JOURNAL OF GLOBAL TRADE, ETHICS AND LAW
Volume 3 Issue 1, 2025
DEGROWTH OR GROWTH: A LIFE-OR-DEATH
QUESTION FOR HUMANITY
Yeomin Yoon1
1 Seton Hall University, South Orange, United States of America, yeomin.yoon@shu.edu.
Abstract. The 200+ years of capitalist development has radically altered the entire
Earth – especially increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that causes global warming.
The prevailing global economic system will most likely place the world’s
environment in danger, eventually posing a threat to humanity’s existence on the
small Spaceship Earth. The most effective, moral, and rational solution would be
“degrowth.” The degrowth movement aims to reshape society from its current trends
of environmental damage, alienation, and inequality towards establishing
communities that promote harmony, respect for the environment, and extension of
local democracy by enabling labour to employ capital instead of capital employing
labour. Degrowth would most likely entail adopting Buddhist economics suggested
by E. F. Schumacher, the author of Small Is Beautiful (1973). Schumacher advocated
for the world to adopt the Buddhist points of view regarding “the function of work,”
“the pattern of consumption,” “the standard of living,” and “the use of natural
resources.” We, the earthlings, need a bit of horse sense rather than highfalutin
economic growth models. It is wrong to suppose that the human species has any
special privilege to escape extinction. Degrowth or growth will soon be a life-or-
death question for humanity.
Keywords: Capitalist Development; Climate Change; Degrowth;
Environmental Degradation; Global Division of Labour; Global Warming;
Growth; Inequality.
JEL Codes: O44, P18, P28, P48, Q32, Q57
© 2025 Durham & Thunmann, London
Journal of Global Trade, Ethics and Law
ISSN 2977-0025 (Online). Published under Creative Common (CC) BY 4.0 license.
https://doi.org/10.70150/31nr8s90
Durham &
Thunmann
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
25
Introduction
Although it is impossible to be confident about the quality of long-run historical data,
the per capita world gross domestic product (GDP) changed very little between the birth
of Jesus and 1500 CE: from about $90 (in 1990 dollars) to about $140. For the first
eighteen centuries of the past two millennia, the per capita world GDP increased at a
snail’s pace, at a rate of about 0.1% per year. From 1800 to 2000, its growth has exploded
(at an annual growth rate of 1.2% or 12 times 0.1%), following an exponential path --
more precisely speaking, largely in the so-called “developed” countries.
1
In 1800, the per capita world GDP increased to $600 (in 1990 dollars). In 2000, it
rocketed to $6,500. [Note: If the per capita GDP were used as a proxy for the average
living standard, it would take 700 hundred years to double the living standard if it grew
at an annual rate of 0.1%, and slightly less than 60 years if it rose at an annual rate of
1.2%, respectively.]
Figure 1: Growth pattern of global GDP per capita
Source: Compiled by the authors.
1
See Maddison, Angus, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective and Monitoring the
World Economy, 1820-1992.
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
26
Figure 2: Female life expectancy from 1600 to 2000
Source: Broken Limits of Life Expectancy (Oeppen & Vaupel, 2002)
As Chart 1 shows, the last 200 years to 2000 registered a sharp acceleration of
economic growth from the previous 1800 years. [Chart 1 does not plot for the first
millennium; the line, if plotted, would be flat at an incredibly low per capita GDP.] Since
1800, the per capita world GDP has increased annually at a rate of twelve times over the
preceding 1800 years of 0.1% per year, owing to massive investment in physical and
human capital, and enormous technological progress under the so-called Industrial
Revolution, driven by the development of modern capitalism. The standard of living of
the “average” person in the world rose by 11-fold from 1800 through 2000.
The scale of the rise in living standards during the past two hundred years was
remarkable. In the early 1800s:
(i) The average life expectancy was 40 years.
Chart 2 displays the rise of the life expectancy of the “average” female from 40 years
in 1600 to 84 years in 2000. To know about the male life expectancy, subtract 4 to 6 years
from the female data for each year. [Note: I used to ask my students in class, “Why do
males live shorter than females every year?” Predominant answers from (markedly
female) students (admittedly, a biased sample?) were: “On the average, men are inferior
to women in many aspects – emotionally, intellectually, morally, and physically except
in violence and animal brutishness, and that’s why men live shorter than women.
Savvy?”]
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
27
(ii) Even in the most advanced countries, it still took around half the workforce to
feed everyone.
(iii) Working hours were very long, around 80 hours per week.
(iv) Vacations and retirement were virtually unknown.
(v) Child labor was common. [Can you believe this? John Locke, the noted British
political philosopher urged (in 1697) parents to put their children to work at
AGE THREE, lest they have only bread and water to eat and drink.]
The dramatic gains in living standards achieved in the past 200+ years, however, have
not been evenly distributed. In Western Europe and the United States, living standards
have increased almost 20 times since 1800, but in some African countries, they have
barely doubled.
Any happy-sounding (from the developed countries’ perspective) historical report must
end here, for no other reason than that the above historical economic picture demonstrates
mainly the bright side of the two hundred+ years of capitalist development and hides its
dark side.
1. Humans have Changed the Nature of the Earth Fundamentally
and Irrevocably
The 200+ years of capitalist development altered the nature of the Earth fundamentally
and seemingly irrevocably. The effects of human economic activity have been so
extensive that the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Paul Crutzen
2
introduced in 2000 the term
and concept of Anthropocene (meaning the human epoch) at a meeting of the Scientific
Committee of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program in Mexico. He defined it
as an era in which human economic activity covered the surface of the Earth completely,
leaving no part of it untouched. Man-made materials and wastes, and massive use of
fossil fuels, have radically transformed the entire Earth -- especially, increased
atmospheric carbon dioxide (one of the greenhouse gasses that absorb the heat given off
by the Earth and radiate back into the atmosphere) that causes global warming. Ever
since the Industrial Revolution humans have used more and more fossil fuels like coal
and oil, releasing unprecedentedly enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. The density of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm (parts per
million) before the Industrial Revolution. By now, the level passed 400 ppm.
In the Pliocene Epoch four million years ago, the average temperature of the Earth was
warmer than it is now by around 3 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (or 5.4 to 8.1 degrees
Fahrenheit); the ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland were completely melted, and
ocean levels were at minimum 5.8 meters (19 feet) higher than today’s. Will climate
change in the Anthropocene Epoch alter the Earth toward similar conditions? Is human
2
Paul J. Crutzen was a director at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz. He received
the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 for his work on ozone depletion.
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
28
civilization “facing a threat to its very existence,” as Kohei Saito’s book, Slow Down,
eloquently warns?
Especially from the perspective of the so-called “developed” countries, the economic
growth brought about by modernization and concomitant technological development has
led to affluent lifestyle. The very economic growth itself during the past 200+ years,
however, seems to be what is destroying the very basis of human survival. Specifically,
the upper class in the developed world (plus the top class of the developing countries)
may be able to maintain their luxurious lifestyle even as climate change continues. Many
ordinary people, especially those barely getting by each day, will likely continue to
scramble to survive, as revealed during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. If one looks at
the entire world (humanity), one cannot fail to recognize that the economic system
(especially, the current neoliberal version) adopted by humans has imposed severe
environmental degradation (climate change, pollution, and rapid depletion of natural
resources) on top of economic inequality within most nations as well as between
developed and developing countries.
2. What does the global division of labor, a.k.a., “global supply
chain” hide?
Because of economic globalization, the world economy has been transformed into a
global division of labor, or a big “global supply chain” along the reasoning dubbed
“comparative advantage theory” advocated by mainstream economists. For example,
following the logic of global capitalism, the U.S., the single largest national economy that
accounts for a quarter of the global gross domestic product, moved its manufacturing
plants massively to developing countries to take advantage of cheap labor (and extraction
of natural resources). More manufacturing (and mining) is performed outside the United
States, and the US imports the manufactured goods (and minerals) from abroad. While
American consumers have enjoyed the benefits of freer international trade in terms of
lower prices of imported consumer goods (and minerals), it is equally true that many
American workers have lost manufacturing jobs. The arrival of cheap imports has
supplanted manufacturing jobs in scores of communities in America, disrupted workers’
careers, and depressed wages, and worsened economic inequalities. It is no wonder that
many ordinary American workers are angry.
The people living in the countries that have managed to belong to this global supply
chain have enjoyed relatively more comfortable living standards. The number of such
countries is about one-third out of 200-plus countries. In developing countries, especially
those economies that have not been successful in getting aboard this global food chain,
the people are economically miserable. Moreover, these poor people can watch through
television and other mass media how affluent, luxurious life the people in America and
other rich countries are currently enjoying. Today the difference in income between
poorest two billion people who are trying to survive every day in a fight against hunger
and disease and a half billion rich others whose main concern is to second-guess the plot
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
29
of their favorite soap opera is, on average, 1: 30. So, it was no wonder that Prime Minister
Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium declared (in 2002), “the question of the century” is “How
can we prevent a violent class struggle between the world’s poorest and richest people?”
The above exposes only one dark aspect of economic globalization. The other dark
aspect is climate change, which is closely connected with environmental degradation and
rapid depletion of natural resources. Climate change has struck the world increasingly
year by year. It will continue to raid both rich and poor countries unless effective policies
and actions are taken globally and conscientiously.
The comfortable lifestyle in developed countries, particularly the USA, is based on the
extraction of energy and non-renewable natural resources from developing countries and
sweatshops in the latter for exports to the former. It is resulting in rapid environmental
degradation in the latter countries. If one borrows the words of Immanuel Wallerstein, an
American sociologist, capitalism relies on an opposition between “core” (aka, “Global
North”) and “periphery” (aka, “Global South”). The former extracts cheap labor and
natural resources from the latter. This process also enables the former to dump what
economists call “externality” (pollution and depletion of natural resources) on the latter.
As a result of globalization, capitalism’s global reach has extended to almost all corners
of the world, and the new frontier to exploit seems to have been disappearing rapidly.
(Some say the digital frontier may be the latest and last front of capitalism.) Capitalism’s
exploitation is not just the cheap labor of the developing countries but also their
environment. If the world aims for unlimited growth, the current global system will most
likely place the world’s environment (especially, of developing countries) in danger,
eventually posing a threat to humanity’s existence on the small Spaceship Earth.
3. Is there any viable solution to humanity’s existential issue?
In recent years, I have had opportunities to attend several lectures or presentations (held
in the US) addressing ecology, SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), and
environmental protection. The lecturers or presenters and the attendees appeared to have
nothing but noble intentions toward the Earth. It was disappointing, however, that the
lecturers and attendees seemed overly complacent, or were seemingly belittling the
serious challenges humanity faces. In response to questions like “What kind of solutions
or actions do you suggest for humanity to adopt or do, to be freed from the environmental
crisis?”, the typical speaker’s answers (with approving nods from the audience) boiled
down basically to the following:
• Keep recycling things; keep using reusable shopping bags and cotton T-shirts.
• Reduce beef consumption and become vegetarian.
• Replace gasoline-powered vehicles with electric cars and so on.
They sounded complacent pronouncements with good intentions, reminding me of the
adage, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
For example, by urging consumers in affluent economies to “keep using reusable
shopping bags and cotton T-shirts,” these speakers may help to reduce the current
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
30
environmental problems a bit and generate a sense of accomplishment. But they seem
either oblivious of or are not interested in addressing the violence against the people and
environment of the Global South that is involved in producing reusable bags or T-shirts,
which must lead to more use of materials and energy (generated with fossil fuels). If this
is not a kind of “Greenwashing,” what is?
Electric vehicles indeed emit no carbon dioxide. The production of electric cars and
storage batteries, however, uses fossil fuels and non-renewable natural resources, which
will not stop environmental degradation and depletion of such natural resources. For
instance, producing electric cars (e.g., Tesla) requires large amounts of rare metals. It
requires, among others, lithium. The ecological scholar, Kohei Saito, reports:
“Lithium deposits can be found in many regions along the Andes Mountain range
[extending from South and North through Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador,
Colombia, and Venezuela] … Lithium becomes concentrated in the groundwater beneath
dry regions over a long period of time. Lithium-rich brine is pumped from beneath salt
lakes, and then the lithium is extracted by evaporating the remaining water… A single
corporation can extract 1,700 liters [442 gallons] of groundwater per second. The
drainage of such a huge volume of water in an area that’s already so dry will obviously
have a great impact on the region’s ecology. For example, the population of Andean
flamingos who depend on the shrimp who live in this briny water is decreasing. Further,
the rapid drainage of groundwater is causing shortages in the fresh water accessible to
residents of the area… Basically, the effort to combat climate change is causing even
more intense extraction and exploitation in the Global South to meet the demands for a
different resource meant to replace oil… Another necessary element for manufacturing
lithium-ion batteries is cobalt ... Almost 60 percent of the world’s cobalt is mined in the
Democratic Republic of Congo… The mining is being conducted in dangerous tunnels
that lack necessary safety measures… In the worst cases, mining accidents lead to miners
being buried alive. The deaths of children among these workers have led to international
condemnation. On the other side of this global supply chain is not only Tesla but
Microsoft and Apple as well … The problem is not confined to lithium and cobalt. The
demand for iron, copper, and aluminum has also risen as the GDP has continued to grow.”
(See Saito’s Slow Down, pp. 46-49.)
The above-mentioned American lecturers/presenters on environmental issues and their
audiences do not seem to understand that the way of life enjoyed by the people living in
America and other rich countries places a heavy burden on developing countries, where
people suffer serious air and water pollution and other environmental aggravation,
notwithstanding their poor living standards. Humanity’s failure to act in defense of the
Earth also reflects “a fundamental problem of motivation” in addition to the sad reality
that “not enough people yet understand the dangers or know about what to do about
them.” As Alan Thein Durning pointed out, many people “do not care enough because
they do not identify themselves with the world as a whole. The Earth is such a big place
that it might as well be no place at all.” (See Durning’s book, This Place on Earth, p. 7.)
American societies are often called “materialistic.” As pointed out by Durning in his
How Much Is Enough?: “in a deeper sense they are the opposite,” because materialistic
people would care about and care for “material” things, not just consume them. Durning
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
31
cites what poet-farmer Wendell Berry said in his Home Economics (San Francisco: North
Point Press, 1987): “Our economy is such that we ‘cannot afford’ to take care of things:
Labor is expensive, time is expensive, money is expensive, but materials [including
natural resources] – the stuff of creation – are so cheap that we cannot afford to take care
of them.” How a society treats metals, chemicals, paper, and other materials is a
fundamental determinant of its impact on the natural realm. The industries that extract
and process raw materials are among the most polluting, energy-intensive, and
ecologically destructive of all human endeavors. If materials are “the stuff of creation,”
then rich nations like America are not “materialistic” enough.
Toward the end of a recent lecture on ecology, some attendees asked the lecturer “What
do you suggest we should do to eliminate ecological dangers?” While the lecturer was
pondering over the question, I suggested to the audience that the most effective solution
would be “degrowth” (in English), “décroissance” (in French), or “decrescita” (in
Italian.) The degrowth movement aims to reshape society away from its current trends of
environmental damage, alienation, and inequality towards establishing communities that
promote harmony, respect for the environment, and extension of local democracy by
enabling labor to employ capital instead of capital employing labor.
When another attendee asked, “What would degrowth entail?”, I replied: “It would
most likely entail adopting Buddhist economics (the lifestyle of the Buddha and his
followers) as suggested by E. F. Schumacher (1911-1977), the German-British economist
and the author of Small Is Beautiful (1973), if we want to survive as a species.”
Specifically, Schumacher, who was known as a devout Christian, advocated for the world
to adopt the Buddhist points of view regarding “the function of work,” “the pattern of
consumption,” “the standard of living,” and “the use of natural resources.” Schumacher
realized that it was not the Third World which should learn about the high technology of
the West, but rather the West which should learn from the spiritual perception of the East.
One can add that any successful degrowth would necessitate massive redistribution of
income and wealth domestically and globally to “prevent a violent class struggle between
the world’s poorest and richest people” warned by Belgian Prime Minister Guy
Verhofstadt in 2002. Such redistribution would coalesce with what I call Pope Francis’
‘Lion’s roar of four No’s’:
No to an economy of exclusion
No to the new idolatry of money
No to a financial system that rules rather than serves
No to the inequality that spawns violence.
It should be noted that the visions of Pope Francis and Schumacher (and other
communitarians) regarding the future of our society must be the one in which every man
and woman are real people and should not be treated as cogs in vast machines and gap-
fillers in automated production processes. Moreover, people should claim freedom and
autonomy and recognize responsibility for their thoughts, intentions, and
actions. America’s famed sociologist Veblen supposedly called the implicit assumption
that people do not matter “crackpot realism.” One would add another crackpot realism in
today’s neoliberal economic context: Our finite Earth is endowed with infinite material
resources, and consumption is the be-all and end-all of human life.
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
32
4. Concluding Remarks
One may explain humanity’s failure to act in defence of the Earth “as a problem of
knowledge: not enough people yet understand the dangers or know what to do about
them.” But doesn’t this humanity’s failure reflect a fundamental problem of motivation?
In other words, people know enough, but they do not care enough. “They do not care
enough because they do not identify themselves with the world as a whole. The Earth is
such a big place that it might as well as no place at all.” (See Alan Thein Durning’s This
Place on Earth, p. 7)
The mainstream (neoclassical) economics enamored with Newtonian mechanics has
become “fragmentary and reductionist” (physicist Fritjof Capra’s words). Preoccupied
with maximizing individual utility and efficiency, it has failed to recognize the economy
as one aspect of a whole ecological and social fabric. Mainstream economists have
belittled and ignored ecological economists like Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, a notable
pioneer in Bioeconomics. They have neglected ecological/economic/political/social
interdependence and did not pay any attention to Alfred Marshall’s famous tenet that
economics ‘is a branch of biology broadly defined.’ In other words, the economic process
is part and parcel of the human biological domain. Instead, they have become
unsuspecting agents of destruction by transforming their society (e.g., today's America)
into a commodity-centered society. As a result, ethics and politics have become servants
of economics, reducing justice to the commodification of everything (including the
livable environment) society needs. Politics and ethics need decolonization from
economics. For many years, mainstream American economists have built highfalutin
economic growth models on the foundation of their intellectual disease (called “physics
envy”) and have been hiding behind such models their sophomoric ineptitudes of
mathematical obscurity of Nobel-Prize-winning proportions. No matter what these
models have kept saying about the need for economic growth, we, the earthlings, need a
bit of horse sense: It is wrong to suppose that the human species has any special privilege
to escape extinction. Degrowth or growth will soon be a life-or-death question for
humanity.
According to French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984): “As the archeology of
our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its
end.” In 1966, he wagered that “man would be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the
edge of the sea” -- in the last sentence of his book, The Order of Things – An Archaeology
of the Human Sciences. Would any independent-minded, moral, and rational being find
such a disappearance of the human species from the Earth regrettable? Is there more
reason why humans are on the Earth than there is for animals or plants, stones, rivers,
seas, and the air? Isn’t it our collective responsibility for us to make the late philosopher
lose his wager, for the sake of our descendants’ survival and well-being?
Funding
The research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
33
Conflicts of interest
The author(s) states that there is no conflict of interests.
Bibliography
Bunker, Stephen G. 1984. “Modes of Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Progressive
Underdevelopment of an Extreme Periphery: The Brazilian Amazon, 1600-1980,” American
Journal of Sociology, 89, no. 5; 1017-64.
Berry, Wendell. 1987. Home Economics. North Point Press. San Francisco.
Capra, Frijof. 1980. “Buddhist Physics,” The Schumacher Lectures. Edited with an Introduction by Satish
Kumar. Harper & Row. New York. Cambridge, London. Chapter V. 121-136.
Crutzen, Paul J. Hans Günter Brauch Editors. 2016. Paul J. Crutzen: A Pioneer on Atmospheric Chemistry
and Climate Change in the Anthropocene, Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland.
Daly, Herman E. and Townsend, Kenneth N. 1994. Valuing the Earth -- Economics, Ecology, Ethics. The
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.
_______. 1999. “How long can neoclassical economists ignore the contributions of Georgescu-Roegen?”
Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honor of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Edward Elgar.
Cheltenham, UK. Northampton, Mass., USA.
Durning, Alan Therin. 1992. How Much Is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth.
W.W. Norton & Company. New York. London.
_______. 1996. This Place on Earth, Sasquatch Books, Seatle.
Fingleton, Eamonn. 2003. Unsustainable: How Economic Dogma Is Destroying American Prosperity.
Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books. New York.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. The Order of Things – An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Vintage Books.
New York
Georescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
_______. 2011. “Quovadis Homo sapiens sapiens? (1989): A Query,” From Bioeconomics to Degrowth.
Georgescu-Roegen's 'New Economics' in Eight Essays. Edited By Mauro Bonaiuti. Routledge.
London.
Goodell, Jeff. 2017. The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized
World. Back Bay Books. Little, Brown and Company. New York. Boston. London.
_______. 2023. The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet. Little, Brown and
Company. New York. Boston. London.
Hickel, Jason et al. 2018. The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets. W.W. Norton &
Company. New York.
_______. 2021. Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Windmill Books. Penquin Random
House. London.
Hornborg, Alf. 1998. “Towards an Ecological Theory of Unequal Exchange: Articulating World-System
Theory and Ecological Economics,” Ecological Economics, 25, no. 1; 127-36.
Jorgenson, Andrew K. and Rice, James. 2005. “Structural Dynamics of International Trade and Material
Consumption: A Cross-National Study of the Ecological Footprints of Less-Developed
Countries,” Journal of World-Systems Research, 11, no. 1; 57-77.
Kirsch, Adam. 2023. The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us. Published by
Columbia Global Reports. New York.
Latour, Bruno. 2024. If we lose the Earth, we lose our souls. The English edition, Polity Press. Cambridge,
UK.
Yeomin Yoon, 2025
34
Maddison, Angus. 1995. Monitoring the World Economy, 1820-1992. Washington, D.C.: Organization for
Economic Cooperation. ISBN 978-92-64-14549-8.
_______. 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. Development Centre Studies, OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.178719789.64189980.
Mayumi, Kozo. 2001. The Origins of Ecological Economics: The bioeconomics of Georgescu-Roegen.
Routledge, London and New York.
_______ and Gowdy, John M. (editors). 1999. Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honor of
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA.
Nordhaus, William. 2013. The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World.
Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Oeppen, Jim, and James W. Vaupel. “Broken Limits to Life Expectancy.” Science 296, no. 5570 (May 10,
2002): 1029–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069675.
Pilling, David. 2018. The Growth Delusion: Wealth, Poverty, and The Well-Being of Nations, Tim Duggan
Books, New York.
Pope Francis. 2013. Evangelii Gaudium. Chapter Two, 53-60. The Holy See, November 24,
https://www.vatican.va.
Saito, Kohei. 2024. Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto, Translated by Bergstrom, Astra House, New
York, 2024.
Schmelzer, Mathias, Vetter, Andrea, and Vansintjan. 2022. The Future Is Degrowth: A Guide to a World
Beyond Capitalism. Penguin Random House. New York.
Schumacher, E. F. 1968. “Buddhist Economics,” Resurgence, no. 11, January-February; reprinted in
Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, edited by Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N.
Townsend, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1994; 173-81.
_______. 1973. Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Published by Hartley and Marks. Point
Roberts in 1999 with commentaries, Point Roberts, WA. Vancouver, BC.
Susskind, Daniel. 2024. Growth: A History and A Reckoning. The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Verhofstadt, Guy. 2002. “From Doha to Cancun: the hypocrisy behind Western compassion,” Prime
Minister of Belgium’s Open Letter to the Alternative Globalists, Second International Conference
on Globalization on 26 November 2002 in Leuven, Belgium.
Wilson, Edward O. 2014. Meaning of Human Existence. Liveright Publishing Corporation. A Division of
W. W. Norton & Company. New York. London.
Yoon, Yeomin. 2023. “Forging a Moral Basis for Emerging Economies,” Journal of Global Trade, Ethics
and Law. Volume 1 Issue 3, 26-35.
