Malthusian Swerve

Radio Lab is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash?

Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at progressive.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states.

WNYC Studios is supported by ATT, offering a guarantee covering both wireless and fiber internet service that is all about having your back.

Staying connected matters.

That's why ATT has connectivity you can depend on, or they'll proactively make it right.

That's the ATT guarantee.

Visit ATT.com/slash guarantee to learn more.

Terms and conditions apply.

Visit ATT.com/slash guarantee for details.

ATT, connecting changes everything.

Wait, you're listening.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

You're listening

to Radio Lab.

Lab.

Radio Lab.

From

WNYC.

Hey, this is Radio Lab.

I'm Latif Nasser.

So a couple of weeks ago, we put up a brand new episode called Growth.

We talked about pumpkins and a finger and some slugs and every single person on our planet.

But there was one

growthy, you know, currently growing we did not talk about, which is the economy.

Now, what got me thinking about economic growth was not all the stuff that's in the news, the tariffs, the fear of the recession, all that stuff that everybody's talking about.

What started it was a lecture I heard a little while back by, of all people, an astrophysicist.

So I'm going to sketch what we know about Earth's history, cosmically speaking.

Her name is Sandra Faber.

She goes by Sandy.

She's a miracle.

Brilliant scientist.

She co-authored the standard model for thinking about how galaxies form.

She won a National Medal of Science back in 2011.

And she started the lecture by saying, we have a pretty happy little planet to live on.

Earth is a good place to live for, let's say, of order 100 million years at least.

Should be livable for a really, really long time.

Okay.

Except

she goes on to say

for us over the last century or so, we've been seeing planet-wide GDP growing exponentially.

So what she did is she took the average gross domestic product worldwide, and that's a rough measure of economic growth, and that had been growing recently around 3%,

which for economists is like a happy little growth number.

You will recognize 1.03, 3% as the whole.

But Sandra took that 3%.

And with some quick math, she started to just play it out year after year and in her lecture she's showing this chart where you can see this curve just shooting up we can see this number is completely ridiculous this is and she was basically like look at all that growth that's eating up earth's resources a large number here is bad because it means that we want more of that product and so even though earth should be good for a hundred million years and so here's the we're gonna going to just eat the planet up.

We're going to devour the physical, material level of this planet.

We're going to eat it up in more like a couple thousand years.

And my concern is that we're not talking about this.

And when I heard that, that was,

that was, that was breathtaking and

horrifying.

And honestly, like, I haven't been able to stop thinking about that number, 3%.

It sounds like a specific thing, but also it's kind of abstract and mathy.

And I wanted help.

I wanted help to parse this out.

Like, how bad is that really?

How bad could that possibly be?

And so I turned to someone whose job it is to literally make sense of this exact kind of thing.

Hello.

Hi, how are you doing?

Hi, I'm doing well.

How are you doing?

And we had what I felt like was a kind of a roller coaster of a conversation.

So I'm just going to play it for you right now.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I am Jeff Guo.

I'm one of the hosts of the Planet Money podcast at NPR.

Terrific show.

Thank you.

And

I guess, what do I do?

I talk about economics all day.

That's fine.

Oh, my God.

That's what I did.

I need you.

I need you to help me.

It's more than scratch and itch.

I need you to help me cure this existential dread that you have now.

That's exactly right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I mean, I guess where I would start is, and, you know, I would hate to contradict a Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist.

It just sounds like, you know, starting out on dangerous territory there.

I mean, well, she won the National Medal of Science, not the Nobel.

She's going to, she's going to, it sounds like she's going to.

Okay, yeah, sure, fair.

But you did ask me to kind of look into what things are we going to run out of.

Yes, yes, yes.

Oh my gosh, I'm so excited.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

So

I did, so I looked at a bunch of things that people are kind of worried about.

Great.

And I just did some very rough back of the envelope math.

Like, this is so totally not precise.

Favorite kind of math.

My favorite kind of hand wavy.

Great.

I love it.

Okay.

So

I don't know what should we start with.

Copper?

Yeah, that's the big deal.

Copper's a big deal, right?

Very big deal.

So if you look at copper consumption over the past century since the Industrial Revolution,

our demand for copper has grown about 3% every year.

Okay.

Like, you know, in recent years, we've consumed about 26, 27 million tons a year of copper.

Yeah, yeah.

So if you just extrapolate that out, if you just assume copper is going to keep growing at 3% every single year, right?

Fair.

Fair assumption.

I looked up how much copper people think we have, according to geologists, what we know is out there and could theoretically get to.

And that number right now is 5 to 6 billion tons.

Okay.

It's not nothing, but we're using it pretty quickly.

And if you just assume that this number is going to keep growing at 3% a year,

it would take about maybe another 70 years and then no more copper.

That's it?

70 years?

70 years.

70 years.

Okay, so that sounds terrible.

It's true.

It's true.

That's assuming, of course, that

we do keep consuming copper.

Using copper and needing copper the same way that we are.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

T-minus 70.

Yeah.

No copper.

No copper for anybody.

No copper.

Okay.

Okay.

So then what, but then, so that's, this seems to point exactly to Sandy Faber's point, right?

It's true.

It's true.

It's true.

Yeah.

Do you want to do another one?

Oh, that's the end of it?

I thought you were going to be like, but there's a giant, there's a copper thing that we're going to, no, there's no but.

That's it.

It's just like, yeah, she's right about copper.

Okay, but there's a butt, there is a butt coming up.

There's a butt.

Yeah, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.

You want to go through more of them before we get to the butt?

Is that the idea?

Yeah, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, next one, okay, next one.

Okay, so another one I looked into is

sand.

Okay, yeah, which seems like there should be a ton of that.

Seems like there should be so much of it.

Yeah.

And you know the reason why we need sand, right?

And why do we need sand?

For concrete.

Ah.

So it's actually so important that we don't know how much we're using.

Oh my God.

Like we're using so much.

We just, we actually don't know.

But like ballpark estimates, we're using maybe 50 billion tons of sand and gravel every year.

Okay, that sounds like a lot.

I don't even know.

I can't even visualize that.

I don't know.

It's a lot.

Right.

And I couldn't even find how much sand and gravel there is in the world.

Like nobody actually knows.

Okay.

This is one of those numbers where it's like, uh-huh.

But we're doing like back of the envelope math here, right?

Right, right.

So I was like, well, if we don't know how much sand and gravel there is in the world, surely we know how much rock there is in the world, right?

Totally, totally, totally.

So I looked it up, and according to geologists, the Earth's crust, all of the Earth's crust, contains maybe like 23 quintillion tons of rock and stuff.

Okay.

Okay.

But it does seem like

the whole point of sand is that it's like teeny tiny.

It would take a lot of energy to turn that rock into sand.

It would.

But assuming that we're able to do that, right?

Okay, okay.

Assuming that we're going to use sand, that we're going to use sand and gravel at a rate that grows by 3%

every year,

year after year after year.

Yeah.

It would take about...

Do you want to guess how long it would take to deplete the entire Earth's crust?

Wait, so a quintillion based on the growth rate and the uses now, I would imagine this one is going to be, be, this one is not on Sandra Faber's side.

I'm going to guess this one is like way, way, way far from now.

Like, like, this is going to be like a million years or something.

Five to 600 years.

That seems so short again.

That is way shorter for the whole crust.

I know.

Oh, my God.

That's not like it's long, but it's not that long.

Like, that's like, that is nuts.

All right.

I got a couple more.

This is just making me more and more existentially worried.

Okay, but keep going.

That's how I felt

when I started on this journey.

Right.

Okay.

I got a couple more.

Okay, great.

Love it.

I got to pull up my spreadsheet.

You want to talk about lithium?

Okay, great.

Good one.

Good one.

And lithium, you imagine there are like those giant deserts filled with those like sand flats or whatever, right?

Yeah, and Bolivia.

In Bolivia,

yeah.

Okay, so this one will be again, like I think this one, I feel like there's going to be a curveball in here where you're like, no, no, no, we have enough fat enough for you know for for millions of years anyway okay keep going okay hang on let me see let me pull up my where did my notes go on this i can't wait when we have to fact check all of this uh

um okay lithium so we are using about

a hundred ninety two hundred thousand

tons of lithium every year.

Right.

That's kind of okay.

So and that's like in that's in phones, electric cars, da da-da-da-da.

da Yeah, batteries.

Batteries is the big one for lithium.

Very important.

Lithium consumption, of course, has been exploding.

So over the past decade, lithium has been growing.

Do you want to guess how much it's been growing?

What, like

5% or 10%?

On average, around 20%.

Okay, wow.

Okay.

Wow.

So we need a lot, and we need a lot more lithium.

Which is good, which is good, which means like more electric cars, more da-da-da-da, right?

More recyclable batteries and stuff.

That's great.

Yeah.

So geologists think that of all the lithium that we know is out there, there's probably like 105 million tons of it, like out there.

That sounds a lot less than the sand you're touching.

Like, this doesn't sound

worrying.

Okay, keep going.

Right.

And so, you know, if you do this all the, you know, the same math, and you just, if you assume, if you just assume, just, you know, for the sake of argument, it's only going to grow at 3% a year, right?

Yeah, sure.

We'd probably run out of lithium around

about

March.

I feel like you're going to say, like, I feel like you're going to say, like, so soon.

Okay, keep going.

About 100 years.

Okay, 100 years again.

It's not bad.

No, it is bad.

It's bad, Jeff.

It's bad.

We need that.

Like, we're going to need that later for even better stuff.

It's true.

Okay, keep going.

I'll do one more.

I'll do one more, which is, and this is a big one, oil.

Really scary one.

Yeah.

But hopefully we're weaning off of this one.

So maybe this one is a different.

Hopefully.

Like it's going in the the opposite direction.

Hopefully.

Doesn't seem like it's really happening yet.

Oh, God.

But, but.

I don't think you have had a single piece of good news here.

Just wait for it.

Okay, all right.

So if you look at oil, right?

How much do we consume every year?

About 37 billion barrels of oil.

All right.

As a world.

How much is left?

Probably 1.6 trillion barrels.

Really?

Yeah.

So it's not.

That's a lot.

It's a lot, but it's maybe less.

It's less than I thought.

So, another way to say 1.6 trillion is 1,600 billion.

Right, right.

So, 37 billion a year.

We have about 1,600 billion barrels left out there.

Yeah, when you say it like that, it sounds

quite alarming.

Yeah.

Not great.

So, you know, if you do the math again, exponential growth.

So, we do want to use less of it anyway.

Right, yeah.

I'm ambivalent about this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

About 28 years.

No way.

That is nothing.

2052 might be the day we run out of oil.

Wow.

Maybe, maybe.

I was worried about when Sandra Faber said we had thousands of years and you're like, you're, you are taking me even

an order of magnitude less in that.

Maybe decades?

Yeah.

So I started to get, you know, a little nervous.

And so I

thought, well, like, what happened in the past?

You know, like when we were overexploiting some resource and it looked like it was going to run out.

And when I looked into it, there's this funny thing that happens.

And so, just for example, let me tell you a story.

Please.

It's about medieval England.

Okay.

So it's the 1400s.

Okay.

It's like medieval England.

It's the 1400s.

And this amazing new technology has just arrived on the shores of Yoldie England.

And it is this new way of making iron.

Okay.

It's called the blast furnace.

So, just like very briefly, like before the blast furnace, you kind of had these backyard ovens, basically, where you kind of baked the iron ore to make the iron, and they were like super inefficient and really slow and not great.

Okay.

But this blast furnace, the scientific innovation was that if you blew air onto the fire, you could get it really hot.

And then you could get it so hot that you could just melt the iron and it was amazing.

Got it.

And this like revolutionized iron making.

So these blast furnaces, they're these huge 20 foot tall stone towers.

You would have these giant bellows at the bottom blowing.

I was just imagining the bellows.

I was just imagining the bellows.

Okay, cool.

Okay.

So that's the key innovation here.

Yes.

And medieval England, iron was so precious, so important.

You needed it for plows and spades, horseshoes, pots, kettles, nails, hammers, yeah, whatever.

And so now you had this technology that you could make, these blast furnaces, they could make a ton of iron a day.

A ton, a literal ton.

A literal ton, which is like just unprecedented.

Yeah.

The problem with all of this is what was the fuel that went into this blast furnace?

And at the time, it was charcoal.

Which is, which is, charcoal is made out of wood, is that right?

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

So this was a huge.

So they're like slurping down forests, basically.

Yes.

Yes.

Just picture the English countryside, right?

You've got these blast furnaces sending up these huge plumes of smoke, and then everyone's just chopping down trees as fast as they can to feed these giant blast furnaces.

It's, it's, yeah, and it makes people really concerned.

Yeah.

Like really concerned.

They're like, oh my God, where are the trees going?

But it got so bad that by the late 1500s, you have parliament banning new iron mills from starting up in different places.

They're like, we cannot do this.

We just cannot deal with this.

Because we have one tree left and I have one selected.

We got to save the tree.

We We gotta save the trees.

The tree.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You even have Queen Elizabeth I.

Not the second, the first.

You have Queen Elizabeth I.

She is issuing royal edicts saying, no more charcoal making in my royal forests.

Wow.

We just can't, we can't do this anymore.

But

then something happened.

Okay.

So in 1709,

this English guy named Abraham Darby, he figured out how to use a different kind of fuel.

So, not charcoal.

So, maybe you want to guess what he figured out.

Oil, probably, right?

Coal.

He figured out coal.

Yes.

He figured out you can use this sort of modified coal to run these blast furnaces.

And this changed everything.

I'm not exaggerating.

The iron industry took off.

This led to the Industrial Revolution.

We

avoided the problem.

We avoided the shortage.

And it's not an isolated example.

This is a pattern that comes up.

We did this with whales when we stopped using whale oil for lamps and started using kerosene.

We did this with rubber.

We started making synthetic rubber instead of getting all our rubber from trees.

It's happened over and over again where we have stood at the edge of the cliff where it looked like, oh, crap, if we keep doing what we're doing, we are going to run out of some precious resource.

Right.

And then somehow, at the last minute, catastrophe is averted.

averted.

I mean,

this has happened so often.

I feel like we should give it a name.

I know, I was going to say, do economists have some kind of like wonky name for this?

Not that I could find.

So I'm going to take the option to give this a name.

Jeff, it is yours.

Yours is a name.

Okay, please.

I think we should call this the Malthusian swerve.

Swerve.

Malthusian swerve.

Okay.

And why that?

Because remember,

do you remember Thomas Malthus?

Yeah.

And if I remember, his whole thing was like,

no, you tell me what his whole thing was like.

Yeah, so he was this famous English philosopher type.

He lived, you know, in the, he grew up in the 1700s.

Pretty much around the time that coal was taking over England.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Right.

So he was seeing a lot of this happen.

And he's famous for predicting that humanity's growth would hit a limit, that, you know, populations would grow faster than we could provide food for them, right?

And so the future of humanity was to be limited and trapped by our own lack of resources, and that everybody would just be miserable, sad, and poor, and hungry forever.

He does not sound like he would have been fun at parties.

Yeah, yeah, he's a real bummer.

But maybe what he's more famous for is that none of that happened.

The reason that Malthus' prophecy didn't come true

is due to what I would say is the most important Malthusian swerve of all time.

Okay.

And this one is fertilizer.

Right.

Right?

It's like the Green Revolution or whatever, right?

Is that right?

The fertilizer revolution.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So I don't know if you want to hear the guano story.

Please, I love the guano story.

We can do it.

I know the guano story, but I love the guano story, and I want to hear you tell that.

Okay, let's do it together then.

Yeah.

So like the most, so like, so this is like the 1800s, a little bit after Malthus' time.

In the 1800s, Europeans are starting to realize you can really supercharge food production if you use better fertilizer.

Yeah.

Right.

And specifically, there's this one fertilizer that indigenous people in South America were using that was amazing.

Guano.

Guano.

Which is basically just bird poop.

Yeah.

Right.

Okay.

So basically, you would have all these seabirds and they would poop on these rocky islands and coastlines along South America and the poop would just accumulate.

So the Europeans, so like in the 1800s, the Europeans are importing hundreds and thousands of tons.

They're literally fighting wars over control of these guano islands.

Like Spain is getting into wars with Peru and Chile, like just to who gets to seize the poop islands.

Right.

And but the problem is we were using guano way faster than the birds could, you know, make the guano.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And then in the 1900s, in the early 1900s, some German chemists figured out a way to basically make synthetic guano.

They invented an industrial process to literally pull nitrate.

Nitrogen.

Yeah, that's like the key ingredient in guano.

Right, right, right.

Pull it out of the air and make synthetic fertilizer.

And that is on the order of a like alchemy discovery.

Like that is like this thing that is

super abundant in the air all around us.

It is literally the majority of the air, but it was unusable.

And then there was a hack where we then figured out how to make it usable.

That seems like

a miraculous technological breakthrough.

Yeah, it's a miraculous story.

And it is like maybe one of the best examples of this thing that I'm going to call the Malthusian swerve.

Swerve.

I like it.

I like it.

And the swerve.

So the swerve is like, it's like, when you say swerve, I'm picturing like it's like

a car about to collide into a cliff, and then right at the last second,

swerves out of the way.

Yeah.

And Malthus is driving the car thinking that, of course, we're going to hit the cliff.

And then some really, it's like the passenger who then just

like yanks the steering wheel.

Yeah.

It's like, nope, not going to happen.

Right at the last second, we figured it out.

Yeah.

And if you look at human history, this is a pattern that happens over and over again.

I

find this

somewhat

of a relief.

It is sort of encouraging, but it also seems like

there's so much drama here.

And

there might be a time where we can't swerve in time.

Like, what happens if and when we can't swerve in time?

And also, I would argue, sometimes the swerves,

sometimes we swerve right into another cliff.

So, for example,

this,

the example you talked about, from charcoal to coal, which is great for the trees, except after a while, it's also bad for the trees, right?

Like, it's like global rising temperatures lead to wildfires, lead to trees not able to grow where they once were able to grow.

Like, it's like we're

bought ourselves more time.

Fair.

Right?

We've bought ourselves more time.

But then we just always use that time to step on the gas to the next thing, right?

And then maybe when we do swerve, then we'll swerve into something worse, something that causes, you know, war, exploitation, or, or, or just messes up the planet in a way that you that is unswerve backable from.

I mean, yes, that is all totally right.

It is a mess.

But, but, you know, to help us unpack it, I think we should talk about a swerve that we are in the middle of right now.

Actually, first we're going to swerve to break, but only for a minute.

Then we'll swerve back and step on the gas directly towards a currently oncoming cliff.

Radio Lab is supported by Capital One.

Banking with Capital One helps you keep more money in your wallet with no fees or minimums on checking accounts and no overdraft fees.

Just ask the Capital One Bank guy.

That's pretty much all he talks about in a good way.

He'd also tell you that Radio Lab is his favorite podcast, too.

Aw, really?

Thanks, Capital One Bank Guy.

What's in your wallet?

Terms apply.

See capital one.com/slash bank, capital One NA, member F D I C

Radio Lab is supported by Dell.

Savings on Dell PCs are here, and their Dell AI PCs with Intel Core ultra-processors are newly designed to help you do more faster.

Stacked with the latest hardware, Dell PCs can help you code, edit images, multitask without lag, draft emails, summarize documents, create live translations, and with an extended battery life, you never have to worry about forgetting your charger.

Do the menial tasks faster in order to focus on what matters.

That's the power of a Dell PC with Intel inside.

With deals on Dell PCs like the Dell 16 Plus starting at $749.99, it's a great time to refresh your tech and take back your time.

Upgrade your PC today by visiting dell.com slash deals.

That's dell.com slash deals.

I'm Lulu and this episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.

Picture it.

You're at the salon getting a new haircut.

You look in the mirror and begin to think about some of your latest messups, some breakups, some things you did wrong, and the words slip out of your mouth.

You begin sharing your problems with your hairdresser and they listen.

But is that where you should be bringing your problems?

Should they have to be the ones to help you fix it?

No.

They went to school to make you look as dapper as possible beneath the strings of dead keratinized cells known as your hair.

If you are looking for help with anxiety, depression, relationships, communication, or other clinical issues, do the hairdressers in your life a favor and get guidance from a licensed therapist, someone trained in the art of helping you find you.

BetterHelp provides access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise online at the push of a button.

Find your mental fit at betterhelp.com.

Go to betterhelp.com slash radiolab to get 10% off your first month.

That's betterhelp.com slash radiolab.

And listen to your hairdresser for a change.

Con!

Con!

Con!

Con!

Star Trek Con,

the untold story of Star Trek's most legendary villain.

Cuck did us a favor.

From this quintessence of dust, we will rise.

Listen to Star Trek Con, wherever you get your podcasts.

I

am

con

Radiolab Lattev back with Jeff Guo from Planet Money telling us about a thing he has noticed called the Malthusian swerve, where we're about to run out of some resource, but at the last minute, some new resource or idea or or innovation comes along and saves the day.

And just before the break, Jeff had been telling us about how he'd been looking for examples of the swerve back in the past.

And I was like, okay, but is there a more recent example?

Is there like an example of a Malthusian swerve that happened in the past couple of years?

And there is one.

Oil.

Oh, we're in the middle of the Malthusian oil.

We are, yes.

Remember, do you remember like in the 80s and 90s, all of the talk about about peak oil.

Yeah.

Do you remember?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, and even before that, like, I think in the 70s and stuff, like, it's like we keep, we keep having this conversation over and over again, peak oil.

Yes.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

You have, you have people, you have geologists, distinguished geologists saying, warning us that, you know, we're going to run out of oil, that we're going to reach peak oil very soon, and that's what we're talking about.

Well, you just told me, you just said it in 52 years or whatever.

Like, you just said it.

Same thing, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, back in the 1990s, they were saying it's going to happen in the 2000s.

They were saying, oh, crap, like, we're going to start running out in the year like 2000 something.

Yeah.

And if you look at oil production, like, yeah, it does, especially in the U.S., yeah, it does kind of start to slow down in the 2000s.

A lot of people were wondering about what are we going to do?

How are we going to adapt?

How are we going to move away from oil?

And if you look at the chart, you'll see the oil production, it goes, it kind of starts to dip in the 2000s and then starts to rise again more and more and more.

There's a swerve.

And that was caused by the fracking revolution.

But is that a swerve?

Like, I mean, if we're now we just found another way to get more fossil fuels.

Like, is that even really a that feels like a we swerved and swerved right back in the same direction.

That is one way to think about it.

The way I think about it is like, it's a mini swerve, you know, like, oh, crap, we're running into the cliff.

We can't find any alternatives.

But we did find a way to get a little bit more oil out of the ground in the meantime.

But in a way, running out of oil isn't even necessarily the problem here.

The problem is the thing it's doing for everything else.

It's true.

The problem with fossil fuels, it's not that we're going to run out of them.

We have too much of them.

It's too easy to go and find oil in the ground.

It's too easy.

We have a problem that's not, it's not a scarcity problem.

It's an anti-scarcity problem.

Right?

And then we burn them, and then there's these horrible side effects for the environment, and then the world's getting hotter, and wildfires are popping up.

Like, that's it's a much harder sell, though.

It's a much harder sell to tell people, we have too much of this thing that's going to hurt you, as opposed to we have not enough of this thing.

Uh, so take care of it.

Yes, that is the key thing here, I think.

Like, you look at how these Malthusian swerves, if we're going to call it that, how they happen.

I love it.

I love it.

Keep doing it.

How that

happened, right?

And it was people who were motivated by the terror of we're going to crash into this giant problem in so many years, and we need to figure out.

Necessity is the mother of invention kind of thing.

Desperation is the inventor's best friend.

Yeah, yeah, right.

And you look at how an economy works.

And I'm not saying this is the ideal way to operate, but an economy works through incentives.

It's one of those things where the more you use, the less you have, the less you have, the higher the price, the higher the price, then all of a sudden new pockets of that resource that would have been too expensive before to get now become unlocked.

Yeah, exactly.

Or also

we might try to innovate, right?

Like now there's an incentive to invent something newer, cheaper, better than what we had before.

Like I would bring up the example of like lithium, right?

Now there is so much money.

And if you can invent a battery that doesn't need lithium, you will like, I don't know, win the Nobel Prize, right?

Like you will like, there is a lot of energy and motivation to solve that problem.

Yeah.

And if we were all just going to be like, well, we just, we don't need that much lithium because we're just going to conserve it and recycle it and we're not going to grow, then what's the point of trying to make anything more efficient or better?

There's no incentive.

Yeah, but it just, it feels like a, like a trap, like, and an especially capitalist kind of a trap where the only thing that will inspire us to innovate or to swerve, to use your word, is the immediate danger of the cliff.

Like, like, like, like, I mean, we're talking about resources and economics, GDP, and blah, blah, blah, but really, this is all like a head game.

It's like all like people's minds work in this very specific way.

And long-term thinking is so hard for us.

And it's like we've got this system that leans into a thing that is already a problem with us and the way we think.

It's like, we're just going to use it as long as it's there.

And when it starts to almost not be there, we'll figure out something else.

Yeah.

Right.

How do we get people to actually do the thing that is in the long-term interests of everybody?

Do you like, is the solution to have like some intergalactic Queen Elizabeth come down and say, no, no, no, no, guys, you're using way too much oil.

You got to stop.

You got to stop.

You got to put a pause on it.

Right.

Is it that?

Or is it sort of we're all left to our own devices and some combination of the free market and also government leaders worrying about this thing hash out some kind of

compromise?

That's kind of what we're stuck in right now.

But like we're also smart enough to can't we figure out a system where we don't have to just drive into the cliff and swerve at the last minute every time,

you know?

Yeah.

If this was your

car,

and there was, I mean, this is such a weird analogy.

There's only one car, and you, whoever is in the driver's seat, really, it's all of us, but whoever's in the driver's seat keeps driving pedal to the metal, accelerating faster and faster at cliffs.

Yes.

You would take their keys away.

You'd be like, sorry, this, you are not fit to drive.

It's scary.

Yeah, I don't know.

Why do we keep doing that then?

Like, do you think growth is inevitable?

Do you think growth is good?

What do you, after all of this, what is your take on growth in particular?

I think that growth is...

Maybe we should talk about what growth even is.

Like, there are always going to be parts of the economy that we point at, and we're going to say, that's bad growth.

We don't want that.

But growth is not just us burning a lot of fossil fuels and polluting the planet, right?

Growth can be good.

Like, growth could be starting a new business, mentoring kids, inventing a new kind of medicine that saves lives.

That is also growth.

And so, for me, I guess it's hard for me to say that growth is bad.

And maybe it's because I've just been too economics-pilled.

But when people say the word growth to me, I think of a country like China.

You know, China's economy grew so fast that it lifted 800 million people out of poverty.

Incredible.

Right.

It's like hard to say that.

Impossible seeming.

Yeah.

It's hard to say that's bad.

That's funny.

That was probably the population of the entire earth in Malta, right?

Yeah.

And that's amazing.

And so I think it's about figuring out

specific things that we can do to be smarter about it,

to make it less harmful.

But

Yeah, I agree with that.

Like we all have needs and there are increasingly more of us.

But I do think that taking, like, I still am sort of struck by Sandy Faber's like stone cold, like zoom out, there's nothing that's wrong about that logic either.

She just has seemingly a different priority than most economists, which is like she's thinking

at a different scale.

Yeah.

We have been given the gift of cosmic time.

We have hundreds of millions of years, if not another billion years, but we have not solved the problem of combining human nature with living in abundance.

So I should tell you, we actually ended up talking to Sandy Faber.

My cosmic point of view at this moment is to try to figure out how people will live the best possible life on Earth after cheap energy has passed away.

And telling her about your Malthusian swerve idea.

Where is the next swerve?

That's the thing.

That's the thing.

Specifically with regard to energy.

And it sounds like and the thing that she was most concerned about was that energy is just so wrapped up in all these different parts of our lives, basically everything we do.

And it has these huge effects on the environment.

She says we're actually dealing with a bunch of different cliffs and a bunch of different kinds of cliffs all at the same time.

Some people call it the polycrisis and some people call it the metacrisis.

Basically, we're facing a crisis of crises.

A crisis of crises.

Yeah.

So every time we think of one of these possible swerves, I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue them, but they leave a large fraction.

Everyone leaves a gigantic fraction of the problem unsolved.

So

I would say a huge issue for a long-term happy human history in the future is having a more mature picture of wealth, how it should be managed, and how growth should be managed.

I think Sandy and I, we're totally in agreement about what we want for the world, for the future.

It's just about how we get there.

And so,

can I give you my

silly galaxy brain way of thinking about all of this?

Yeah, please, please.

So, you're talking about like, why can't we, this is, you know, the earth is our home.

So, why can't we all, you know, get together and take care of it

and cooperate and all of that, right?

And if you're just a household of like a a couple people, you have a relationship.

If you're just a village, you like know everybody, you, you know, you can help each other out, give each other things, all of that.

But when you get bigger and bigger, when you get to the scale of countries and like the world, right?

It's very hard to get people to cooperate.

It's very, very hard.

Everybody has different opinions.

No one's going to agree.

Everybody's going to have different motives.

And

what an economy is, is a way of turning all of that, of organizing us at a global scale into something productive.

And obviously, you know, the economy is not perfect.

There are all kinds of problems we didn't even have the time to talk about today.

But when it comes to dealing with issues of scarcity, like running out of some resource, markets are a tool that, you know, historically have kind of worked, even if it's been super messy and dramatic and swervy and may have created way bigger problems down the road.

I'm not saying that the economy is the answer, right?

But it does give me a little bit of hope that the economy finds a way.

Most of the time, hopefully.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know.

Like, is

are we talking about a swerve away from resources, or should we really be talking about a swerve away from a certain kind of thinking or a certain kind of economy or, or, or just thinking about about growth in general.

Like, like

it's true, you're right, that an economy is a way to organize a globe, but like, but maybe we need to be acting more like a household

because we only have this one house.

If you can figure out a way to do that, they will give you a Nobel Prize like on the spot.

I guarantee.

Okay.

Well, thank you, Jeff.

I don't don't know if you exactly chased away my existential dread,

but I appreciate you sort of holding my hand through it.

It's all we have in the end, each other.

That's right.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Latiff.

This has been a lot of fun.

That was Jeff Guo, host and reporter over at NPR's Planet Money podcast.

Thank you to them for loading us, Jeff, for how game he was, his research, his charm, and his back of the envelope math.

Really appreciate all of that.

In fact, we produced this story in collaboration, not just with Jeff, but also the editorial team over there at Planet Money, including Alex Goldmark and Jess Jang.

And so they are actually playing the same conversation on their feed too, which is very exciting for us.

If you don't already know it, Planet Money is a, I mean, it's money.

It says it in the title.

There's so many smart people.

It's full of surprises and adventure.

Go check it out on Apple or Spotify or NPR or wherever you get your podcast.

Obviously, you don't need to re-listen to this conversation over there, but they did just do a great episode that is a deep dive into GDP.

They did another one about synthetic diamonds,

which are not a critical earth resource, but there is kind of a swerve happening there.

Anyway, on our side, this episode was produced and edited by Pat Walters and Soren Wheeler, fact-checked by Natalie Middleton.

Special thanks to Jennifer Brandell.

And of course, thank you, massive thank you you to Sandy Faber, her math, her thoughtfulness, her cosmic perspective, which of course prompted this conversation.

And here's hoping that it prompts a lot more conversation, maybe even action, as we all move into the next 100 million years of life, hopefully on this planet.

I'm Latif Nasser.

Thank you for listening.

Hi, I'm Keegan and I'm from Longmont, Colorado.

And here are the staff credits.

Radio Lab was created by Jad Abumra and is edited by Soren Wheeler.

Lulu Miller and Lattech Nasser are our co-hosts.

Dylan Geith is our director of sound design.

Staff includes Simon Adler, Jeremy Bloom, Becca Bresler, W.

Harry Fortuna, David Gable, Maria Paz-Cutieris, Sindhu Nyanan Sanbanta, Matt Keoti, Annie McEwen, Alex Neeson, Sara Kari, Sarah Sandback, Anissa Beetza, Arianne Wack, Pat Walters, and Molly Webster.

Our fact-checkers are Diane Kelly, Emily Grieger, and Natalie Middleton.

Leadership support for Radio Lab science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation.

Foundational support for Radio Lab was provided by the Alfred P.

Sloan Foundation.

Radio Lab is supported by Capital One.

Banking with Capital One helps you keep more money in your wallet with no fees or minimums on checking accounts and no overdraft fees.

Just ask the Capital One Bank guy.

It's pretty much all he talks about in a good way.

He'd also tell you that Radio Lab is his favorite podcast, too.

Aw, really?

Thanks, Capital One Bank Guy.

What's in your wallet?

Terms apply.

See capital1.com/slash bank, capital One, N-A, member, F-D-I-C.