Planet Money - PM x Radiolab: Can the economy grow forever?

Episode Date: March 28, 2025

Earth can sustain life for another 100 million years, but can we? This episode, we partner with Radiolab to take stock of the essential raw materials that enable us to live as we do here on Earth — everything from sand to copper to oil — and tally up how much we have left. Are we living with reckless abandon? And if so, is there even a way to stop? A simultaneously terrifying and delightful conversation about bird poop, daredevil drivers, and some staggering back-of-the-envelope math. Radiolab's original episode was produced and edited by Pat Walters and Soren Wheeler. Fact-checking by Natalie Middleton. The Planet Money edition of this episode was produced by Emma Peaslee and edited by Alex Goldmark and Jess Jiang. Special thanks to Jennifer Brandel.Find more Planet Money: Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.Listen free at these links: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.Music: NPR Source Audio - "Wir Rollen" Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Planet Money from NPR. A few weeks ago, we got this kind of mind-bending question. It was from our friends at Radiolab, which is a show about science and philosophy and, you know, just the sheer joy of curiosity. In this case, they were curious about growth, in particular, economic growth. How could it possibly go on forever? And can too much growth destroy us? And in trying to answer their big question,

we ended up in some pretty heady and unexpected places. Hello and welcome to Planet Money, I'm Jeff Guo, and today we're doing something a little bit different. We've teamed up with Radiolab, and we're going to try to answer one of the biggest questions that often goes unsaid in economics. Here's Latif Nasser from Radiolab to get us started. Hey, this is Radiolab. I'm Latif Nasser.

What got me thinking about economic growth was not all the stuff that's in the news, the tariffs, the fear of the recession, all that stuff that everybody's talking about what started It was a lecture. I heard a little while back by of all people an Astrophysicist so I'm going to sketch what we know about Earth's history cosmically speaking Her name is Sandra Faber. She goes by Sandy brilliant scientist She co-authored the Standard Model for Thinking About How Galaxies Form. She won a National Medal of Science back in 2011.

And she started the lecture by saying, we have a pretty happy little planet to live on. Earth is a good place to live for, let's say, of order a hundred million years at least. Should be livable for a really, really long time. Okay. Except, she goes on to say, for us. Over the last century or so, we've been seeing planet-wide GDP growing exponentially. So what she did is she took the average gross domestic product worldwide, and that's a rough

measure of economic growth, and that had been growing recently around 3%, which for economists is like a happy little growth number. You will recognize 1.03%, 3% as the holy grail of economic growth. But Sandra took that 3%, and with some quick math, she started to just play it out year after year and In her lecture. She's showing this chart where you can see this curve just Shooting up we can see this number is completely ridiculous And she was basically like look at all that growth that's eating up Earth's Resources a large number here is bad because it means

that we want more of that product. And so even though Earth should be good for 100 million years, we're gonna just eat the planet up. We're gonna devour the physical material level of this planet. We're gonna eat it up in more like a couple thousand years. And my concern is that we're not talking about this. And when I heard that, that was breathtaking

and horrifying. And honestly, like I haven't been able to stop thinking about that number, 3%. It sounds like a specific thing, but also it's kind of abstract and mathy and I wanted help. I wanted help. I wanted help to parse this out.

How bad is that really? How bad could that possibly be? And so I turned to someone whose job it is to literally make sense of this exact kind of thing. Hello. Hi, how are you doing? Hi, I'm doing well. How are you?

And we had what I felt like was a kind of a roller coaster of a conversation. So I'm just going to play it for you right now. Yeah, OK. So I am Jeff Guo. I'm one of the hosts of the Planet Money podcast at NPR. Terrific show. Thank you.

And I guess, what do I do? I talk about economics all day? That's, I guess that's what I do. I need you. I need you to help me. It's more than scratch and itch. I need you to help me. Cure this existential dread that you have now.

That's exactly right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, I guess where I would start is, and you know, I would hate to contradict a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist. It just sounds like, you know,

starting out on dangerous territory there. I mean, well, she won the National Medal of Science, not the Nobel, but. She's gonna, she's gonna, it sounds like she's gonna win. Okay, yeah, sure, fair, fair. But you did ask me to kind of look into what things are we to run out of?

Yes, yes, yes. Oh my gosh, I'm so excited. After the break, can we cure Latif's existential dread? Or did we just make it worse? Are we overlooking the challenges facing men without college degrees? Richard Reeves thinks so. There are a lot of guys out there who are actually poorer than their dads. Reeves heads the American Institute for Boys and Men.

Have we updated our view about the role of men as quickly as we've changed the economy around them? And the answer is no. That's from a recent Planet Money bonus episode. A look at the economic and cultural struggles of working class men. To hear it and get sponsor free listening, sign up for NPR Plus. Just go to plus.npr.org. Okay, Latif. So I looked into your question about growth and stuff that we might run out of and I found a couple things that, you know, people are worried about. Okay, great.

And I just did some very rough back of the envelope math. Like this is so totally not precise. My favorite kind of math. My favorite kind of math. Great. I love it. Okay. So I don't know what should we start with copper? Yeah, that's a big one. Copper's a big deal, right? Very big deal. So if you look at copper consumption over the past century since the Industrial Revolution, you know, our demand for copper has grown about 3% every year. Okay. Like, you know, in recent years, it's, we've consumed about 26, 27 million tons a year

of copper. Yeah. Yeah. So if you just, you know, extrapolate that out, if you just assume copper is going to keep growing at 3% every single year, right? Fair. Fair assumption. I looked up how much copper people think we have. According to geologists, what we know is out there and could theoretically get to,

and that number right now is 5 to 6 billion tons. Okay. It's not nothing, but we're using it pretty quickly. And if you just assume that this number is gonna keep growing at 3% a year, Yeah, yeah, sure. it would take about maybe another 70 years and then no more copper. That's it? 70 years?

70 years. 70 years. Okay, so that sounds terrible. It's true. It's true. That's assuming, of course, that we do keep consuming copper that quickly. Using copper and needing copper the same way that we are. Yeah, yeah, sure.

T minus 70. Yeah. No copper. No copper. For anybody. No copper. Okay. Okay. So then what, but then, so that's, this seems to point exactly to Sandy Faber's point, right? It's true. It's true. It's true. Um, do you want to do another one? Oh, that's the end of it? I thought you were going to be like, but there's like a giant, there's a copper thing that we're going to, no, there's no but that's it. It's just like, yeah, she's right about copper.

Okay, but there's a butt. There is a butt coming up. There's a butt. Yeah, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. You want to go through more of them before we get to the butt? Is that the idea? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, next one, okay, next one. Okay, so another one I looked into is sand. Okay, yeah. Which seems like there should be a ton of that. Seems like there should be so much of it.

Yeah. And you know the reason why we need sand, right? Why do we need sand? For concrete. Ah. So, it's actually so important that we don't know how much we're using. Oh my god. Like we're using so much.

We just, we actually don't know. But like ballpark estimates, we're using maybe 50 billion tons of sand and gravel every year. Okay, that sounds like a lot. I don't even know, I can't even visualize that. It's a lot. And I couldn't even find how much sand and gravel there is in the world. Like, nobody actually knows. This is one of those numbers where it's like, oh. But we're doing like, back of the envelope math here, right? Right.

So I was like, well, if we don't know back of the envelope math here, right? Right, right. So, so I was like, well, if we don't know how much sand and gravel there is in the world, surely we know how much rock there is in the world, right? Totally, totally, totally. So I looked it up and according to geologists, the Earth's crust, all of the Earth's crust contains maybe like 23 quintillion tons of rock and stuff. Okay. Okay.

But it does seem like the whole point of sand is that it's teeny tiny. It would take a lot of energy to turn that rock into sand. It would. But assuming that we're able to do that, right? Okay, great. Assuming that we're going to use sand and gravel at a rate that grows by 3% every year, year after year after year, it would take about, do you want to guess how long it would take to deplete the entire Earth's crust? Wait, so a quintillion based on the growth rate and the uses now? Yes. I would imagine this one is going to be, this one is not on Sandra Faber's side.

I'm gonna guess this one is like way, way, way far from now. Like, this is gonna be like a million years or something. Five to 600 years. That seems so short again. It does, doesn't it? That is way shorter for the whole crust. I know. Oh my God, that's not...

It's long, but it's not that long! That is nuts! All right, I got a couple more. This is just making me more and more existentially worried. That's how I felt when I started on this journey. I got a couple more. Okay, great. Love it.

I got to pull up my spreadsheet. I'm going to talk about lithium. Okay, great. Love it. I'm going to pull up my spreadsheet. I'm going to talk about lithium. Okay, great. Good one. Good one. And lithium, you imagine, there are like those giant deserts filled with those like sand flats or whatever, right? Yeah, in Bolivia and Argentina. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So this one will be again, like I think this one,

I feel like there's going to be a curve ball in here where you're like, no, no, no, we have had enough for millions of years. Anyway, okay, keep going. Okay, hang on, let me see, let me pull up my, where did my notes go on this? I can't wait when we have to fact check all of this. Okay, lithium. So we are using about 190, 200,000 tons of lithium every year. That's kind of...

Right. Okay. So that's like in phones, electric cars, da-da-da-da. Yeah, batteries. Batteries is a big one for lithium. Very important. Lithium consumption, of course, has been exploding. So over the past decade, lithium has been growing. Do you want to guess how much it's been growing? What, like 5% or 10%? On average, around 20%. Okay, wow. So we need a lot, and we need a lot more lithium.

Which is good, which is good, which means like more electric cars, more da-da-da-da, right? More recyclable batteries and stuff. That's great. Yeah, so geologists think that of all the lithium that we know is out there, there probably like a hundred five million tons of it like out there that sounds a lot less than the sand You're tight like this doesn't sound this is gonna get worrying. Okay, keep going

Right And so, you know if you do this all the you know the same math and you just if you assume if you just assume Just you know for the sake of argument, it's only gonna grow at 3% a year right yeah sure we'd probably run out of lithium around March I feel like you're gonna say like I feel like you're gonna say like so soon okay tomorrow about about a hundred years okay a hundred years again it's not bad no it's it, it is bad. It's bad, Jeff. It is bad. It's bad. We need that.

Like, we're gonna need that later for even better stuff. It's true. Okay, keep going. I'll do one more. I'll do one more, which is, this is a big one, oil. Really scary one. Yeah. But hopefully we're weaning off of this one, so maybe this one is a different.

Hopefully. Like it's going in the opposite direction. Hopefully. It doesn't seem like it's going in the opposite direction. Hopefully. Doesn't seem like it's really happening yet. Oh, gosh. But, but... I don't think you have had a single piece of good news here. Just wait for it.

Okay, all right. So if you look at oil, right, how much do we consume every year? About 37 billion barrels of oil as a world. How much is left? Probably 1.6 trillion barrels really Yeah, so it's not a lot. It's a lot, but it's maybe less. It's less than I thought So another way to say 1.6 trillion is 1600 billion right right so 37 billion a year. we have about 1600 billion barrels left out there.

When you say it like that, it sounds quite alarming. Yeah. Not great. So, you know, if you do the math again, exponential growth, very scary, yada yada. But we do want to use less of it anyway. Right, yeah, I'm ambivalent about this. I'm trying to. Yeah, yeah, okay.

About 28 years. No way. That is nothing. 2052 might be the day we run out of oil. Wow. Maybe. Maybe. I was worried about when Sandra Faber said we had thousands of years and you're like, you're taking me even an order of magnitude less.

Yeah. Maybe decades. Yeah. So I started to get a little nervous. And so I thought, well, like what happened in the past? Like when we were over exploiting some resource and it looked like it was gonna run out. And when I looked into it, there's this funny thing that happens.

So just for example, let me tell you a story. Please. It's about medieval England. Okay. So it's the 1400s. Okay. It's like medieval England. It's the 1400s. And this amazing new technology has just arrived on the shores of Yeolde, England.

And it is this new way of making iron. Okay. It's called the blast furnace. So just like very briefly, like before the blast furnace, you kind of had these backyard ovens, basically, where you kind of baked the iron ore to make the iron, and they were like super inefficient and really slow and not great.

Okay. But this blast furnace, the scientific innovation was that if you blew air onto the fire, you could get it really hot, and then you could get it so hot that you could just melt the iron, and it was amazing. Got it. And this, like, revolutionized iron making. So these blast furnaces, they're these huge, 20-foot tall stone towers.

You would have these giant bellows at the bottom blowing air. I was just imagining the bellows. I was just imagining the bellows. Okay, cool Okay, so that's the key innovation here. Yes, and and medieval England Iron was so precious so important you needed it for plows and spades or shoes pots kettles nails hammers Yeah, whatever And so now you had this technology that you could make these blast furnaces They could make a ton of iron a day a a ton, a literal ton, a literal ton, which is like just unprecedented.

Yeah. The problem with all of this is what was the fuel that went into this blast furnace at the time it was charcoal. Which is, which is charcoal is made out of wood. Is that right? No. Yes. Yes.

So, so this was not as good. So they're like slurping down forests Basically, yes. Yes, just picture the English countryside, right? You've got these blast furnaces ending up these huge plumes of smoke and then everyone is just chopping down trees as fast as they Can to feed these giant blast furnaces. It's it's yeah, and it makes people really concerned Yeah, like really concerned. Yeah. Like really concerned. They're like, Oh my God, where are the trees going? But it got so bad that by the late 1500s, you have parliament banning new iron mills

from starting up in different places. They're like, we cannot do this. We just cannot deal with this. Cause we have one tree left and everyone's about to cut it down. We gotta save the tree. We gotta save the trees. The tree. Yeah gotta save the trees. The tree, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

You even have Queen Elizabeth the first, not the second, the first. You have Queen Elizabeth the first, she is issuing royal edicts saying, no more charcoal making in my royal forests. We just can't, we can't do this anymore. But then something happened. Okay. So in 1709, this English guy named Abraham Darby, he figured out how to use a different kind of fuel. So not charcoal.

So maybe you want to guess what he figured out. Oil, probably, right? Coal. He figured out coal, yes. He figured out you can use this sort of modified coal to run these blast furnaces And this changed everything I'm not exaggerating the iron industry took off this led to the Industrial Revolution. We Avoided the problem. We avoided the shortage and It's not an isolated example. This is a pattern that comes up not an isolated example. This is a pattern that comes up. We did this with whales. When we stopped using whale oil for lamps and started using kerosene, we did this with rubber, we

started making synthetic rubber instead of getting all our rubber from trees. It's happened over and over again. We have stood at the edge of the cliff where it looked like, oh crap, if we keep doing what we're doing, we are gonna run out of some precious resource. And then somehow, at the last minute, catastrophe is averted. I mean, this has happened so often, I feel like we should give it a name. I know, I was gonna say,

do economists have some kind of wonky name for this? Not that I could find, so I'm going to take the opportunity to give this a name. I love it. Jeff, it is yours. Yours to name. Okay, I think we should call this the Malthusian Swerve. Swerve. Malthusian Swerve. Mm-hmm. And why that?

Because remember, do you remember Thomas Malthus? Yeah, and if I remember, his whole thing was like, you tell me what his whole thing was like. Yeah, so he was this famous English philosopher type. He lived, he grew up in the 1700s, pretty much around the time that coal was taken over England. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right?

So he was seeing a lot of this happen. And he's famous for predicting that humanity's growth would hit a limit, that populations would grow faster than we could provide food for them, right? And so the future of humanity was to be limited and trapped by our own lack of resources, and that everybody would just be miserable and sad and poor and hungry forever. He does not sound like he would have been fun at parties. Yeah, yeah, he's a real bummer. But maybe what he's more famous for is that none of that happened.

The reason that Malthus' prophecy didn't come true is due to what I would say is the most important Malthusian swerve of all time. Okay. And this one is fertilizer. Right. Right? Well, it's like the Green Revolution or whatever, right? Is that right?

The Fertilizer Revolution. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So, I don't know if you want to hear the guano story. Please, I love the guano story. I know the guano story, but I love the guano story, and I want to hear you tell the guano story. Okay, I love the guano story. I know the guano story, but I love the guano story and I want to hear you tell the guano story. Okay, let's do it together then.

Yeah, so like the most, so like, so this is like the 1800s, a little bit after Malthus's time. In the 1800s, Europeans are starting to realize you can really supercharge food production if you use better fertilizer. Yeah. Right? And specifically, there's this one fertilizer

that indigenous people in South America were using that was amazing. Guano. Guano. Which is basically just bird poop. Yeah. Right. Okay.

So basically, you'd have all these seabirds and they would poop on these rocky islands and coastlines along South America and the poop would just accumulate. So the Europeans, so like in the 1800s, the Europeans are importing hundreds and thousands of tons. They're literally fighting wars over control of these guano islands. Like Spain is getting into wars with Peru and Chile. Like just who gets to seize the poop islands. But the problem is, we were using guano way faster

than the birds could, you birds could make the guano. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then in the early 1900s, some German chemists figured out a way to basically make synthetic guano. They invented an industrial process to literally pull nitrate. Nitrogen. Yeah, that's like the key ingredient in guano. Right, right, right. To pull it out of the air and make synthetic fertilizer.

And that is on the order of a, like, alchemy discovery. Like, that is like this thing that is super abundant in the air all around us. It is literally the majority of the air, but it was unusable. And then we, there was a hack where we then figured out how to make it usable. That, that seems like, that's like a miraculous technological breakthrough. Yeah. It's a miraculous story.

And it is like maybe one of the best examples of this thing that I'm going to call the Malthusian swerve. Swerve. I like it. I like it. And the swerve, so the swerve is like, it's like, like when you say swerve, I'm picturing like it's like a car about to collide into a cliff and then right at the last second, whoop, swerves out of the way. Yeah.

And Malthus is driving the car thinking that of course we're going to hit the cliff and then some, really it's like the passenger who then just like Just like we links the steering wheel. Yeah, it's like nope not gonna happen right at the last second We figured it out. Yeah, and if you look at human history, this is a pattern that happens over and over again. I Find this Somewhat I find this somewhat of a relief. It is sort of encouraging, but it also seems like there's so much drama here. And there might be a time where we can't swerve in time. Like, what happens if and when we can't swerve in time. Like what happens if and when we can't swerve in time.

And also I would argue sometimes the swerves, sometimes we swerve right into another cliff. So for example, the example you talked about from charcoal to coal, which is great for the trees, except after a while, it's also bad for the trees, right? Like it's like global rising temperatures lead to wildfires, lead to trees not able to grow where they once were able to grow.

Like it's like we're- It's true, but we've bought ourselves more time. Fair. Right? We've bought ourselves more time. But then we just always use that time to step on the gas to the next thing. Right?

And then maybe when we do swerve, then we swerve into something worse, something that causes, you know, war or exploitation or, or, or just messes up the planet in a way that you, that is unswerve backable from. I mean, yes, that is all totally right. Uh, it is a mess, but, but, you know, totally right. It is a mess. But you know, to help us unpack it, I think we should talk about a swerve that we are in the middle of right now.

["SWERVE"] ["SWERVE"] Actually, first, we're going to swerve to break, but only for a minute. Then we'll swerve back and step on the gas directly towards a currently oncoming cliff. So we have been talking about a couple historical examples of this thing I'm calling the Malthusian swerve where it looks like society is about to run out

of some resource, but at the last minute, some new resource or idea or innovation comes along and saves the day. And when I was looking into this, I was like, okay, is there a more recent example? Is there an example of a Malthusian swerve that happened just in the last couple of years? And you know what?

There is one. Oil. Oh, we're in the middle of the Malthusian oil. We are, yes. Remember, do you remember like in the 80s and 90s, all of the talk about peak oil? Yeah. Do you remember? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, and even before that, like I think in the 70s and stuff, like it's like we keep having this conversation over and over again peak oil Yes, yeah, exactly. Yeah, you have you have people you have geologists distinguished geologists saying Warning us that you know, we're gonna run out of oil that we're gonna reach peak oil very soon and that You just said it in 52 years or whatever like you Yeah, yeah well back in the 1990s they were saying it's gonna happen in the 2000s They were saying oh crap like we're gonna start running out in the year like 2000 something

Yeah, and if you look at oil production like yeah, it does especially in the US Yeah, it does kind of start to slow down in the 2000s People a lot of people were wondering about what are we going to do, how are we going to adapt, how are we going to move away from oil. And if you look at the chart, you'll see the oil production, it kind of starts to dip in the 2000s and then starts to rise again, more and more and more. There's a swerve. And that was caused by the fracking revolution. But is that a swerve? Like, I mean, if we're, now we just found another way to get more fossil fuels, like,

is that even really a, that feels like a, we swerved and swerved right back in the same direction. I, I, that is one way to think about it. The way I think about it is like, it's a mini swerve, you know, like, oh crap, we're running into the cliff, we can't find any alternatives, but we did find a way to get a little bit more oil out of the ground in the meantime. But in a way, running out of oil isn't even necessarily the problem here. The problem is the thing it's doing for everything else.

It's true. The problem with fossil fuels, it's not that we're going to run out of them. We have too much of them. It's too easy to go and find oil in the ground. It's too easy. We have a problem that's not a scarcity problem. It's an anti-scarcity problem, right? And then we can burn them and then there's these horrible side effects for the environment and then the world's getting hotter and wildfires are popping up.

It's a much harder sell though. It's a much harder sell to tell people, we have too much of this thing that's going to hurt you as opposed to we we have not enough of this thing, so take care of it. Yes. That is the key thing here, I think. Like, you look at how these Malthusian swerves, if we're going to call it that, how they happened. I love it. I love it. Keep doing it. How did they happen, right? And it was people who were motivated by the terror of,

we're going to crash into this giant problem in so many years, And it was people who were motivated by the terror of, we're going to crash into this giant problem in so many years, and we need to figure out how we're going to do it. Necessity is the mother of invention kind of thing. Desperation is the inventor's best friend. Yeah, right. And you look at how an economy works. I'm not saying this is the ideal way to operate,

but an economy works through incentives. It's one of those things where the more you use, the less you have, the less you have, the higher the price, the higher the price, then all of a sudden new pockets of that resource that would have been too expensive before to get, now become unlocked. Yeah, exactly. Or also, we might try to innovate, right? Like, now there's an incentive to invent something newer, cheaper, better than what we had before. Like, I would bring up the example of, like, lithium, right?

Now there is so much money, and if you can invent a battery that doesn't need lithium, you will, like, I don't know, win the Nobel Prize, right? Like, you will, like, there is a lot of energy and motivation to solve that problem. Yeah. And if we were all just going to be like, well, we just we don't need that much lithium because we're just going to conserve it and recycle it and we're not going to grow. Then what's the point of trying to make anything more efficient or better? There's no incentive. Yeah, but it just, it feels like a trap. And an especially capitalist kind of a trap where the only thing that will inspire us to innovate

or to swerve, to use your word, is the immediate danger of the cliff. Like, I mean, we're talking about resources and economics, GDP and blah, blah, blah, but really this is all like a head game. It's like all like people's minds work in this very specific way and long-term thinking is so hard for us.

And it's like we've got this system that leans into a thing that is already a problem with us and the way we think. It's like, we're just gonna use it as long as it's there. And when it starts to almost not be there, we'll figure out something else. Yeah, right. How do we get people to actually do the thing that is in the long-term interests of everybody?

Is the solution to have some intergalactic Queen Elizabeth come down and say, no, no, no, no, guys, you're using way too much oil. You gotta stop. You gotta stop. You gotta put a pause on it, right? Is it that? Or is it sort of we're all left to our own devices and some combination of the free market and also government leaders worrying about this thing hash out some kind of, you know, compromise.

That's kind of what we're stuck in right now. But like we're also smart enough to... Can't we figure out a system where we don't have to just drive into the cliff and swerve at the last minute every time? You know? If this was your car, and there was... I mean, this is such a weird analogy. There's only one car and you, whoever is in the driver's seat, really it's all of us, but whoever's in the driver's seat keeps driving pedal to the metal, accelerating faster and faster at cliffs. You would take their keys away. You'd be like sorry this you are not fit to drive

It's scary. Yeah, I don't know. Why do we keep doing that then? Like do you think growth is inevitable? Do you think growth is good? What do you after all this? What is your take on growth in particular? I think that growth is on growth in particular? I think that growth is, maybe we should talk about what growth even is. Like there are always gonna be parts of the economy that we point at and we're gonna say, that's bad growth. We don't want that.

But growth is not just us burning a lot of fossil fuels and polluting the planet, right? Growth can be good. Like growth could be starting a new business, mentoring kids, inventing a new kind of medicine that saves lives. That is also growth. And so for me, I guess, it's hard for me to say that growth is bad. And maybe it's because I've just been too economics-pilled. But when people say the word growth to me, I think of a country like China. You know, China's economy grew so fast that it lifted 800 million people out of poverty. Incredible.

Right? It's like hard to say that. Impossible seeming. It's hard to say that's bad. That's funny. That was probably the population of the entire Earth in Malta's time. Right? Yeah.

And that's amazing. And so I think it's about figuring out specific things that we can do to be smarter about it, to make it less harmful. But I don't know. Yeah, I agree with that. Like we all have needs and there are increasingly more of us. But I do think that taking, like, I still am sort of struck by the Sandy Faber's like stone-cold like zoom out There's nothing that's wrong about that logic either She just has a seemingly a different priority than most economists

Which is like she's thinking in a in a at a different scale Yeah, we have been given the gift of cosmic time We have hundreds of millions of years if not another billion years, but we have not solved the gift of cosmic time, we have hundreds of millions of years, if not another billion years, but we have not solved the problem of combining human nature with living in abundance. So I should tell you, we actually ended up talking to Sandy Faber. My cosmic point of view at this moment is to try to figure out how people will live the best possible life on Earth after cheap energy has passed away. And telling her about your Malthusian swerve idea.

Where is the next swerve? That's the thing. That's the thing. Specifically with regard to energy. And the thing that she was most concerned about was that energy is just so wrapped up in all these different parts of our lives, basically everything we do, and it has these huge effects on the environment. She says we're actually dealing with a bunch of different cliffs and a bunch of different kinds of cliffs all at the same time.

Some people call it the polycrisis and some people call it the meta crisis. Basically we're facing a crisis of crises. A crisis of crises, yeah. So every time we think of one of these possible swerves, I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue them, but they leave a large fraction, everyone leaves a gigantic fraction of the problem unsolved. So I would say a huge issue for a long-term happy human history in the future is having a more mature picture of wealth, how it should be managed, and how growth should be managed. Hmm. I think Sandy and I were totally in agreement about what we want

for the world, for the future. Yeah. It's just about how we get there. And so can I give you my silly galaxy brain way of thinking about all of this? Yeah, please, please. So you're talking about like, why can't we, this is, you know, the earth is our home, so why can't we all get together and take care of it and cooperate and all of that, right? And if you're just a household of, like, a couple people, you have a relationship.

If you're just a village, you, like, know everybody. You, you know, you can help each other out, give each other things, all of that. But when you get bigger and bigger, when you get to the scale of countries and, like, the world, right? It's very hard to get people to cooperate. It's very, very hard to get people to cooperate. It's very, very hard.

Everybody has different opinions. No one's gonna agree. Everybody's gonna have different motives. And what an economy is, is a way of turning all of that, of organizing us at a global scale into something productive. And obviously, you know, the economy is not perfect. There are all kinds of problems we didn't even have the time

to talk about today. But when it comes to dealing with issues of scarcity, like running out of some resource, markets are a tool that historically have kind of worked, even if it's been super messy and dramatic and swervy and may have created way bigger problems down the road I'm not saying that the economy is the answer right? But it does give me a little bit of hope that the economy primes away

Most of the time hopefully yeah, I don't know. I don't know I like is Are we talking about a swerve away from resources or should we really be talking about a swerve away from resources? Or should we really be talking about a swerve away from a certain kind of thinking or a certain kind of economy? Or... or just thinking about growth in general? Uh, like... like... it's true, you're right, that an economy is a way to organize a globe, And the economy is a way to organize a globe. But like, but maybe we need to be acting more like a household.

Uh, cause, cause we only have this one house. If you can figure out a way to do that, they will give you a Nobel prize, like on the spot, I guarantee. Well, thank you, Jeff. I don't know if you exactly chased away my existential dread, but I appreciate you sort of holding my hand through it. It's all we have in the end, each other. That's right. That was my conversation with the ferociously curious and thoughtful Latif Nasser over at

Radiolab. We are huge fans of their podcast. They tackle all these big questions and little questions with so much joy and wonder. They just did an episode on other kinds of growth. So like, can fingertips grow back? Or how do you grow the biggest pumpkin in the world? Though I gotta add, my favorite episode of theirs recently

has to do with this weird quirk in the law where you can kind of plead guilty and not guilty at the same time. It's really weird, and it has to do with, spoiler, the economics of justice. Anyway, a big thanks to the Radiolab team, Pat Walters and Soren Wheeler, who edited and produced this conversation, Natalie Middleton, who fact-checked it, the running a version of this episode in their feed. Our version was produced by Emma Peasley and edited by Jess Jang and Alex Goldmark. And a special thanks to Jennifer Brandell. I'm Jeff Guo, this is NPR, thanks for listening.