Giorgos Kallis, a proponent of Degrowth has a paper on limits. He links this to the work of Malthus (see here). Indeed, to my mind, one way to see Kallis’ work is an attempt to distance ecologists from Malthus. I don’t blame him for that aim. Kallis also investigates the nature of limits. He rejects the popular ecological notions of limits to encourage us to think more about self-limits. So what does he have to say about limits and self-limits?
Does The World Have Limits? If Not, Does The Distinction Matter?
Kallis argues against the idea of planetary limits. This is somewhat controversial as environmentalists often talk in these terms, see the work of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.
In many ways, Kallis is technically correct. We can put much more CO2 into the atmosphere. At no point will the planet say, “nope, no more CO2 can go up”. It isn’t a hard limit where breaching it can’t happen. But it is a form of limit, let’s call it a soft limit, in the sense that it isn’t a good idea to go past it. Kallis worries that the term limit suggests to people that it is a hard limit and we will be stopped from exceeding it. Maybe this discourages action? It is an interesting academic idea but I’m not sure it matters much.
To be clear, Kallis is not arguing that we can ignore what happens if we mess up the environment. Given he agrees with many people who talk about limits his argument seemed a little pedantic. He had a technical point but even if you accept his point it isn’t clear that you should act differently.
Malthus As An Economist
What was fun was Kallis’ attempt to move Malthus from the camp of ecologists to the camp of economists. The book is an argument that we should see Malthus differently. The suggestion is that Malthus liked growth rather than the limits he is often associated with. Instead, of fighting against population growth as he is often portrayed as doing, Malthus (to Kallis) was only arguing that the poor will be with us always. There was certainly a decent amount of this in Malthus so I don’t think Kallis is deluded here. Indeed, I appreciate Kallis taking a different selective position to the mainstream ideas that he criticizes, at least he is novel.
Still, Kallis submits as evidence refuting the idea that Malthus worried about population limits the fact that Malthus was against contraception (Page 24). Kallis completely discounts that religious beliefs might have influenced the Reverend Thomas Malthus. We are all selective in our thinking and Kallis’ analysis of the conventional interpretation is certainly limited.
Economists Are The Source Of All Evil
Malthus definitely used thinking that we might consider economic — e.g., comparing rates of change. That said, he also thought about problems we might think of environmental. Thinking of Malthus as a proto-economist or an early environmentalist both seem to have support. But Kallis can’t leave it at that. I was left with the feeling that getting Malthus into the ‘right’ camp, i.e. not Kallis’ camp, was really important to Kallis. I’m not sure who else cares. I don’t blame Kallis for not wanting to be in the same camp as Malthus as I agree that Malthus was almost a parody of the most uncaring person you can imagine.
[Strangely, Kallis is much more fond of Paul Ehrlich — think 1970s Malthus, still evil but with flares. He even suggested that Ehrlich was pro-immigration and for the rights of women (page 65). Not sure where he got that from given Ehrlich seemed to be a fan of sex-selective abortion and advised the Federation For American Immigration Reform. Let’s just say that this is not a pro-immigration organization. To learn about immigration, see here, for Ehrlich see here and here.]
Malthus had some novel ways of thinking but I’d encourage everyone to do what Kallis does and say “nothing to do with me”. Still, mostly I was left with the impression that Kallis thinks the term ‘economist’ is an insult, so given Malthus was bad, he must be an economist.
Discount Rates Are Also Evil
Kallis also seemed to imply that the use of discount rates are why we still use fossil fuels.
Climate change became a matter of discount rates. Twenty-five years later, enforceable limits to fossil fuel use are out of the question, and the planet is heating up.
Kallis, 2019, page 77
Maybe I’m missing something but my perception is that all those people who vote against climate-friendly policies aren’t doing so on the basis of extensive net present value calculations.
Limits And Self-Limits
Kallis thinks that the limits really come from within, and the economic idea of unlimited wants is wrong. He believes that if we think of our wants as not infinite, then we will be happier and the planet safer.
Only when we accept that our wants are limited and can be satisficed will we finally enjoy an abundant world.
Kallis, 2019, page 127
There is a large digression on money being the root of all evil; something that we have an insatiable appetite for. He is right that people do seem to chase money but he only contrasts this with physical goods completely ignoring a lot of intangibles. Yes, people do get sated with food and not money, but they don’t seem to get sated with power or prestige either so I’m not sure that money is completely unique.
He has a point about happiness. A lot of people (and philosophies and religions) focus on not being obsessed with gaining more stuff. I agree that it is probably good for your mental health to think of your wants as limited. We should have self-limits.
Self-Limits Imposed Upon You
That said, where it gets more worrying is that Kallis doesn’t really define self-limit properly.
What is a self-limit? Surely it has to describe something you impose upon yourself. This doesn’t seem to be Kallis’ view. He thinks of the self as a collective entity so we can democratically impose self-limits on other people. To be clear I know societies impose restrictions on their populations. This always happens and is often a very good thing. I don’t think you should be able to endanger other people just because you fancy doing stuff, e.g., drunk driving or owning a grenade launcher. I believe in restrictions, but I found Kallis’ idea of self-limits a bit sinister. If society tells you that you can’t do something that isn’t a self-limit. Societal limits aren’t necessarily a bad thing and there are limits on action that we as a society occasionally need to take that everyone won’t agree with, e.g., the drunk driver. Still, let’s not pretend that the people who had it imposed upon them thought it was a good idea and were self-limiting.
Indeed, self-limitation requires institutions at higher levels to secure the endurance of agreed limits.
Kallis, 2019, page 106
Humanity And Self-Limits
The challenge is that Kallis’ self-limitations aren’t really just about the self in the everyday sense. Instead, self seems to mean humanity. Humanity can limit itself. I am all for an individual embracing a lack of wants. That is great. But how to make humanity do it? (And I use the term ‘make’ advisedly). To repeat, I believe that society has the right in certain circumstances to limit its people from actions they might want to take. I’m fine with regulating poisons, banning dangerous weapons, even mandating fuel economy standards.
The problem I see with Kallis’ argument is that he is evading responsibility for hard discussions about how society imposes limits.
We should “self-limit” but how? What actions to take exactly? What process do we put in place to address reasonable concerns that any policy could be imperfect? If some people gain and some people lose from the limitations society imposes how do we compensate the losers? Big question, what do we do with people who aren’t willing to be “self-limited”? But this isn’t a public policy book, so he just leaves the reader hanging.
In the end, Kallis’ argument is saying two things.
- One, we should all be a bit more introspective and less greedy. Who is against that?
- Secondly, you had better be self-limited or else society will self-limit you. Maybe, but how and when to do this so Kallis isn’t just always telling everyone what is acceptable?
For more on Degrowth see here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Read: Giorgos Kallis (2019) Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong And Why Environmentalists Should Care?,Stanford University press