THE last line of defence for advocates of indefinite global economic growth is that it is needed to eradicate poverty. This argument is at best disingenuous. By any reasonable assessment it is claiming the impossible.
Here's why. During the 1980s, for every $100 added to the value of the global economy, around $2.20 found its way to those living below the World Bank's absolute poverty line. During the 1990s, that share shrank to just 60 cents. This inequity in income distribution - more like a flood up than a trickle down - means that for the poor to get slightly less poor, the rich have to get very much richer. It would take around $166 worth of global growth to generate $1 extra for people living on below $1 a day.
Fair enough, you might think, it's worth it. But consider the resources it would require. The measure ...
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.