Have economists been so wrong? Rethinking growth in a finite world.

For decades, economic theory has shaped the way we understand progress and growth. But what happens when the foundational assumptions of our economic models no longer hold in the real world?

The standard economic paradigm: growth without limits.

The dominant view in classical economics, from Jean-Baptiste Say to modern growth models, has long assumed that resources are infinite. Say’s Law — the idea that supply creates its own demand — underpinned an optimism in market self-regulation and endless expansion.

Growth was seen as the universal remedy: a bigger economy meant more jobs. More consumption meant more welfare. And innovation would always outpace resource constraints.

This vision, echoed by economists like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and later Keynesians and neoclassicals, positioned GDP growth as the ultimate policy goal. And environmental impacts were assumed to be absorbed into a bottomless pit.

But there’s a problem: we live on a finite planet.

The world has limits — and so does growth.

As early as 1972, a group of MIT researchers led by D. Meadows published The Limits to Growth, a new systems model that challenged the infinite-growth paradigm. Their conclusion? Exponential growth of population, industry, and resource use in a finite system will eventually hit ecological and economic walls.

Their work, known as the Meadows Report, sparked debate but was largely ignored by mainstream economists. And yet, 50 years later, its predictions are increasingly validated: climate change, biodiversity collapse, water scarcity, soil depletion — all symptoms of overshoot. We're breaching planetary boundaries, destabilizing the very systems we depend on.

The truth is clear: the standard economic model no longer fits our ecological reality.

What now? Different pathways in the face of scarcity.

In a world where natural resources are finite, several actions courses and related schools of thought have emerged to imagine what comes next. Each offers a distinct — and sometimes polarizing — vision of how society might respond to ecological limits. Below are some of the most debated pathways, deliberately framed in bold terms.

Conflict & competition: a dangerous fallback.

Historically, societies have resorted to conflict to secure scarce resources — wars over oil, water, and land are not new. Today, we’re already seeing early signs of geopolitical tension rooted in resource scarcity. The war in Ukraine, for instance, has underscored the strategic importance of rare earth materials.

This is a path the vast majority agree we must avoid at all costs.

Degrowth is inevitable.

The degrowth (”décroissance”) movement proposes a planned reduction in human activities — either by shrinking the economy or slowing population growth — to bring our footprint back within ecological limits.

Full-scale implementation can be seen as socially and economically untenable.

Technology will save us.

Others argue we can innovate our way out: breakthroughs in fusion energy, carbon capture, AI-driven agriculture, or bio-based materials will allow us to decouple growth from environmental harm — and usher in a new era of "green abundance".

While promising in theory, this techno-optimism is risky in practice. These solutions are still uncertain, underdeveloped, or not scalable fast enough — especially as we approach tipping points and irreversible ecological damage.

“Steady State” economics might bring a new answer.

An emerging school of thought proposes a different path — one grounded in balance rather than acceleration. Already in 1848, John Stuart Mill anticipated the environmental and ethical limits to growth. In his Principles of Political Economy, he introduced the concept of a “stationary state”: a condition where material growth levels off, but human development continues through education, culture, and ethical progress. Explicitly building upon Mill’s vision, economist Herman Daly, proposed a “steady state” economy, as a system designed to maintain a stable level of resource use within ecological limits. Key principles of steady state economics include:

• Capping resource throughput to stay within planetary boundaries.

• Focusing on redistribution, circularity, and regeneration over extraction.

• Measuring success beyond GDP, through indicators of health, resilience, and ecological stability.

• Recognizing the economy as a subsystem of the biosphere, not the other way around.

It’s a compelling vision — but it comes with a big question: where is the balance point? And in a world where we’ve already crossed many planetary boundaries, is this still achievable — or is it simply a more consensual way of managing decline?

How do we think about it at darwin.

At darwin, we remain open to emerging economic frameworks that challenge traditional paradigms and help shape new pathways forward. That being said, it seems there is no single, clear-cut answer — and in reality, the future will likely be shaped by a blend of approaches, where companies navigate different strategies with varying degrees of ambition and impact.

That said, we hold 3 strong convictions about what this means for business:

Redefining progress.

It’s not about stopping progress — it’s about redefining it. Technology will undoubtedly be part of the solution, but it won't be enough without a fundamental rethink of our economic models and corporate strategies.

Our Action Module helps companies translate biodiversity insights into concrete, science-based transition plans that align with planetary boundaries.

From sustainability to resilience.

It seems clear the world ahead will be full of shocks. That’s why businesses must go beyond long-term sustainability planning and begin to design for resilience as well.

With our Risk Module, companies can map their exposure to nature-related risks and anticipate where and when external shocks might occur — enabling them to adapt before they break.

Acting locally on “universal challenges”.

Building on D. Meadows’ thinking, we believe that biodiversity is not just a “global” issue — it’s a universal challenge with local solutions. Unlike climate, biodiversity impacts can be addressed without global consensus, and progress can be felt directly in the ecosystems where companies operate.

Our Spatial Analysis Module helps businesses localize their biodiversity impacts and dependencies, making action tangible and rooted in place.

.If that resonates with you, do not hesitate to contact us and book a demo here. We would love to hear from you!