Perhaps the largest issue we face in this declining world is our stubborn clinging to ridiculous economic theories while ignoring theories of biology.

Biology tells us that all growth is limited by the least favorable factor. What if we are that factor? We assume that we can keep growing but can we? It is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot. There is a limit to the amount of water, land, air we can access, but we ignore that uncomfortable fact.

We know life grows where it will in whatever format is best for it to flourish. Do we think we can hold that rule to us alone? We tell ourselves we are the most adaptable animal species as far as surface use is concerned but that is nonsense.

What we have done is to use the environment around us to provide the means to survive in it. There are huge areas of the planet that do not offer the materials we need for survival, so we barely travel them, let alone live in them. We don’t adapt, no, we force the environment to adapt to us. In doing so, we separate ourselves from our planet and objectify it. We have made the Earth a commodity.

We cannot continue to ignore the reality of our situation, we have to change our ways.

The fundamental flaw in all our economic theories is a simple one. We do not even consider if that flaw exists, let alone what it may be. We carry on blithely unaware of our own lack of clarity here.

The simple fact is all our economic theories are based on the premise of endless growth. In biology, endless growth is called cancer. Is this what we humans have become, a cancer on the Earth? Was Agent Smith right when he describes his perception of humanity to Morpheus in “The Matrix “?

We are consuming the planet at an unsafe and unsustainable pace. We have to slow population growth maybe go into a negative growth cycle. Unfortunately the Chinese one child policy is an example of how that does not work.

In the fantastic book, “Red Mars”, Kim Stanley Robinson suggests a different idea. We are all given the right to 0.75 of a baby. One couple can produce one baby. For the other half a baby, they can either sell that half or buy a half on a baby market. There would have to be a lot of legislation and non-compliance would have severe consequences but it could work. The idea though could be seen to make children a commodity, not a happy image.

I had always considered the idea of Zero Population Growth was a nonsense, but I am thinking that before we can repair the Earth, we need to make some harsh decisions about ourselves, our present and our future, as a living creature on this little blue dot.

I have also objected to the idea we are destroying our planet. What arrogant, self-delusion is this? We cannot kill our planet, but we can wreck the environment around us to the point where we can no longer live in it as we have evolved to be.

We know that climate change is a very real thing. We’ve a 4.5 billion year record of it. We can see unusual weather patterns all around the world. Floods when there should be a dry, summer temperatures in the middle of winter.

Nothing, however, should be allowed to stand in the way of profit. Again, this comes back to the dominant economic theories today, “Neoliberalism”.

Few will recognise this name but it also called “Neoconservatism” or “Supply Side” or “Trickle Down” economics. Essentially the theory is that if the big end of town is working well then gains will trickle down to the lower end. Reality has shown us this is not what is happening.

The top end is doing well but it’s just not trickling down. Why?

There is probably more than one answer but we need to start a lot further back than Reagan, Thatcher, Friedman and others to get a better image.

Trickle down was tried in France in the 1890’s, it failed mainly because the top end were supporting their lifestyles rather than sharing their fortune, reinvesting in their communities, investing in people. Instead of investing in research, improving wages, health outcomes, education, housing, they left social spending to government at a time when social spending was negligible. Government gave cut taxes, so such investment became impossible. Sound familiar?

What has made it more difficult now is the fact that the family businesses of the 1890’s are now replaced by corporations. To increase that difficulty, the corporations have taken to the idea that monopoly is a reward for investment and efficiency. This is totally anti-free enterprise.

Don’t expect things to change any time soon.