capitalism inherently promotes the destruction of natural habitats and social systems in order to perpetually satisfy the demands of the market. In this quest to fulfil the fundamental principle of modernity, the design disciplines have been pivotal in supporting and perpetuating it. Today, designers continue to confuse terminology such as use value and exchange value. Although they recurrently describe their function as creators of value for users (use value), the real purpose of their work is ultimately to design for profitability and growth (exchange value). Design has emerged as a highly profitable strategy for differentiating products, primarily aimed at enhancing the volume and frequency of consumption upon which capitalism and consumer culture rely. Designers employ their skills to optimise human-system performance, making products more desirable, feasible, and viable while maintaining a central focus on growth. Consequently, [the production of goods and services is subordinated to the expansion of capital](https://www.versobooks.com/products/1782-the-origin-of-capitalism). Such unsustainable practices have become integral to daily life, leading to irreparable environmental damage and social inequality. The phenomenon resulting from these practices, climate change, poses[ significant threats to various aspects of human life, including health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, and overall human security](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/). For this reason, by relying on a traditional reductionist ontology, the design supports this generalised devastation by aligning itself with the neoliberal framework and its empty concept of progress.