Our economic system should serve us. Despite living in the country with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) in the world, many Americans are unable to meet their basic needs, from housing to healthcare. The neoliberal script of capitalism insists that economic growth and consumption are the solution to any social problem, especially poverty. This logic has enabled businesses to pursue endless profits while directly catalyzing ecological and social peril. The alarm is sounding as we speed toward unprecedented levels of wealth inequality, ecological devastation, and irreversible tipping points. 

As Americans, we are conditioned to see growth as synonymous with well-being. Prices are used as a proxy for utility, and GDP growth is taken as a proxy for increased human well being. But as Kate Raworth points out in her widely cited book Doughnut Economics, this assumption is inherently limited, as “many things we value are not for sale.” Ecological economists critique a growth-obsessed model as fundamentally unsustainable, reimagining how our economy can function without requiring the perpetual exploitation of natural resources. They champion growth within an ecologically sustainable scale and with a socially equitable distribution of resources. One way to do this is by incorporating natural capital (such as forests, oceans, and minerals) into our economic calculus alongside manufactured, financial, and human capital.

Economists have no trouble accounting for labor or technology as the valuable resources they are. Despite nature being our most valuable and increasingly scarce resource, it is exploited at a concerning scale as our government corruptly subsidizes resource extraction in the name of GDP growth. Raworth suggests imposing a tax equivalent to the social and ecological costs and letting businesses decide whether it is worth it to pollute at this price. We should also consider the aspects of nature that are harder to measure, from aesthetic beauty to legal and intrinsic rights to exist. 

There is a philosophical question to ask about the kind of society we want to live in. What does human prosperity look like, and how can we best use our finite natural resources to get us there?

The profit motive of capitalism has reduced us from citizens into consumers. We are constantly bombarded by media tempting us to organize our lives around the pursuit of owning more stuff. However, research from economists and psychologists shows that once fundamental needs are satisfied, materialistic aims are negatively associated with well being, while ecologically sustainable behavior can promote it. It distracts us from Human Things like connectedness, authenticity, and civic engagement.

To transform our economic system into a healthy and resilient one, to start, we would need to revolutionize the way goods are produced and consumed. A system predicated on growth perversely incentivizes business practices like planned obsolescence, where firms intentionally design low-quality products so consumers are forced to replace them more frequently. This cycle of waste has infected everything, from fashion to electronics to housing. Firms should shift their focus on growth to the quality and utility of what they produce. 

The local Shaw Tool Library offers one alternative to the overconsumption cycle. Members can check out items from lawnmowers to air fryers, making it simple to share in your community.

We must also promote recirculation, making it more convenient to repair or repurpose items than to discard them. Consider donating to the WashU Circularity Center’s Share Our Stuff program this move out season, which collects everything from office supplies to furniture to reuse for future students, or pick something up next semester. 

It is easy to get existential when thinking about the complex stickiness of structural problems like an economic system that causes us to act unsustainably. I see ecological economics as what environmental scientist Donella Meadows calls a paradigm shift: a change in our deepest beliefs about how the world works. It’s not easy to shift social systems, but it begins with recognizing the assumptions baked in and working towards alternatives. I am inspired by the people who spend their time unraveling and sharing their wisdom on a range of these “wicked problems.”

I learned many of these concepts through classes and conversations with Froggi VanRiper, an environmental studies professor. If you’re curious to learn more, take Ecological Economics this upcoming fall. VanRiper’s profound knowledge and passion makes the learning experience extremely rewarding. 

I urge students regardless of background to take advantage of the opportunities your liberal arts classes provide to enrich your worldview. I urge economics students to learn more about the principles of ecological economics, as I have found little so relevant to our future. I urge economics professors to incorporate more interdisciplinary and contemporary models into their courses, as I see much of the theoretical power of ecological economics in its applications to present debates across politics, ethics, inequality, and the natural sciences. I urge the department to rethink economics and integrate ecological economics under its umbrella; it does not serve students to isolate it under environmental studies. Ecological economics should be taken as the serious economic theory it is and taught alongside every other model.

Thinking beyond hyper-materiality frees us to focus our energy toward growth in science, creativity, and our social connections: investments that actually enrich our lives and those of future humans.