In the early 1970s, a pivotal question posed by Austrian-French philosopher André Gorz continues to resonate with alarming relevance today: “Is the earth’s balance, for which no-growth – or even de-growth – of material production a necessary condition, compatible with the survival of the capitalist system?” Gorz, writing under the pseudonym Michel Bosquet, was an early advocate for the de-growth movement, challenging the growth-centric logic of capitalism and its implications for our planet’s finite resources. His inquiry aligns closely with the contemporary scientific framework of planetary boundaries, which delineates the safe operating space for humanity within Earth’s critical ecological processes.
This essay seeks to integrate Gorz’s philosophical insights with the ecological necessity of de-growth and the planetary boundaries framework, exploring the inherent tensions between capitalism and ecological balance. It will delve into the scientific basis of ecological limits, assess the status and consequences of crossing planetary boundaries and consider the socio-political challenges of implementing de-growth. Ultimately, it argues that respecting Earth’s limits necessitates a fundamental shift beyond the confines of capitalism.
André Gorz and the Genesis of De-Growth
André Gorz was a visionary thinker whose interdisciplinary approach bridged philosophy, ecology and political economy. During a time when environmental consciousness was burgeoning, as exemplified by the influential publication The Limits to Growth (1972) by the Club of Rome, Gorz critically examined capitalism’s dependency on perpetual economic growth. His 1972 question was not merely rhetorical; it was a clarion call to interrogate the very structures that prioritise profit and accumulation at the expense of ecological and social well-being.
Although Gorz’s concept of de-growth was formalised later, it underscored the necessity of reducing material production and consumption in affluent societies. His vision was pragmatic, recognising that the finite nature of resources and the spectre of environmental degradation demand a reduction in material throughput to avert ecological collapse. Normatively, Gorz envisioned a society where work and production align with social and ecological goals, prioritising qualitative improvements – such as health, leisure and community – over quantitative metrics like GDP.
In his works, including Ecology as Politics (1980) and Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology (1994), Gorz proposed “non-reformist reforms” – incremental changes that challenge capitalist logic while paving the way for systemic transformation. Examples include universal basic income, cooperative enterprises, localised economies and policies aimed at reducing working hours, all designed to foster a society less reliant on growth and more attuned to ecological balance.
Gorz’s inquiry into capitalism’s compatibility with ecological balance remains a crucial lens through which to assess whether a system predicated on expansion can adapt to the constraints of a finite planet. To answer this, we must first comprehend the nature of ecological limits, as quantitatively articulated by the planetary boundaries framework.
The Scientific Basis of Ecological Limits
Ecological limits refer to the finite capacity of Earth’s natural systems to provide resources, absorb waste and maintain the conditions necessary for life. These limits are underpinned by principles of ecology, thermodynamics and planetary science, forming the foundation of Gorz’s advocacy for de-growth and the planetary boundaries framework. The Earth functions as a closed system for material resources (albeit open to solar energy), which means stocks of freshwater, minerals, arable land and other resources are inherently limited. The laws of thermodynamics further dictate that energy transformations are never fully efficient and industrial processes generate waste – such as CO2, plastics and heavy metals – that often exceed the planet’s capacity to absorb or neutralise.
Several frameworks help elucidate these limits:
• Carrying Capacity: This ecological concept defines the maximum population an ecosystem can sustainably support, dependent on resource consumption rates. High-consumption societies, particularly in the Global North, exceed their ecological share, appropriating resources from less affluent regions and future generations. For instance, the ecological footprint of an average American is approximately 8 global hectares, vastly exceeding the planet’s per-capita biocapacity of 1.7 hectares.
• Resource Depletion: Non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels and rare earth minerals, are extracted at rates that far outpace their natural formation, effectively zero on human timescales. Renewable resources, like forests and fisheries, face depletion when harvested faster than they can regenerate. The United Nations warns that 90% of global fish stocks are overexploited or fully exploited, with collapse projected in many regions by 2050 without intervention.
• Thermodynamic Constraints: Industrial production generates entropy in the form of waste and pollution. For example, the 36 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually from fossil fuels overwhelm the Earth’s carbon sinks, driving climate change.
• Planetary Boundaries: Introduced in 2009 by Johan Rockström and colleagues, this framework identifies nine Earth system processes critical for maintaining the Holocene-like stability that has enabled human civilisation for the past 12,000 years.
Ecological limits manifest in tangible crises that disrupt ecosystems and human societies. Climate change, driven by atmospheric CO2 levels exceeding 420 parts per million (ppm) in 2025, has raised global temperatures by 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels, resulting in sea-level rise, extreme weather and agricultural disruption. Biodiversity loss, with extinction rates 100–1,000 times higher than natural baselines, undermines essential ecosystem services like pollination, threatening 30% of global crops. Freshwater scarcity affects 2.3 billion people, with aquifers depleting faster than they can recharge in regions such as South Asia. Pollution, including 8 million metric tons of plastics entering oceans annually, contaminates ecosystems and human bodies, with microplastics detected in blood and placentas. Land degradation, affecting 33% of global soils, reduces carbon storage and food security. These crises, rooted in the overexploitation of finite systems, underscore the urgency of aligning human activity with ecological limits, as Gorz advocated through de-growth.
The Planetary Boundaries Framework: Quantifying Earth’s Limits
The planetary boundaries framework provides a rigorous scientific basis for defining the safe operating space for humanity. It identifies nine critical Earth system processes that regulate planetary stability, setting quantifiable thresholds beyond which humanity risks irreversible environmental changes or catastrophic consequences. These boundaries are interconnected, meaning that transgressing one can amplify risks across others, creating cascading effects. The nine boundaries are:
1. Climate Change: Measured by atmospheric CO2 concentration (boundary: 350 ppm) and radiative forcing (boundary: 1 watt per square meter, W/m²).
2. Biodiversity Loss (Biosphere Integrity): Measured by extinction rates (boundary: 10 species per million per year) and functional ecosystem diversity.
3. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycles (Biogeochemical Flows): Measured by nitrogen (boundary: 62 teragrams, Tg, annually) and phosphorus (boundary: 11 Tg annually) applied to ecosystems.
4. Land-System Change: Measured by the percentage of ice-free land converted to cropland (boundary: 15%).
5. Freshwater Use: Measured by global consumption of blue water (surface and groundwater; boundary: 4,000 km³ per year).
6. Ocean Acidification: Measured by the aragonite saturation state of ocean waters (boundary: 2.75).
7. Atmospheric Aerosol Loading: Measured by aerosol optical depth (no global boundary fully quantified, but regional thresholds exist).
8. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: Measured by ozone concentration in Dobson units (boundary: 5% reduction from 290 Dobson units).
9. Novel Entities (Chemical Pollution): Includes synthetic chemicals, plastics and heavy metals (no quantified boundary due to complexity).
Current Status of Planetary Boundaries
As of the latest assessments (Rockström et al., 2023), six of the nine boundaries have been transgressed, placing humanity in a high-risk zone. The status of each boundary, based on 2025 data, is as follows:
1. Climate Change: Transgressed. CO2 levels at 420 ppm exceed the 350 ppm boundary and radiative forcing is 2.9 W/m², far above 1 W/m². Global warming of 1.2°C drives ice melt, sea-level rise and extreme weather, with tipping points like permafrost thaw or Amazon dieback looming if warming exceeds 1.5°C.
2. Biodiversity Loss: Transgressed. Extinction rates of 100–1,000 species per million per year are 10–100 times the boundary. The Living Planet Index reports a 68% decline in vertebrate populations since 1970, undermining pollination, soil fertility and carbon sequestration.
3. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycles: Transgressed. Nitrogen application exceeds 150 Tg annually and phosphorus flows to oceans are 22 Tg per year, surpassing boundaries of 62 Tg and 11 Tg. Agricultural runoff creates over 400 hypoxic zones, disrupting aquatic ecosystems.
4. Land-System Change: Transgressed. Approximately 20% of ice-free land is used for agriculture, exceeding the 15% boundary. Deforestation in the Amazon and Southeast Asia reduces carbon sinks, while soil degradation affects 33% of soils, threatening food security.
5. Freshwater Use: Transgressed. Global consumption of 4,600 km³ per year exceeds the 4,000 km³ boundary, depleting aquifers and rivers, affecting 2.3 billion people and disrupting ecosystems.
6. Novel Entities: Transgressed. The proliferation of plastics (8 million metric tons enter oceans yearly), PFAS and other pollutants lacks a quantified boundary but poses systemic risks, with microplastics in human blood and ecosystems.
7. Ocean Acidification: Approaching Boundary. The aragonite saturation state is 2.8, nearing the 2.75 threshold. Ocean pH has dropped by 0.1 units, threatening coral reefs (30% lost) and marine food chains.
8. Atmospheric Aerosol Loading: Regionally Transgressed. No global boundary is set, but regional aerosol levels in South Asia disrupt monsoons and cause 8 million premature deaths annually from air pollution.
9. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: Within Boundary. The 1987 Montreal Protocol has stabilised ozone levels, with recovery projected by 2060, keeping levels above 276 Dobson units.
This alarming status – six boundaries transgressed and one nearing its limit – indicates that humanity is pushing Earth’s systems beyond their regenerative capacity, amplifying risks of cascading effects and tipping points.
Consequences of Crossing Planetary Boundaries
Transgressing planetary boundaries has profound consequences for ecosystems, societies and economies:
• Cascading Effects: Boundaries are interconnected. For example, deforestation (land-system change) reduces rainfall, impacting freshwater availability and agriculture, while climate change exacerbates biodiversity loss, weakening carbon sinks and accelerating warming.
• Tipping Points: Crossing boundaries risks abrupt, irreversible changes. The collapse of the Greenland ice sheet could raise sea levels by 7 meters, while Amazon dieback could release stored carbon, intensifying climate change. Disruption of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could alter global climate patterns.
• Socioeconomic Impacts: Environmental degradation drives food and water insecurity, displacement (100 million climate refugees projected by 2050) and economic losses (climate damages estimated at $1–2 trillion annually by 2030). Vulnerable populations in the Global South face disproportionate harm.
• Ecosystem Collapse: Biodiversity loss threatens 25% of marine species reliant on coral reefs and 30% of crops dependent on pollinators. Soil degradation reduces yields, exacerbating hunger (690 million undernourished in 2025).
• Health Risks: Pollution from novel entities and aerosols causes respiratory diseases, developmental disorders and 8 million premature deaths annually. Climate-driven heatwaves and disease spread (e.g. dengue) strain healthcare systems.
These consequences underscore the urgency of staying within planetary boundaries, aligning with Gorz’s call for de-growth to reduce material production and respect ecological limits.
Capitalism’s Growth Imperative and Ecological Conflict
Gorz’s 1972 question hinges on the tension between ecological limits and capitalism’s structural reliance on growth. Capitalism is driven by capital accumulation, where profits are reinvested to generate further profits, necessitating continuous expansion. This manifests in several dynamics:
• Profit Motive and Competition: Firms must grow to remain competitive, invest in innovation and capture market share. Stagnation risks obsolescence or bankruptcy.
• Debt and Finance: Modern economies rely on credit, which assumes future growth to repay loans with interest. A no-growth scenario risks financial instability, as reduced economic activity could trigger defaults.
• Employment and Social Stability: Growth is tied to job creation. Reduced production could lead to unemployment and social unrest without alternative income systems.
• Consumer Culture: Capitalism fosters consumption, linking identity and status to material acquisition, perpetuating demand for goods and services.
These mechanisms clash with ecological limits, as capitalism externalises environmental costs – treating ecosystems as “free” inputs – and incentivises over-exploitation. For example, fossil fuel companies profit while society bears climate damages. The planetary boundaries framework highlights this conflict, as transgressed boundaries like climate change and biodiversity loss reflect the unsustainability of growth-driven resource extraction and waste generation. The Global North’s disproportionate consumption – 80% of global resources used by 20% of the population – further exacerbates these transgressions, perpetuating global inequities.
Can Capitalism Adapt to Ecological Limits?
To address Gorz’s question, we can consider three perspectives on capitalism’s ability to accommodate no-growth or de-growth:
1. Green Capitalism: Proponents argue that capitalism can adapt through “sustainable growth” via policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy subsidies and circular economies. Technologies like solar power and electric vehicles aim to decouple growth from environmental harm. However, Gorz and contemporary critics contend that these measures are insufficient. Efficiency gains often lead to rebound effects (Jevons paradox), where savings are offset by increased consumption (e.g. more electric vehicles increasing battery mineral demand). Green technologies rely on resource-intensive materials (e.g. lithium, cobalt) and carbon markets create new profit opportunities without addressing over-consumption. The planetary boundaries framework shows that green capitalism has not prevented boundary transgressions, as CO2 levels and resource use continue to rise.
2. Structural Contradictions: Gorz leaned toward the view that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with de-growth. The system’s reliance on profit, competition and growth creates barriers to scaling down production without triggering crises. Reduced material production could lead to profit declines, lower investment and unemployment, destabilising economies. Globally, de-growth in one region could be offset by growth elsewhere, undermining ecological goals. The financial system’s dependence on growth to service debt further complicates a no-growth scenario, as stagnation risks defaults and economic contraction.
3. Post-Capitalist Alternatives: Gorz’s later works suggest that de-growth requires a radical departure from capitalism toward post-capitalist or eco-socialist frameworks. These prioritise democratic control of production, wealth redistribution and a redefinition of work and value. Gorz’s concept of “conviviality” envisions tools and technologies that enhance autonomy rather than dependence on centralised systems. Proposals like universal basic income, cooperative enterprises and localised economies aim to reduce growth dependence while fostering social and ecological resilience. The planetary boundaries framework supports this perspective, as staying within boundaries requires systemic changes that prioritise sufficiency over accumulation.
The evidence from transgressed planetary boundaries – six of nine exceeded – suggests that capitalism’s growth imperative is a primary driver of ecological overshoot. Green capitalism, while mitigating some impacts, fails to address the structural need for expansion, aligning with Gorz’s scepticism about reformist solutions.
De-Growth as a Response to Ecological Limits
Gorz’s de-growth vision, informed by ecological limits, aligns closely with the planetary boundaries framework. It offers a pathway to respect Earth’s finite systems by reducing material throughput and re-orienting society toward well-being. Key elements of de-growth include:
• Selective Downscaling: De-growth advocates reducing ecologically harmful sectors (e.g. fossil fuels, fast fashion, industrial agriculture) while investing in low-impact sectors like healthcare, education and regenerative agriculture. Policies such as carbon taxes, subsidies for renewables and bans on destructive practices (e.g. deep-sea mining) are critical to align with boundaries like climate change and biodiversity loss.
• Redefining Prosperity: De-growth challenges the equation of prosperity with material wealth, prioritising well-being metrics – health, leisure, community cohesion – over GDP. Proposals like universal basic income and shorter working hours, as Gorz advocated, reduce dependence on growth-driven employment while freeing time for non-market activities like community engagement and self-sufficiency.
• Global Equity: Respecting planetary boundaries requires addressing consumption disparities. The Global North, responsible for 80% of historical CO2 emissions, must drastically reduce its ecological footprint to allow the Global South to meet basic needs within boundaries. This involves debt cancellation, technology transfers and reparations for historical resource extraction, challenging capitalist inequalities.
• Systemic Transformation: De-growth envisions post-capitalist systems, such as eco-socialism or commons-based economies, that prioritise democratic resource management, localised production and sufficiency. Gorz’s emphasis on conviviality – tools and systems that empower individuals and communities – aligns with these models, fostering resilience within planetary boundaries.
De-growth directly addresses transgressed boundaries. Reducing fossil fuel use mitigates climate change, protecting the 350 ppm CO2 boundary. Halting deforestation and industrial agriculture supports biodiversity and land-system boundaries. Minimising chemical production curbs novel entities and sustainable water management respects freshwater boundaries. By prioritising sufficiency, de-growth aligns human activity with Earth’s regenerative capacity.
Socio-Political Challenges of Implementing De-Growth
While de-growth offers a compelling response to ecological limits, its implementation faces significant socio-political challenges:
• Political Resistance: Growth remains a cornerstone of political legitimacy in capitalist democracies. Policymakers prioritise job creation and economic expansion, often sidelining ecological concerns. Corporate lobbying, particularly from fossil fuel and agribusiness sectors, resists regulations like carbon taxes or bans on harmful practices. Electoral cycles favour short-term gains over long-term sustainability, complicating de-growth policies.
• Cultural Barriers: Consumerism, deeply entrenched in affluent societies, equates material acquisition with success and happiness. Convincing populations to embrace reduced consumption or shorter working hours requires cultural shifts, which are slow and contested. Media and advertising, driven by capitalist interests, reinforce consumption-driven values, undermining de-growth’s appeal.
• Economic Disruption: Scaling down material production risks economic instability in capitalist systems. Reduced profits and investment could lead to unemployment and financial crises, particularly in debt-dependent economies. Transitioning to de-growth requires robust safety nets – such as universal basic income or job guarantees – to mitigate these impacts, but funding such measures is politically contentious.
• Global Coordination: De-growth in the Global North must be paired with equitable development in the Global South to stay within planetary boundaries. This requires unprecedented international cooperation, including wealth redistribution and technology sharing. Geopolitical tensions, trade disputes and differing development priorities complicate such efforts.
• Scientific and Policy Gaps: Quantifying some planetary boundaries, like novel entities, remains challenging due to data limitations. Designing policies to address interconnected boundaries requires interdisciplinary collaboration, which is often hampered by siloed governance structures.
Despite these challenges, the urgency of ecological limits demands action. By 2025, climate disasters – from wildfires to floods – cost billions annually and displaced millions. Biodiversity loss threatens food systems, with 30% of crops at risk from pollinator declines. Pollution, including microplastics and PFAS, pervades human health and freshwater scarcity affects 2.3 billion people. These crises, driven by transgressed boundaries, underscore the need for de-growth and systemic change.
Contemporary Relevance and Pathways Forward
Gorz’s 1972 question and the planetary boundaries framework remain profoundly relevant in 2025, as the climate crisis intensifies and inequality widens. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns of “irreversible losses” if warming exceeds 2°C and the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework highlights the need to halt ecosystem collapse. Policy initiatives like the European Union’s Green Deal and experiments with well-being economies in countries like New Zealand reflect tentative steps toward addressing ecological limits, but their growth-oriented assumptions limit their impact.
Social movements, including de-growth advocacy, Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion and Indigenous-led resistance to extractivism, echo Gorz’s call for systemic transformation. These movements emphasise the need to respect planetary boundaries through reduced consumption, equitable resource distribution and alternative economic models. Indigenous knowledge, which often prioritises reciprocity with nature, offers valuable insights for de-growth, aligning with Gorz’s vision of conviviality.
Pathways forward include:
• Policy Innovation: Implementing carbon taxes, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and promoting regenerative agriculture can align with planetary boundaries. Well-being budgets, as piloted in New Zealand, prioritise ecological and social goals over GDP.
• Grassroots Mobilisation: Community-led initiatives, such as cooperative enterprises and local food systems, embody de-growth principles, fostering resilience and autonomy.
• Education and Cultural Shifts: Public campaigns and education can challenge consumerist values, promoting sufficiency and collective well-being.
• Global Solidarity: International agreements to cancel debt and share green technologies can support equitable development within boundaries, addressing historical injustices.
These pathways, while challenging, are essential to navigate the high-risk zone defined by transgressed planetary boundaries.
Conclusion
André Gorz’s 1972 question about the compatibility of ecological balance with capitalism, paired with the planetary boundaries framework, reveals the profound challenge of aligning human activity with Earth’s finite systems. Ecological limits – manifest in climate change, biodiversity loss, resource depletion and pollution – are driven by capitalism’s growth imperative, as evidenced by six transgressed boundaries. Gorz’s de-growth vision, emphasising selective downscaling, redefined prosperity, global equity and post-capitalist systems, offers a pathway to respect these limits. While green capitalism falls short, systemic transformation toward eco-socialist or commons-based models aligns with the scientific imperatives of planetary boundaries. Despite political, cultural and economic challenges, the urgency of ecological crises demands action. Gorz’s insights, amplified by the planetary boundaries framework, urge humanity to reimagine economy and society to secure a liveable future within Earth’s limits.