Radiolab - Malthusian Swerve

Episode Date: March 28, 2025

Earth can sustain life for another 100 million years, but can we?In this episode, we partnered with the team at Planet Money 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? This week, we bring you a conversation that’s equal parts terrifying and fascinating, featuring bird poop, daredevil drivers, and some staggering back-of-the-envelope math.EPISODE CREDITS:Reported by - Jeff Guo and Latif NasserProduced by - Pat Walters and Soren Wheelerwith production help from - Sindhu Gnanasambandan and editing help from  - Alex Goldmark and Jess JiangFact-checking by - Natalie Middleton  Signup for our newsletter!! It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)!Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today.Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing [e-mail] support for Radiolab’s science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Hey, Lulu here. So a few months back, our illustrator Jared Bartman got a difficult prompt. We asked him to design a cute tote bag based on our incredibly morbid episode, Cheating Death, and Jared was stumped. How do you create something plucky and cheerful and design forward about the inevitability of dying? So he brooded and he doodled and then one day it hit him. It is easily my favorite design ever and because it's sort of this secret code about death it's kind of like carrying Carpe Diem

around on your shoulder and you can get that tote bag right now if you become a member of the lab. You knew it was coming. The lab is the way we have designed to support the show. It's super easy. Just a couple clicks, you send a few bucks our way a month in exchange for, you know, public radio currency, tote bags and other perks. Whether you support us or not, we are so grateful for you. But if you've ever been on the fence,

I would say that now is a really good time because not only does the tote bag have a very cool surrealist design, it also has a zipper. So go take a peek at radiolab.org slash join. That's radiolab.org slash join. And that's all. Thank you. On with the show.

Oh, wait, you're listening. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. You're listening? Okay. Alright. Okay. Alright. You are listening to Radiolab. Radiolab.

From WNYC. See? See? Hey, this is Radiolab. I'm Lettif Nasser. So a couple of weeks ago, we put up a brand new episode called Growth. We talked about pumpkins and a finger and some slugs and every single person on our planet.

But there was one growthy, you know, currently growing thing we did not talk about, which is the economy. Now 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, 100 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% as the holy grail of economic growth that we've got over the last year. Average of all our worries on our planet. In our 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 a hundred million years, we're going to just eat the planet up. We're going to devour the physical material level of this planet. We're going to 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%. Sounds like a specific thing, but also it's kind of abstract and mathy and I wanted help. I wanted help to parse this out. Like, 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 you doing? Hi, I'm doing well, how are you? And we had what I felt like was a kind of a rollercoaster of a conversation. So I'm just going to play it for you right now. Yeah. Okay.

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 what I do. I need you. 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. Okay. Well, I mean, I guess where I would start is, and I would hate to contradict a Nobel

prize winning astrophysicist. It sounds like starting out on dangerous territory there. art is and you know I would hate to contradict a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist yeah sounds like you know starting out on dangerous territory there I mean what you won the National Medal of Science not the Nobel but she's gonna she's gonna it sounds like she's gonna win yeah sure fair um but you did ask me to kind of look into what things are we gonna run out of yes yes yes oh my gosh I'm so excited. Okay, yeah, yeah. So I did, so I looked at a bunch of things that people are kind of worried about. 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. It's so man wavy. Great, I love it. Okay, so I don't know, what should we start with? Copper? Yeah, that's kind of math. It's so man wavy. 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, 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 five to six billion tons. Okay. It's not nothing, but we're using it pretty quickly.

And if you just assume that this number is going to keep growing at 3% a year, 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 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, you know, we do keep consuming copper that quickly. Using copper and needing copper the same way that we are. Yeah, yeah, sure. T minus 70, 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. Yeah, don't do another one. Oh That's the end of it. I thought you were gonna be like but there's like a giant there's a Copper thing that we're gonna know there's no but that's it. It's just like yeah, she's right about copper Okay, but there's a but there is a but coming up. There's a but yeah, okay Okay, okay. Okay. Okay. You want to go through more of them before we get to the but is that the idea? Yeah, okay? Okay, okay, okay. Okay. Next one. Okay. Next one. Okay. So another one. I looked into is sand

Okay, yes, 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 and why do we need sand for? concrete ah And you know the reason why we need sand, right? Why do we need sand? For concrete. 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. I don't know. It's a lot. Right. And I couldn't even find how much sand and gravel there is in the world. Like nobody actually knows.

Okay. This is one of those numbers where it's like, oh, but we're doing like 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. 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? 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. I would imagine this one is going to be, this one is not on Sandra Faber's side. I'm going to guess this one is like way, way, way far from now. Like, like this is going to be like a million years or something.

Five to six hundred years. That seems so short again. That is way shorter for the whole crust. I know. Oh my God. That's not like it's long, but it's not that long. Like that's like, that is nuts. All right. I got a couple more. This is just making me more and more existentially worried. Okay, but keep going. That's how I felt when I started on this journey. Right. 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. 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. 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 enough, not enough for, you know, for millions of years.

Anyway, okay, keep going. Okay, hang on. Let me see. Let me pull up my notes. I can't wait when we have to fact check all of this. Okay, lithium. So we are using about 190,000, 200,000 tons of lithium every year. Right.

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% or something?

On average, around 20%. Okay, wow. Okay, wow. So we need a lot, and we need a lot more lithium. What, like, 5% or 10%? On average, around 20%. Okay, wow. 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's probably like 105 million tons of it. Like out there. That sounds a lot less than the sand you're talking, like this doesn't sound, this is gonna get worrying. Okay, keep going. Right, and so, you know, if you do 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, but tomorrow About about a hundred years. Okay a hundred years again. It's not bad. No, it's it is bad. It's bad. It's bad We 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. But hopefully we're weaning off of this one, so maybe this one is a different, like it's going in the opposite direction. Hopefully. Doesn't seem like it's really happening yet. But. But. I don't think you have had a single yet. Oh, God. 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. All right. As a world.

How much is left? Probably 1.6 trillion barrels. Really? Yeah. So it's not. That's 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 1,600 billion. Right, right. So 37 billion a year. We have about 1,600 billion barrels left out there. Yeah, when you say it like that, it sounds quite alarming. Yeah. Not great. So, you know, if you do the like that, it sounds quite quite quite alarming. Yeah, not great So, you know if you do the math again exponential growth Less of it anyway, right? Yeah, I'm ambivalent about this. Yeah. Yeah. Okay about 28 years

No way. Yeah, that is nothing 2052 might be the day we run out of oil Wow 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, you know, a little nervous. And so I thought, well, like what happened in the past? You know, 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 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. 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 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. Okay, cool. Okay. So that's the key innovation here. Yes. 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 ton, a literal ton. A literal ton, which is like just unprecedented. 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 charcoal is made out of wood? Is that right? No.

Yes. Yes. So this was not a good... So they're like slurping down forests, basically. Yes. Just picture the English countryside, right? You've got these blast furnaces sending up these huge plumes of smoke And then everyone's 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 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. Because we have one tree left and everyone's about to cut it down. We got to save the trees. The tree. Yeah. Yeah. You even have Queen Elizabeth the first, not second, the first.

You have Queen Elizabeth the first, she is issuing Royal edicts saying, no more charcoal making in my Royal forests. Wow. 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. We did this with whales.

When we stopped using whale oil for lamps and started using kerosene, 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 going to run out of some precious resource, right? And then somehow at the last minute Catastrophe is averted. I Mean I 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 like wonky name for this not that I could find so I'm going To take the I love to give this a name. It love it. Jeff, it is yours. Yours to name. Please. I think we should call this the Malthusian Swerve. Swerve. Malthusian Swerve. Mm-hmm. Okay.

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. 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 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 sea birds 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 know, make the guano. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then, in the 1900s, 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. Yes, yes. 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 there was a hack where we then figured out how to make it usable. That seems like a miraculous technological breakthrough. It's a miraculous story. And it is 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 so the swerve is 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 gonna hit the cliff and then, really it's like the passenger who then just like,

just like yanks the steering wheel. 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 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. 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'll swerve into something worse, something that causes war, exploitation,

or just messes up the planet in a way that is unswerve backable from. I mean, yes, that is all totally right. It is a mess. But to help us unpack it, I think we should talk about a swerve that we are in the middle of right now. 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. Radio Lab Latif back with Jeff Guo from Planet Money telling us about a thing he has noticed called the Malthusian Swerve, where we're 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 just before the break, Jeff had been telling us about how he'd been looking for examples of the swerve back in the past. And I was like, okay, but is there a more recent example? Is there like an example of a Malthusian swerve

that happened in the past couple of years? And there is one, oil. Oh, we're in the middle of the Malthusian oil swerve. 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, peak oil. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, you have people, you have geologists, distinguished geologists saying, warning us that, you know, we're going to run out of oil, that we're going to reach peak oil very soon and that oil is going to diminish.

Well, you just said it in 52 years or whatever. Like you just said it. Yeah. The same thing. Yeah. Yeah. Well, back in the 1990s, they were saying, it's going to happen in the 2000s. They were saying, oh crap, we're going

to start running out in the year 2000 something. And if you look at oil production, especially in the US, it does kind of start to slow down in the 2000s. 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 goes kind of starts to dip in the 2000s and then starts to rise again more and more and more There's a 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. Is that even really a... That feels like we swerved and swerved right back in the same direction. That is one way to think about it. The way I think about it is like, it's a mini-swerve. 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 on the ground.

It's too easy. We have a problem that's not a scarcity problem. It's an anti-scarcity problem, right? And And then we 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 have not enough of this thing. So take care of it.

Yes. That is the key thing here, I think. 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 we need to figure out how we're going to get it. Necessity is the mother of invention kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Desperation is the inventor's best friend. Yeah. Yeah.

Right? And you look at how an economy works. And I'm 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? 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. 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, like a trap, like an, 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? Like, is the solution to have, like, 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 compromise? That's 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? Yeah. You know? Yeah.

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. Like, 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? 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 of this, what is your take on growth in particular? I think that growth is, maybe we should talk about what growth even is. Like there are always going 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. 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. Yeah.

It's hard to say that's bad. That's funny. That was probably the population of the entire Earth in Massachusetts. 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. 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 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 that's the thing That's the thing specifically with regard to energy and it sounds like 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 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, you know, 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 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. Everybody has different opinions. No one's going to agree.

Everybody's going to 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. Are we talking about a swerve away from resources? Or should we really be talking about resources or should we really be talking about a swerve away from a certain kind of thinking or a certain kind of economy or just thinking of growth in general? It's true, you're right that an economy is a way to organize a globe, 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 you.

Okay. Well, thank you, Jeff. I don't know if you exactly chased away my existential dread, but, uh, but I appreciate you sort of holding my hand 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. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Latif. This has been a lot of fun. That was Jeff Guo, host and reporter over at NPR's Planet Money podcast. Thank you to them for loading us, Jeff, for how game he was, his research, his charm, and his back of the envelope math. Really appreciate all of that. In fact, we produced this story in collaboration,

not just with Jeff, but also the editorial team over there at Planet Money, including Alex Goldmark and Jess Jang. And so they are actually playing the same conversation on their feed, too, which is very exciting for us. If you don't already know what Planet Money is, I mean, it's money. It says it in the title. There's so many smart people.

It's full of surprises and adventure. Go check it out on Apple or Spotify or MPR or wherever you get your podcasts. Obviously, you don't need tolisten to this conversation over there, but they did just do a great episode that is a deep dive into GDP. They did another one about synthetic diamonds, which are not a critical earth resource, but there is kind of a swerve happening there.

Anyway, on our side, this episode was produced and edited by Pat Walters and Soren Wheeler, fact-checked by Natalie Middleton, special thanks to Jennifer Brandell, and of course, thank you, massive thank you to Sandy Faber, her math, her thoughtfulness, her cosmic perspective, which of course prompted this conversation. And here's hoping that it prompts a lot more conversation, maybe even action, as we all move into the next hundred million years of life, hopefully on this planet. I'm Latif Nasser. Thank you for listening.

Hi, I'm Keegan and I'm from Longmont, Colorado, and here are the staff credits. Radio Lab was created by Jad Abumrad and is edited by Soren Wheeler. Lulu Miller and Latif Nasser are our co-hosts. Dylan Geith is our director of sound design. Staff includes Simon Adler, Jeremy Bloom, Becca Bresler, W. Harry Fortuna, David Gable, Maria Paz Gutierrez, Sindhu Nianan Sanbandhan, Matt Kiyoti, Annie McEwen, Alex Niesen,

Sara Khari, Sarah Sandback, Anisa Bitsa, Ariane Whack, Pat Walters, and Molly Webster. Our fact checkers are Diane Kelly, Emily Greger, and Natalie Middleton. Leadership support for Radiolab Science Programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, Assignment Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Elford P. Sloan Foundation.