Is capitalism sustainable?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is an economics resource.

Capitalism is the predominant economic system of our time. But can it remain so? Systems like mercantilism and serfdom lasted for centuries before the establishment of the Bretton Woods system. Have we reached what political theorist Francis Fukuyama has called the "end of history" where liberal democracy matched with free markets are the last viable option for organizing society? If capitalism is to be overthrown, what could replace it and would it be a step forward or back? Sustainable here does not only mean ecologically, but over time.

• Pro Throughout recent history, there has not been a better and viable alternative system to capitalism.
  • Objection This doesn't imply that capitalism is sustainable.
  • Objection An alternative will surface as soon as it becomes necessary. Unenvisioned alternatives have greater plausibility of surfacing with the access to technologies, scientific abilities, tools and processes which didn't exist in former eras.
    • Objection Relying on as-yet unenvisioned alternatives is pure speculation.
  • Objection Feudalism is a viable alternative, viable in the sense of capable of sustained existence. That does not make it the preferable or sustainable alternative, merely viable. Ditto North Korean Communism.
• Pro Although Marx predicted that capitalism is a necessary stage for an eventual worker's revolution, capitalists after Marx have been able to slowly adjust capitalism so that it can sustain itself indefinitely. The shifts from the Industrial Revolution to globalized financial capitalism have made it impossible for workers to ever overthrow the upper class.
  • Objection This argument assumes what must be proven. The fact that capitalism has been slowly adjusting to sustain itself doesn't mean that it will continue to be able to do so. Economists will try, no doubt.
• Pro Economic growth under capitalism can be separated from unsustainable resource consumption. There is not a fixed supply of resources that is used up, because new resources can be discovered or developed. In other words, advancing technology enables us to access resources which were formerly unreachable.
  • Objection That so-called 'decoupling' is possible does not mean it's actually done and neither that it can be done quickly enough or to a sufficient degree. Decoupling is limited in its potential and occurring far too slowly.^[1] It needs some kind of socioeconomic transition to a sustainable economic system.
  • Objection There is a fixed supply of natural resources to be used up, such as rare minerals and fossil fuels. Discovery of new resources does not create them, merely discovers them, and the total available amount is fixed. What is used up is gone. As far as we know, the current rate of resource exhaustion cannot be sustained for the next 500 years, whether under capitalism or socialism.
  • Objection While new resources can be used, existing market forces can downplay innovation due to the risk of investing in new products. For example, if an innovation results in reduced demand (although specific to markets), those whose business depends on selling said product have an incentive to control the impacts of such innovation. This could result in the adoption or suppression of such innovation, as we've seen with the fossil fuels industry. This also applies to overconsumption (if, say, Americans reduced their car use by half without seriously affecting their happiness (maybe increasing it), it'd probably be great for the environment and sustainability, but terrible for fossil-fuel and automobile companies).

• Con Capitalism requires constant growth, and constant growth is impossible in a limited planet.
  • Objection The assumption that capitalism requires constant growth is dubious. Empirical evidence suggests that capitalist economies do not require endless growth but are rather much more likely to evolve toward a steady state once consumption demands of the global population have been satisfied.^[2]
    • Objection There is no empirical evidence that shows this. Basically, all countries strive for growth as a de-facto goal and are pressured to have that goal, growth in terms of GDP growth and population growth and growth of resource extraction is what's happening on the global level consistently throughout, and endless growth is the built-in goal that the system pressures its components to strive for which is very difficult to ignore. For example, consumption demands are aimed to be maximized where in the systemic ideal, everybody wants to have a large house, two cars, eat lots of meat, replace products quickly, book a lot of airplanes, buy a lot of products, etc etc.
      • Objection The empirical evidence for that can be found if we look at the two metrics presented above: GDP growth and population growth. In terms of real GDP growth, the average rate among advanced economies is 1.5, whereas the same number is at 4.0 for developing economies. So with time we can clearly see a trend towards a steady state. In terms of population growth, we see a similar picture. In high-income countries with advanced economies, the average fertility rate is 1.5 births per woman, whereas in low-income countries with developing economies the average fertility rate is 4.5 births per woman.
  • Objection The Earth is not the limit. Other planets are relatively benign compared to Earth, with no ecosystems to protect, and there are also space habitats.
    • Objection Massive space colonization is unfeasible in the near future. We need a solution sooner.
      • Objection It was never stated that we needed a fast solution.
    • Objection If we cannot manage in this planet, how can we even hope to manage others much more hostile?
    • Objection Feasible planets to live in, whether hostile or not, are merely fictional, as the ones we may find, will require energy to make habitable for humans, and quite probably, as our knowledge of existing planets suggests, unimaginable amounts of energy. This argument reduces to a low probability high risk endeavor with many ifs, if we find a planet, if we we are technologically developed enough, etc. which proves the point of capitalism not being sustainable in the first place.
  • Objection Even assuming constant growth is required to sustain capitalism, this is constant economic growth, which is not equivalent to a constant increase in resource consumption. Economic growth based on intellectual property and more efficient use of existing resources (asymptotically approaching perfect efficiency) can be maintained in a finite system.
    • Objection Economic growth based on intellectual property still requires resources: people eating, using computers, servers running, etc. Capitalism prioritizes growth of only capital, it establishes an asymmetric relation that benefits a few, immensely more than the remaining majority. In it's "pure" ideological form capitalism completely disregards the natural environment, even paints it as an obstacle or enemy, in the name of individual or market "freedom".
    • Objection "intellectual property" is arguably an impediment to innovation.
• Con Capitalism disregards the natural environment over capital growth. The universe does not care though, it just reflects back, therefore becoming a recipe for destruction to the ones using it as their ultimate rule.
  • Objection Capital growth and natural environment don't need to be two mutually exclusive things. As green energy becomes more affordable, the market incentivizes the transition towards renewables. As of 2025, for example, around 90% of renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.^[3][4]. According to S&P Global's cleantech trends outlook, in 2025 clean energy technology investments will surpass upstream oil and gas spending for the first time in history.^[5]
    • Objection This is changing despite of capitalism not because or naturally in it. Moreover and importantly, it's changing too slowly and with a lot of resistance or issues and many non-built-in interventions being required. The problem remains also when it comes to energy overspecifically but sustainability isn't just about energy.
      • Objection The examples that I mentioned above do seem to be caused by capitalism at least to some degree. As renewable sources become more cost-effective than their fossil fuel counterparts, the market incentivizes a transition to them. This is especially true now that we are seeing business leaders (who are famous for caring about themselves first and foremost) overwhelmingly back the transition to renewables.^[6] Additionally, energy and energy-related sectors are by far the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas (methane, nitrous oxide, etc) emissions.^[7]
        • Objection Neither the achievement of their higher cost-effectiveness nor systematic incentivization of cost-effectiveness in this domain are tied to exclusively capitalism. Moreover, the transition again was and is far too slow, proving how capitalism hasn't and doesn't deal with this problem well which isn't limited the energy production to begin with and climate change not the only environmental problem. That there are some systemic characteristics that can and to some extent address issues related to the natural environment doesn't mean it doesn't disregard the natural environment substantially or too much.
          • Objection The examples provided above are connected to capitalism, if not exclusively, then at least to some degree. They don't need to be caused 100% by capitalism to count as something good that capitalism did. Otherwise, if we raise our standard of attribution to "exclusively" causing something, then we won't be able to attribute anything to anything else, because in real life it is rare that something exclusively, fully, 100% causes something else. As to the point about the transition being too slow, in 2024, more than 40 percent of the world's electricity was generated without burning fossil fuels.^[8] This number would be almost unfathomable in prior decades.
            • Objection What was meant is that for example systematic incentivization of cost-effectiveness in this domain can't only be achieved in/with capitalism. This number wasn't almost unfathomable in prior decades – quite a few people called for a change like that or more back then, not now after CO2 has been increased already very much. 40% of the world's electricity being generated without burning fossil fuels is not much: the share of electricity in final energy consumption is just 20% in 2023.^[9] Moreover, percentages and numbers don't matter at all and neither whether they feel impressive – what matters is whether a good target is reached in terms of risk management and natural physics and all attempts for such – organized and incentivized not by the capitalism system but inorganically by roughly politics – are so far failing disastrously, with even the upper target of 2 °C warming now already starting to seem out of reach and clearly not what the world is currently headed for even if the U.S. didn't elect Donald Trump as president and with lots of optimistic assumptions like pledges being adhered to.^{[10][11][12][13]} And climate change is still just one of many problems.
              • Objection The number is unfathomable not because people didn't call for action that would lead for it (people call for flying cars as well, but if we saw them suddenly suddenly become viable on a massive scale we'd all be pretty shocked), but because we are actually living in a world where they exist this early, which would greatly surprise people from previous decades. Climate Action Tracker estimates that just by adhering to all targets that were already announced, we would stay below 2°C (at 1.9°C to be precise). Previously, some scientists said that exceeding 5°C warming could very well be possible – now that's essentially ruled out. Now, even if all progress abruptly stopped and we just did what we are doing now (which is very unrealistic, because so far the progress has been very constant), we would likely stay below 2.8°C according to Climate Action Tracker.
                • Objection Again, numbers and how impressed some people may be in some views is ultimately totally unimportant overall and in regards to the debate question. What matters is physics and risk management in the sense of whether it's enough / fast enough, or the ultimate outcome. CAT^[14] says 2.8 °C and 1.9 °C is just relating to public talks about targets but nothing tangible and even there assumes full implementation of all such targets which entities aren't even on track for. Their actual projection is 2.2-3.4°C and even that makes lots of optimistic assumptions. And this is far too slow or too high of a temperature and 5 °C warming is still very well possible due to tipping points in the climate system and the associated risk of runaway climate change which all such projections may distract from, giving a false sense of quantifyability and security, and a reason why 1.5 °C is the only sane goal, not 2 °C.
                  • Objection The 2.2-3.4°C figure is their maximal range of temperatures if no other policies are implement beyond those that are there right now. This is essentially their worst case scenario, not their prediction, and even in this scenario they still put the median at 2.7°C. In 2024 survey among leading IPCC authors only about 6% predicted warming rising above 3.5°C, with only around 1% predicting it to reach 5°C. So even though the scenario might be physically possible, it is essentially ruled out as being very likely by the scientific community.
                    • Objection Again, 2.2-3.4°C warming is really bad, called for example a "death sentence"^[15] or "woefully inadequate",^[16] also by many studies. It is very plausible that policies are weakened (or undone or ignored), for example in the U.S. with the Trump as president, or that some are not as effective as projected or some climate impacts worse than currently thought (as still often the case according to recent studies). Importantly, the percentage of IPCC authors projecting a warming over a certain degrees is nothing short of a ridiculously bad way to assess the risk of a >3.5°C warming – a minimum reasonable way arguably would be to have climate science scientist experts assess the relative likelihood of that along with confidence ratings for their warming assessments and then combine that data into an accurate conclusion/summary. It is not ruled out in the slightest, quite the opposite, and not being very likely is clearly not sufficient. Lastly, impacts from 2°C warming are likely pretty bad enough already if that goal was achieved at all so this wouldn't be much of a success either anyway, with capitalism arguably failing in this domain also if that goal would be achieved (with there likely being noncommunist noncapitalist nonprimitivist alternative systems that would do much better and e.g. would never have caused such a fast warming or achieve implementation of a ≤1.5°C warming limit).
                      • Objection We do have just such a study that utilizes confidence ranges and employs a methodology that could be used to form, say, Bayesian prior distribution of future temperatures.^[17] In it, the authors did a very extensive analysis and the conclusion that they reached is that even under the pessimistic estimate, warming that exceeds 5°C is very unlikely. So whether you prefer a survey of leading IPCC authors or an analysis based on confidence ratings, both agree on their conclusion regarding the 5°C scenario. The same analysis also estimates that under a median scenario, there are decent odds of staying below 2°C. Your last point is about whether impacts even from 2°C warming are bad enough. Let's be generous and assume that warming exceeds 3°C. According to a recent analysis (Oxley & Ng 2023), even under such scenario, the analysis find that the global GDP will still nearly double just by 2050 (much less 2100). The country that will be hit hardest would be Indonesia, but even so, it is still predicted to make it into top-ten economies of the world. Next, let's look at population. According to ND-GAIN country index, population in countries most threatened by climate change is expected to drastically increase. So what we can see is that even under some pretty bad climate change scenarios, both the population and GDP of even the most threatened countries are expected to increase. So it seems hard to say that capitalism is failing in this domain.
                        • Objection Because of the lack of proper citations, i.e. hyperlinks, it's unclear what is meant with "Oxley & Ng 2023". It can't be found and may be some AI hallucination. If it does exist, it may merely be an unreviewed unscientific report. Moreover, GDP is pretty meaningless. What matters is human lives (not) lost (and lifespan) and human well-being, including sustainability of the ecological life-support systems etc. GDP also increases by deforesting the Amazon, a climate tipping point, for unhealthy red meat that are traded for other virtual numbers. There is no reference for the claims about Indonesia and the rank in the world's economies according to GDP is yet another virtual rather meaningless number. If the population in countries most impacted by climate change are expected to drastically increase that makes the impacts all the much worse since more people will be affected by it and as already described in various studies.^[18] Capitalism absolutely is failing in this domain or has failed already given the impacts already in the present and the near-impossibility of safely reliably reaching 1.5°C today.
                          • Objection The article is called "Quantifying the economic hit from climate change". If you say that GDP is meaningless, but that human well-being is not meaningless, then it should be noted that GDP is an indicator of factors that are related with improved well-being. This is not to say that GDP directly causes improved well-being, but rather that icreases in GDP are correlated with increases in factors that are themselves correlated with increases in quality of life. If you want to make a case for capitalism's being unsustainable based on the fact that humans in the future will have low well-being, then you will still need some metric to extrapolate into the future to reach that conclusion. The claims about Indonesia come from the the very same source that mentioned economic impacts under 3°C warming. The reason I brought up the population in the most affected countries is to show that under some rather bad scenarios (like 3°C), their population is still going to increase, so it's not like those countries would literally all die out or collapse.
                            • Objection The now-cited article^[19] is merely an unreviewed unscientific report by Capital Economics and not even available without payment. It's not reliable and should be dismissed in such considerations and debates. Of actual scientific research, one study found of a set of papers the most recent of these papers find impacts of climate change on global GDP around 20 percent by end of the century^[20] and a big 2024 paper reported on widely and published in Nature that uses recent empirical findings from more than 1,600 regions worldwide over the past 40 years finds that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years.^[21]
                              • Objection That is fair, an article being behind the paywall, perhaps, makes it less likely to be conclusive evidence, because you can't review it (I have access to it, but if you don't, then fair enough). I found a different (publicly-available) study, this time made by National Bureau of Economic Research.^[22] Here, based on a review of studies that estimate the global economic impacts of climate change using a systematic research synthesis, they estimate the income reduction to be only 1.63% under a 3°C scenario. Even under a 6°C scenario, they predict the income reduction to sum up to just 6.53%.
                        • Objection The literature review study is not using expert assessments like that but it does consider or integrate studies that do so, particularly Ho et al. (2019) which found a median estimate of roughly RCP6.0 which equates to 3-4 °C warming by 2100, which the review also assesses to have a high likelihood in the central scenario albeit much lower than around 2°C. A key issue is that if Earth warms that much (3-4°C), certain irreversible cascading chains of reciprocal warming could be triggered with a quite high likelihood so that by 2100 or by 2200 Earth has warmed by 5°C or more. The 5°C number (or the quantified risk thereof) is a bad pick anyway as the impacts from 2°C and 3°C are projected to be quite disastrous already anyway.
                          • Objection The original study that I presented also deals with RCPs. It mentions in the "Scenarios beyond 3°C" section that the scenarios RCP6.0, RCP7.0 and RCP8.5 are unlikely (95th percentile).
• Con It does not make sense to call capitalism "unsustainable". Capitalism is unsustainable because nothing is. Every thing we consider "sustainable" today likely won't survive even 10 Ga, and should be treated as temporary as capitalism, if not more so, to bootstrap better tech.
  • Objection In 10 Ga the Earth won't even be there anymore as it will most likely be absorbed by the Sun in around 7.5 Ga. Sustainability is a term referring to sustainability of certain type, such as for a specific scale of time and at environmental conditions not extremely different from those projected for the future and, as here, often used in the context of specifically human civilization. Many things would be more sustainable than current systems and practices such as harvesting energy via recyclable solar panels for public transport that doesn't degrade environmental conditions much instead of extracting scarce fossil fuels for private transport that are a main cause of climate change.

• Should we colonize Mars?

Search for Criticism of capitalism on Wikipedia.