On Abundance
Strong vs. weak-form abundance, and why the difference matters.
In the issue When is Enough, Enough? we discussed the topic of ‘mindful consumption.’ The premise of that piece is that senseless consumption—not unlike the kind you find in many parts of the United States—drives up GDP but is hardly an unambiguous universal good, especially in a world whose ‘cost accounting’ is Swiss-cheese-like in its gaps with reality.
This observation sits at the heart of one of today's most consequential debates: the fundamental conflict between two opposing visions of humanity's future. For the uninitiated:
Growthers believe that growth in production of goods and services is the key to solving the problems facing humanity and our planet. And that faster growth results in faster solutions.
De-Growthers believe that the ‘carrying capacity’ of our planet is threatened, that humanity has lost its way, and that slowing (or, in some cases, stopping) production is the key to solving the same problem.
Frustratingly, the majority of Growthers, in their writing, lectures and speaking engagements, address the straw-man argument of de-growth, and vice versa for the De-Growthers. This never advances the conversation, leaves the uninitiated in the dark, and intensifies polarization.
Lost in this polarized debate is a more nuanced consideration: the qualitative nature of growth itself. Rather than endlessly debating whether to grow or not, we ought to examine what kind of growth truly serves humanity's needs. The answer lies in understanding the critical distinction between growth that merely shifts problems around and growth that creates genuine, lasting abundance—a distinction that could reshape how we think about progress itself.
A taxonomy of growth perspectives
To understand how we might bridge this divide, we first need to map the landscape of existing perspectives. Below, I've organized various approaches to growth and de-growth into a hierarchical framework. While the bottom tier represents fundamentally flawed thinking that must be overcome, the higher levels reveal increasingly thoughtful—though not always successful—attempts to create abundance. Most notably, at the top, we find a critical distinction between approaches that accept tradeoffs as inevitable and the rarer pursuit of solutions that truly eliminate scarcity without creating new problems.
Growth at all costs for the sake of growth: The most rudimentary form of growth thinking—pursuing economic and production growth without consideration of externalities, sustainability, or human/planetary wellbeing. It is characterized by pure GDP maximization and consumption-driven metrics of success.
Indiscriminate degrowth: The reflexive opposition to all forms of growth and development, advocating for universal reduction in production and consumption without nuanced consideration of which activities truly need to be curtailed versus preserved or expanded, and/or which can be curtailed without creating undue misery (especially for those least well off).
Unchaperoned trickle-down growth: The belief that maximizing growth at the top of the economic pyramid will naturally benefit those at the bottom through market mechanisms alone, without need for intentional policy, thoughtful structural design, or consumer-based activism.
Well-being economic reorientation: Moving beyond pure GDP to measure and optimize for human flourishing, including metrics like health outcomes, education, environmental quality, and life satisfaction.
Abundance-seeking: growth with tradeoffs: Pursuing increased abundance with the implicit (or explicit) belief that exacerbating the ‘winners and losers’ dichotomy is an inescapable price worth paying for progress.
Abundance-seeking: redistribution: Focusing on ensuring the benefits of existing abundance reach more people through redistribution mechanisms, rather than primarily seeking to grow the total pie.
Strong-form abundance: The pursuit of technological and systemic innovations that create genuine abundance without significant negative tradeoffs. These solutions expand access to resources and opportunities while being sustainable and equitably distributed. They are truly ‘zero sum’ and are the rarest but most transformative technologies.
The limitations of weak-form abundance
This framework reveals an important insight: most current solutions fall into weak-form abundance. Recognizing these technologies and initiatives is surprisingly straightforward:
There is always an implicit (or explicit) ‘but.’
The purveyor has to ‘sell’ it.
Take, for example, Artificial Intelligence—one of today's most exciting technological frontiers. While few explicitly acknowledge it, the way AI is being deployed and commercialized reveals a tacit acceptance that it will primarily generate weak-form abundance. You can see this pattern in how AI's future is discussed (and in the evolution of how it is funded). Look for the ‘but:’
Artificial Intelligence will dramatically increase business productivity… but many workers will lose their jobs.1
Artificial Intelligence will massively benefit all of humanity… but investors should get in now to ensure they disproportionately benefit.
These 'but' statements reveal the tradeoffs inherent in weak-form abundance thinking and action. Such solutions dominate both casual conversations and policy discussions. There is always some new program or initiative (or the cancellation of an old one) that the powers-that-be believe will accelerate progress toward abundance.
However, a fundamental problem with weak-form abundance is that these initiatives are not inherently inspirational to the broader population, so they need to be ‘sold,’ and sold hard. Why? It’s because humans have a notable negativity bias—when told about a weak-form initiative, we’re all looking for ‘the other shoe to drop.’
Strong-form abundance has no such issue. If a lab announced a technological breakthrough that allowed any electronic device to run perpetually on the ambient energy in the air around us, no one balks. Everyone recognizes the paradigm shift, even the power companies, and there is dancing in the streets.
Why it matters
Most policy discussion is taking place at the weak-form abundance level. That’s not a critique—it is what pragmatism calls for. Voters, many who are living paycheck to paycheck across the world, don’t want to hear about a future where we can grow ‘living’ houses out of basic, abundant organic material and sunlight. While that would completely eliminate the issue of availability of human shelter, it appears too distant, and they have problems they want solved now.
Even so, that is not a compelling argument for ignoring the power of strong-form abundant thinking, exploration, and innovation. In fact, strong-form abundant exploration ought to be more common and more celebrated in innovation circles, instead of being dismissed as too fanciful and pie-in-the-sky. Short-termism forces innovation into pursuing weak-form abundance to the detriment of us all. How?
First, when scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs cannot find funding, are not supported by policy, and are not incentivized (or structurally able) to pursue strong-form abundant solutions, it is no wonder we are relegated back to incremental problem solving.
Second, the ‘ills’ we face are achingly difficult to solve in the now. This is in part due to the fact that we don’t have enough abundant technologies. When pragmatism overly focuses policy and innovation on the second tier, what really ends up happening is that we get stuck in a vicious cycle:
Weak-form solutions create new problems that demand more weak-form solutions, while truly transformative technologies remain underfunded and unexplored.
Breaking this cycle requires a fundamental shift in how we think about and fund innovation. While we can't ignore immediate needs, we must create space—and incentives—for the pursuit of strong-form abundance. Our future may depend on finding these rare but transformative solutions that truly expand the pie without creating new forms of scarcity.