Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCLXIV–The Inevitability of Growth.

The Inevitability of Growth.

Oct 01, 2026

A slight departure from my series of Contemplations on elite responses to encountering diminishing returns on investments in complexity…

One of my favourite events is unfolding here in Ontario, Canada–he states sarcastically, perhaps even theatrically given the theatre that accompanies such events.

It’s election time.

Monday, October 26th, 2026 rings in our municipal and school board elections. Another chance for some lower level ruling elite–whom I’ve come to view as little more than middle managers–to perform in front of the masses in a show of democracy and representation.

Let me be upfront. When I was younger and believed it made a difference, I voted; but I haven’t done so for decades–unless you count officially declining one’s ballot during our provincial elections, which I do, but it’s the only level I can do this at; otherwise I would likely do it for all our elections. I have–with my ongoing attempts to better understand our polycrisis–come to perceive these events as mostly inconsequential and primarily exercises in legitimation for a ruling class of a society that is not helpful to our species or planet in so many ways. A perspective I am certain has come out over the years in my writing.

I have, however, gotten involved in the sociopolitical sphere in some small way now and again over the years, even after I stopped voting. I have chaired a political action committee during my years in education. I have written: letters to the editor that have been published in both local, regional, and national newspapers; newsletters for fellow educators; opinion pieces published in local papers; and letters to many politicians at all political levels of my nation state. I have also made deputations to governing officials at both the local and provincial levels on issues I hold important.

Not that I believe such things will alter in any significant way the people or institutions involved, nor the policies I have questioned and spoken out against. No, it’s been primarily for my own catharsis to have at least voiced my opinion and, perhaps, reflects some “hope” that in performing these small acts, at least a couple of others might think more deeply about the issue-at-hand and not just accept what, for the most part, is foisted upon society for the benefit of a few.

For some years now the push-button issue for me has been growth. Economic growth primarily.

Economic growth is the god that pretty well everyone prays to around election time. Campaigns tend to be a never-ending parade of promises to improve and expand such growth. More jobs. More services. More convenience. More, more, more…with a slight twist in the past couple of decades as this growth has morphed for some into being about environmentally-friendly growth. Because growth is inevitable, we might as well do it in a manner that sustains our ecosystems. Green growth. Sustainable growth. Smart growth. These are great examples of oxymoronic terms and thinking.

Candidate Debate
Last week, our acclaimed mayor posted on our community Facebook page that he and our ward’s outgoing councillor–who is not running after representing the gated community where he resides half the year (lives in Mexico for the other 6 months), er, I mean representing our entire ward for a dozen years–are sponsoring a debate amongst the 5 candidates vying for the position of ward 2 councillor. The notice indicated that this would be a debate amongst the candidates based upon questions from the ward community and that questions could be submitted to one of the moderators; one of whom publishes a local digital newspaper and I’ve connected with previously over local issues.

Again, not believing that my question would do much in the way of impacting the growth imperative, I posed the following just to raise the issue and gauge the candidates’ perspectives:

“We’ve seen a number of very different warnings in recent years about how vulnerable we are to things beyond our control.

First, during COVID, a number of goods became scarce and increasingly expensive when long-distance supply chains seized up.

More recently, the war in Iran has shown how quickly things can get worse. The Strait of Hormuz — which most of us had never heard of — handles a huge share of what modern, industrial societies depend upon, especially fuel and fertiliser. When it was disrupted, the shipping costs and prices for everyday necessities spiked and are still rising.

And trade with our closest neighbouring state is in a time of flux and uncertainty, causing even more price inflation for necessary goods, especially food.

These cases–and ongoing disruptions around the world–suggest this could get worse. Our just-in-time, long-distance supply chains–which we have zero control over–supply almost all of our basic needs. It is a dependence we should be scrutinising closely.

As we plan for more growth, what would you do to make our ward more resilient and self-sufficient when it comes to the things we truly can’t do without — above all, our food? I’m thinking of practical steps like protecting farmland, creating numerous community food gardens, supporting local organic growers, and building up local food processing and storage — rather than simply chasing more industry or development that does little more than add to our fragility and exposure to risk.”

I submitted this question knowing full well that it would likely be met with platitudes around “smart planning” and “balance”, and not fully understood as a challenge to the growth god that the system demands politicians pledge allegiance to. Prioritising resilience over growth or suggesting growth itself is the source of our vulnerabilities is verboten in the theatre of politics, so my question was constructed in a way to nudge others in that direction and ensure it prompted at least some kind of response from the candidates that would uncover their thinking around it.

The question is an attempt to point at something deeper, something that exposes the unquestioned foundation of our species’ entire civilisational project, something that virtually everyone has come to believe: the inevitability of growth. This belief is an assumption that is so deeply embedded in our societies and what we have come to expect as “normal” that questioning it is akin to questioning gravity. Knowing full well that few if any are prepared to have such a belief directly challenged, I posed a question that I hope will nudge others in the direction that will help to raise awareness. And, yes, I know that the time is not available to us to have a slow and gradual awakening to our predicament, but I also know that a full-frontal assault on a deeply held belief system almost always backfires.

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.

See my free book offer to readers at the end of this Contemplation…

CLICK HERE

Ontario Politics
Here I need to acknowledge something fundamental: municipal candidates, even should they wish to answer my question honestly, are virtually powerless to act upon it. Municipalities in Ontario are creatures of the provincial government and exist at its pleasure. Provincial legislation defines their power and constraints upon it, and this legislation–especially over the past few years–explicitly and aggressively chases growth. Ever-increasing housing targets. Development-friendly policies. Never-ending propaganda about the benefits of growth. Councils that strive to slow sprawl but are then punished and their planning decisions overridden.

Chasing growth is not something our municipal councils tend to debate and decide upon–they simply do it. It’s a diktat handed down from the provincial government with local politicians being basically low-level managers implementing what they’ve been directed to do. They may tweak around the edges or position themselves as defenders of local character but in the end the fundamental decision is set above their pay grade and more growth, development, and sprawl arrives with or without them.

This is Ontario politics. The reality that municipal election theatre obscures. My ward candidates may debate while the voters listen and then choose, but regardless of the wishes or wants of the community and its local representatives the growth machine will churn along unmolested and unconcerned. So, my question isn’t really for the candidates running for the council position in my ward. It’s a question for the system itself–a system that has turned a policy choice into a command that cannot be questioned. It’s a system that has made Ontario municipalities not self-governing communities but administrative units in service of a provincial growth mandate.

Regardless, let me now deconstruct the question and examine the faith in the inevitability of growth through a lens that has nothing to do with politics or ideology, and everything to do with the physical realities that underpin our existence.

The Modern Faith of Growth
This bedrock of our modern faith–this truth that is pervasive and needs no altar or scriptures, only the steady hum of the market and the silent assent of the congregation–this belief in Growth, is no longer viewed as a possibility but an inevitability, a necessity that to question it is to be labelled a heretic, a Luddite, a doomer. But what if we viewed it through a different lens, a physical-science lens rather than the social lenses of sociopolitics and economics that society tends to view it through? What would we see if we looked at it through the ones we call physics, geology, and biology?

Physics
The first thing we would see is that the god of the faithful is in deep tension with the most fundamental law of physics we know: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much we might like to believe otherwise, every action and every energy conversion incurs a tax; and this tax–this entropy, disorder–always increases. This thing we refer to as global, industrial civilisation with its monuments to complexity, is little more than a temporary and localised pocket of order. And we have built it through the consumption of vast stocks of low-entropy energy–mostly ancient, stored pockets of photosynthetically derived energy: hydrocarbons.

We’ve leveraged this one-time cache of energy to shield us from the universal tide of decay; to assemble, refine, and power a temporary period of order in what is a relentless tide of disorder. While localised order is possible, it is only possible by exporting disorder somewhere else. And this is our civilisation’s predicament: we may not necessarily be violating the law so much as accelerating the rate of our draw down of finite stocks of low-entropy matter and energy, as well as exporting disorder elsewhere: our atmosphere, oceans, climate, and ecosystems, for example.

To believe in the infinite growth god on a finite planet given these conditions is to believe in a perpetual motion machine that ignores the basic laws of physics. But physics does not care about our beliefs and does not negotiate.

Geology
The earth beneath our feet tells us a different story than the one of infinite abundance we are told incessantly. We live on a planet composed of concentrated treasures and rather than live off the Earth’s steady income–that of sunlight–we are liquidating the savings that have been stored in periodic and finite accounts across the planet.

The easy oil, rich veins of copper, high-grade ores, and vast fresh-water aquifers have been drawn down in a frenzied haste relative to our species’ existence. The savings that remain require evermore energy, water, and destruction to extract as the law of diminishing returns demands. We are having to run faster and faster on a treadmill that is slowing down because in our thirst for growth the fuel tank we have come to rely upon is near empty.

Biology
Here we must open the chapter on ecological overshoot. Here we learn that any species that gets introduced to a temporary abundance of resources will experience a population explosion. Be it yeast in a vat of sugar, algae in a warming pond, or humans in a world with hydrocarbons, an abundance of an important resource will lead to a quickly enlarged population; one that overshoots the environment’s natural carrying capacity and then experiences the negative consequences of this–typically a mass die-off. Note that such die-offs are not characterised by a single event but by a convergence of factors: famine, conflict, disease, and fertility collapse. It occurs as an unravelling, not an apocalypse.

And heedless of the size of our petri dish, our species has multiplied, expanded and consumed our resource base. We have become a force of Nature, but one that is blind to the temporariness of our state and mistaken it for a permanent one. But the signs of strain are everywhere: acidifying oceans, destabilised climate, the sixth mass extinction, breaching of planetary boundaries. We are the algae, and the bloom is on.

The Storytellers
Being the storytellers we are, we have created all sorts of rationalising narratives as to why this growth has occurred and why it will continue forever; stories that have blinded us to the biogeophysical reality within which we exist and to which we are chained, no matter how much we like to believe we are free.

We refuse to acknowledge that our modern civilisational architecture has been constructed upon a foundation of cheap, concentrated energy and that its suburbs, global supply chains, and jobs with disposable income are not eternal verities. These things we attribute to human inventiveness and technological prowess–unique characteristics that we are assured will save us from entropy–are artifacts of a hydrocarbon binge that is winding down.

We’ve mistakenly interpreted an anomalous and brief period of human history as the natural order of existence. We are stuck in a narrative that we cannot extricate our minds from. So to imagine or even think about a world without growth is to imagine a different economy, self, daily living, and definition of the “good life”.

To say this is terrifying for most is a gross understatement. We have trapped ourselves with soothing tales as to how and why our existence is the way it is, and these are told through every advertisement, political speech, and corporate balance sheet. To challenge our religion and its god is to step into the void of uncertainty and finiteness.

The typical rebuttal to all of this is that economic growth can be decoupled from resource throughput–that GDP can grow as we use less energy and material, and that efficiency and innovation can save us from such a situation. This is the green/smart/sustainable growth promise. The evidence for such a decoupling is weak to non-existent, however. While some localised examples exist, the absolute decoupling promised does not; and certainly not at the scale and speed necessary to avoid severe issues. While efficiency gains are possible and have been seen, Jevons paradox shows that such gains reduce costs and lead to more consumption and thus resource use.

Why this happens can be understood by way of the maximum power principle (MPP). The MPP was proposed by Alfred Lotka and developed more fully by ecologist Howard T. Odum. Although it has been proposed as a fourth law of thermodynamics, the MPP is not a settled scientific law but is a great means of thinking about how complex systems organise themselves when they have access to concentrated energy. Basically, self-organising systems develop means to maximise power intake and transform energy. This is not about energy efficiency, for power would drop to zero at maximum efficiency since processes would have to run infinitely slowly. A sweet spot, as it were, is where a system captures the most energy per unit of time, but is quite inefficient as it wastes a large fraction of what it takes in.

This may explain why Jevons paradox isn’t actually a paradox since a system is selected to maximise power and not to conserve it. Lower costs are the result of efficiency gains, and this leads to more consumption and greater total throughput. Modernity can thus be seen as a maximum-power system that gets organised through markets, technology, infrastructure and social norms that capture and transform ever-larger quantities of energy at ever-faster rates. This isn’t necessarily a conspiracy or moral failing; it’s just what complex systems tend to do when they have access to large stocks of concentrated energy. This also means that efficiency and conservation are only partially helpful since they may slow the rate of resource drawdown but the underlying selection pressure is not altered.

The evidence does not support the dominant faith of “sustainable” growth.

Election Theatre
And this is where the story returns to the municipal election, the candidates and their promises of growth, and my question. The responses may be telling. They will probably speak of well-thought-out and vetted growth that considers environmental aspects, and attracting or expanding businesses while preserving the character of our “country close to the city” community.

There will likely be no discussion of limits to growth as doing so would be to commit political suicide in a world where the belief in limits has been abandoned for stories of abundance. Potential councillors probably won’t speak of resilience built upon a localised food system for that would require a fundamental shift away from the perpetual growth machine god. They will perform their dance while the music plays on, even as the floor beneath them begins to crack. And while they are constrained by a variety of forces beyond their control, they are still complicit in the very system that is constraining them.

Let’s be honest for a moment. The congregation are not the ones benefitting the most from this arrangement. It is the church elders–financiers, corporate chieftains, political architects–the ruling elite whose machinations are the result of a perfect alignment of incentives. While our ruling elite may not be the architects of the system, they are certainly the most successful beneficiaries. The growth imperative was not of their design; they inherited it and are as constrained as the rest of us–perhaps more so given their status, wealth, and power depend upon its continuation. They are passengers on the ship like the rest of us; they have simply been provided the best cabins. As a result, they have the least incentive to take note of the approaching iceberg and suggest a course correction.

Chasing the perpetual growth chalice enriches our ruling elite immensely; an enrichment that empowers them to perpetuate the system that created them. They are the most successful players in a game that is rigged for the pursuit of infinite growth. Their power tends to be derived from a flow of capital that demands a return, a return that necessitates growth. These high priests of our growth faith have been proven as righteous by their wealth, and to question growth is to question their station, worth, and god. And they have acquired the means to ensure that such questions are rarely if ever asked or contemplated.

Conclusion
Given the above, I am left with a somewhat clear-eyed conclusion: a growth-based civilisation on a finite planet is a thermodynamic impossibility, a geological dead end, and an ecological suicide pact. No amount of sociopolitical will can alter the underlying physical trajectory. It might, however, be able to shape how we meet the destination ahead, be it with foresight and equity or with denial and barbarism.

So, perhaps one of the few questions that remains to us when we understand this is how we will confront the inevitability of the coming transition or phase shift. Will it be managed with a conscious reimagining of our place in the world? Or, will it be a chaotic collapse with a fracturing of our complex systems due to the weight of their many contradictions?

Just thinking about this can cause considerable cognitive dissonance. Maybe even a sense of vertigo as we stand upon the pinnacle of the monuments we have constructed, knowing full well the foundation below us is crumbling.

A sad aspect of this is that most are too busy enjoying the view, or too afraid of the fall, or too invested in the monument’s construction to even look down. They do not even think about a safe means of descending.

This is not necessarily a failure of intelligence but a failure of inheritance. The vast majority of people are living within the framework they have been provided; and that framework is the trap.

Yes, growth is inevitable. But it is the growth of entropy, not the economy. It is the growth of decay due to a system returning to equilibrium. This is the physical reality we refuse to acknowledge, refuse to consider, refuse to look at.

I submitted my question knowing it will likely get glossed over, if considered at all. I will not attend the debate. I have little stomach for this genre of theatrical performances and even less for the evasions that take place during them. The question needs to be asked–repeatedly–if only to force the issue into a space where it’s normally absent. Perhaps, if the question is asked and debated, at least one candidate or community member may pause and actually reflect upon and think about the implications. Perhaps another in my community will see the trap we are all caught in and dare to question the demand for more. Perhaps…

Yes, I know it is a faint hope. But maybe it’s a hope that makes sense in a world that has mistaken its fever dream for reality. Beliefs can change and taboos do fall. Ideas once considered unspeakable are relatively commonplace nowadays. Stating a taboo aloud can often be the initial crack in its armour. It’s slow and unglamorous, and often futile, but it’s not nothing.

This election, like others, will come and go; the signs will be taken down (and added to our waste piles); the newly elected winners will take their seats around the council table; they will manage the mandate of growth as best they can given the constraints imposed upon them and that are beyond their control; and the growth machine will rumble on devouring our future to feed the present–at least until the physical sciences we have ignored present the bill.

And when that time comes, the theatre of democracy may appear as quaint and irrelevant as the Greek chorus watching their city state fall. At that time, the only questions that might matter to the community might be those I asked the candidates in this upcoming election: What do we do now that supply chains have broken, grocery store shelves are bare, and the complex systems on which we entirely depend have faltered?

The answer will probably be something along the lines of a wish to have spent more time building gardens and systems of self-sufficiency rather than chasing the growth of systems over which we have zero control.

Today's Contemplation

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?