As a matter of fact I am surprised that only one member gave response to my question. Is it be a display that this subject attracts very few attention of academic people?

Dear Ufuk, maybe it is not so much a question whether the topic is of interest but whether the new technologies, like this feed, are used the way the are intended to be used.

I believe the topic is of high interest in the whole community and the is growing literature in that field. On the political level it is highly relevant too, if you check out the new European Strategy for 2020; the terms intelligent growth, inclusive growth, green growth etc. are frequently used and at the core of the new strategy. However, what they really mean or how new approaches can be implemented is yet to be defined.

Well, if you ask for my personal opinion, I would like to say that growth per se may not be beneficial. However, the issue beginns in the measurement, if only monetary values enter into the "success measure" of a country than other important factors are left out.

The same holds true for measuring a companie's success. I believe that we have to focus on that issue. There is an intersting discussion going on in Europe about a book that was published in 2010 by Christian Felber:"The economy of the common good". For me it is an intersting point of view but much more research is needed to make these kind of alternative approaches aplicable. Interestingly many companies and even municipalities joined the "movement".

For instance a different type of accounting is proposed which besides the monetray accounts measures the impact of a company on the environment etc. The idea of CSR accounting is not new but he proposes interesing new policy approaches and measurements. Respectively, the EU is wants to make CSR accounting obligatory for companies with more than 500 employees from 2015 on.

So in the end it is a question how to measure "economic success". Focussing merely on efficiency (or dynamic efficiency) might not be enough. To be honest, personally (since you asked for an opinion) I think this discussion must be deepened and the notion of growth per se (without claryfying a purpose) questioned.

I would love to keep discussing the topic.

Dear Philipp, I am aware of most of things you mentioned. Unfortunately I cannot be as optimistic as you are about the precautions taken by governments and communities. Limits to growth projects was presented to public in early 1970s and Kyoto was signed in 1997. US never signed, Canada withdrew and many other countries thinking about withdraw. Such delays and shortsighted policies in systems will highly cost to mankind I am afraid.

Dear Ufuk, The first point I would like to submit is, there are no limits to growth. The limits are in the unity of purpose, level of commitment, availability of resources and our capacity to sustain till we reach where we want to reach. To put it philosophically (being from India, I draw the quote from my Vedic scriptures): 'Aatmanam atmana uddareth'. That is sanskrit. In English it would translate to : Man alone can make himself to progress.

Let us take this philosophy and apply it to our physical world. I take the example you quoted - Kyoto. Why? All 198 countries in the world are aware that environment is degrading and if we were to enjoy the plenty of the Earth, we need to act together. In so doing, there is a need for developed economies to put in a little more resources not merely on moralistic grounds, but because they are also the largest consumers of resources. Every one agrees on the philosophy but withdraws at the time of action behind the veil of 'national interest'. The 'limit' is not on the intention, it is on the will to act.

To highlight this point, I draw your attention to the following site:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46410&Cr=Sahel&Cr1=#.UqQ8o9IW0lk

On the 04th of Nov, 2013, led by UN Secy Gen Ban, world leaders have pledged $8 bn for development of the Sahel region in Africa. Great strides, we must say. But when I look at this development from the perspective of your question, there are certain thoughts that cross my mind. Are the countries in the region capable of utilising this fund for the intended development? Are there any limitations in their political, bureaucratic and legal structures that will fritter away this opportunity to development instead of maximising it? Is the internal security environment in the region conducive to development? etc.

I am unfamiliar with the regional issues in that part of Africa. So, I just leave my questions with you. All I would like to say therefore is that there are no limits to growth, except the ones that we impose on ourselves due to lack of vision and commitment.

Trust that helps!!!

Have a great day.

Dear Dr. Ufuk Turen,

Even after watching that video.

First thing is are we only think about overall growth or particular sector or context.

Growth is in general and cannot be limited however it can be checked the process of growth can be slowed down or tuned up or even halted.

Further, every growth has impact and may harm in the process of another growth. Now here the individual, the society, the region, the nation and the globe has their own responsibility to understand the implication of the process of growth.

Dear Prof. Afaq Ahmad,

If a growth is balanced by another growth, this means that there is equilibrium. What if a collision occurs?

Dear Dr. Ufuk Turen,

Can you give any realistic instance.

Dear Dr Ufuk, I think you may like to give a real life example, as asked by Dr Afaq, for further opinion.

However, I would like to take an example which may occur in any country. All countries want more energy. Let us presume that country 'A' intends to establish a hydro electric power project, with the twin aims of generation more electricity as well as harnessing the surplus waters for enhancing agriculture. Both the aims are for growth, therefore need support.

'A' decides to build the reservoir at the most suitable place for maximizing both the objectives.

As we all know, a hydro electric project is going to submerge a huge tract of land in a valley that would destroy the flora and fauna of the region, possible huge tracts of forests and animals and may even result in the displacement of thousands of people in that region. In other words, the environmental impact of such a project could be humungous. The damage would also be irreversible.

This is a case where a 'growth' can actually become a problem. in your words, there is a collision. Do we go for more energy or simply dump the project because of the momentous impact on environment and people?

The answer is a curious mix of both 'yes' and 'no'. If the country can have a realistic assessment of the impact, prepare a suitable displacement-cum-rehabilitation program, have the people and, if possible, the flora and fauna that may specifically be threatened to extinction, displaced and then go for the project, the answer is YES. Otherwise, it is NO, growth can wait till alternatives are finalized.

That is just my opinion. Hope it is of some use!!

Have a great day.

I was just writing some examples of collision of growth cycles, but before my submission Mr. Koen Casier has made it. Thank you Mr. Casier.

As it happens, I just re-read the original book (the popular summary). And it is quite instructive, I highly recommend to do so.

The core issue the booked raised at the time was to point out the impact of exponential trends (like population growth) on all aspects of policy and societies. It is fascinating to read how many things we consider 'common knowledge' today were completely ignored just a few decades ago.

In addition, it is highly instructive to follow the book through the iterations of the world model. Ultimately, the report mostly highlights what I would call "shifting bottlenecks". It shows what happens when you try to compensate resource scarcity. It starts with growth and human population collapsing due to resource depletion. Moving to a scenario in which technological progress can compensate resources - the system still collapses due to environmental pollution. Control environmental pollution, and food scarcity causes the collapse. And so on and so forth.

Our world models have hugely improved since the 70s. But as in so many academic fields, focus on the details in our specific areas makes us loose the big picture. The 'limits to growth' is a very readable and well structured reminder of the big picture - and the underlying premise still holds. While resource/oil scarcity seems further away than ever, the collapse of vital ecosystem services accelerates undiminished. Today, the limits to growth are just called 'planetary boundaries' (and mostly ignored by economists focusing on GDP growth - which does not account for a declining capital base).

For a complete assessment, the book to read would be the one below

http://www.springer.com/environment/environmental+management/book/978-1-4419-9415-8

Good point, Ms Ellen. There is a negative side to growth that needs comprehensive analysis before plunging in that direction. The side effects may not be predictable in their entirety as was the case decades ago. But today, with the knowledge available on every discipline known to man, we are in a position to foresee the effects fairly and clearly. The main issue though is whether we actually do so?

There have been cases in the developing world where huge infrastructure projects were taken up by the governments, without taking the experts on relevant domains on board as consultants. The environmental, sociological, demographic and economic impacts have been sordid.

While technically there is no limit to growth, we need to limit and regulate it suited only to our strictest needs. The process process must be comprehensive and without vested interest.

Have a great day!

Energy resources are actual limit to growth. The consumption/destruction of energy resources rate is more than the rate of making available of energy resources.

ecological limits to the physical scale of economic activity, limits to the economic welfare to be derived from growth of economic activity, and social limits to economic growth. all of these are limits to growth

Any "growth" stops, it is inevitable.

anything has its limit, it depends on how we use it properly