5. Proposals for alternative economic and social models
An alternative paradigm should focus on resilience, equity, and ecological sustainability, prioritizing human and planetary well-being over the mere accumulation of capital. This requires a radical rethinking of priorities and the implementation of concrete policies and approaches. These aren't unattainable utopias, but rather approaches based on existing or experimentally developing economic and social principles.

5.1 Conscious and voluntary population control.
Addressing population growth shouldn't rely on coercive or neo-Malthusian means, but on an approach rooted in human rights and empowerment.

Concrete Actions: promote universal education, especially for women and girls. As Rita Levi Montalcini stated: "If you educate a boy, you will have an educated man. If you educate a woman, you will have an educated woman, family, and society." [47]

An increase in women's education levels is strongly correlated with a decrease in fertility rates (Lutz, 2017 [35]).

Ensure universal and free access to family planning services and contraception, recognizing women's reproductive rights.

Improve maternal and child health, which reduces the perceived need for many children to ensure survival.

Implement awareness programs and community dialogue on responsible family planning.

Benefits: A stable or gradually declining population inherently reduces pressure on resource demand, emissions, and ecosystems, fostering a sustainable balance. It contributes to improving individual quality of life and social resilience (Sen, 1999 [41]), indirectly reducing tensions that can escalate into conflict.

5.2 Holistic social Well-being as a Primary Goal (vs. GDP).
Shift the metric of economic success from the mere increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—which doesn't differentiate between "good" and "bad" activities for society and the environment—to multidimensional well-being indicators.

Alternative Indicators: utilize metrics such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Bhutan's Gross National Happiness (GNH), or the OECD's Better Life Initiative. These indicators include factors like income distribution equity, health, education, quality of life, community cohesion, and leisure time, offering a more comprehensive view of progress.

Doughnut Economics (Raworth, 2017 [39.5]). This model proposes a "safe and just space" for humanity. It aims to meet fundamental human needs for everyone (the "social foundation" of the doughnut, including food, water, health, education, income, equality, etc.) without exceeding the planet's ecological boundaries (the "ecological ceiling" of the doughnut, based on the Planetary Boundaries). This requires a downsizing of wealthy economies and growth in developing economies, but always within planetary limits.

Note: Doughnut Economics. The central hole represents a social shortfall. If people are in this "hole," it means they lack access to essential goods and services (food, water, health, education, etc.). The goal is to ensure no one falls into this condition. The outer ring (the outermost edge of the doughnut) represents the planetary ecological boundary. If human activities exceed this boundary, it means we are exploiting natural resources beyond Earth's regenerative capacity, causing irreversible damage (climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, etc.). The "doughnut" area itself (the space between the hole and the outer edge) is the "safe and just space for humanity." This is the objective: an economy that successfully meets the needs of all people (avoiding the hole) without exceeding the planet's ecological limits (without going beyond the outer edge).

Policy Implications. Implement tax reforms that incentivize low-impact, high-social-value activities (e.g., taxation of negative externalities, subsidies for renewable energy). Make massive public investments in essential services (healthcare, education, public transport) and green infrastructure.

5.3 Degrowth: selective and planned reduction.
Degrowth (Latouche, 2007 [27]; Kallis, 2018 [23]) proposes a controlled reduction of production and consumption in high-income countries, not as a recession, but as an intentional transformation towards more equitable, resilient, and sustainable societies.

Concrete actions. Reduce working hours (to lessen production pressure and redistribute work). Implement Universal Basic Income (UBI) or job guarantees, to decouple well-being from paid work and growth, providing economic security even with fewer working hours. Promote the sharing economy and repair/reuse initiatives. Limit advertising and consumerism. Invest in "growth-compatible" sectors for well-being (e.g., art, culture, elder care).

Objectives. Improve quality of life, reduce environmental stress, strengthen local communities, and increase leisure time for meaningful activities, thereby diminishing the economic roots of competition and conflict.

5.4 Circular and Regenerative Economy.
Abandon the linear "take-make-use-dispose" model in favor of a system that minimizes waste, maximizes reuse, repair, and recycling, and is designed to regenerate natural systems.

Concrete Actions. Implement regulations that mandate product durability, reparability, and modularity. Provide tax incentives for companies adopting circular models. Develop infrastructure for recycling and reuse. Promote industrial symbiosis (where waste from one industry becomes a resource for another). Invest in sustainable and biodegradable materials.

Benefits. Drastically reduce reliance on continuous extraction of new resources, lower waste generation and pollution, and increase economic resilience, mitigating tensions over resource scarcity.

5.5 Radical Wealth Redistribution and Inequality Reduction.
Extreme inequalities, both within nations and between the Global North and South, not only generate social instability but also perpetuate unsustainable patterns of exploitation and consumption.

Concrete Actions. Implement progressive taxation on income, wealth, and financial transactions. Combat tax evasion and tax havens. Strengthen trade unions and workers' rights. Reform international trade to foster equity and food/energy sovereignty in developing countries. Cancel debt for the poorest countries. Invest in universal, high-quality public services.

Objectives. Foster social cohesion, reduce tensions that can lead to conflict, and ensure the benefits of prosperity are shared equitably, building more stable foundations for peace.

5.6 Massive investments in renewable energy and sustainable technologies:
A rapid and just energy transition, abandoning reliance on fossil fuels, is crucial.

Concrete actions. provide incentives and subsidies for solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Implement progressive bans on fossil fuel use. Invest in research and development for energy storage and smart grids. Develop retraining programs for fossil fuel industry workers.

Objectives. Progressively decouple human well-being from unsustainable energy and resource consumption, mitigate climate change, and create new sustainable economic opportunities, eliminating one of the main geopolitical causes of conflict.

6. Conclusion: Beyond destructive growth, towards a future of well-being
This article has explored the critical thesis that war is not a mere exogenous incident in the capitalist system, but can function as an endogenous mechanism to reactivate economic growth. We have highlighted how destruction and the subsequent need for reconstruction generate unprecedented massive demand, injecting liquidity into the system and opening new investment opportunities. Military spending, often extremely high even in times of apparent peace, acts as a powerful driver for technological innovation, with significant civilian spin-offs (e.g., the internet, GPS) fueling new sectors and markets. Furthermore, conflicts and geopolitical tensions often reflect competition for control of vital resources and trade routes—crucial elements for the perpetuation of an economic model based on expansion.

However, we have also highlighted the profound criticisms of "Military Keynesianism": war spending is inefficient in creating jobs compared to civilian sectors, it crowds out productive investments, it has an enormous environmental footprint, and it entails incalculable social costs, diverting resources from healthcare, education, and welfare.

The core of our argument lies in capitalism's paradoxical need for unlimited growth on a planet of finite resources and with a growing population. The unsustainability of this model is evident and documented: from exceeding Planetary Boundaries (six of the nine have already been crossed) to the Ecological Footprint overshoot (we consume 1.7 planets per year), and projections of demographic growth that further aggravate pressure on already fragile ecosystems. The supposed ability to "decouple" growth from resource consumption has proven largely insufficient to address the challenge.

Recognizing that war can act as a systemic "reset," albeit brutal and unsustainable, is the first step in addressing the root of the problem. This is not a conspiracy, but a systemic logic that tends to replicate itself until its basic conditions are altered.

The path to a peaceful and sustainable future does not lie in insufficient "green growth," nor certainly in passively accepting the destructive cycles of war. Instead, it requires a radical paradigm shift. We must orient ourselves towards a well-being economy, where the goal is not to maximize GDP but to ensure a dignified and flourishing life for all, within the planet's limits.

This implies the urgent adoption of concrete policies.

Conscious and rights-based population control, through education, female empowerment, and universal access to family planning.

The adoption of holistic well-being indicators that go beyond GDP, inspired by models like Doughnut Economics.

A transition towards degrowth in high-consumption countries, reducing pressure on resources and the environment and redistributing wealth and work.

The implementation of a circular and regenerative economy that eliminates waste and restores natural systems.

Radical redistribution of wealth and reduction of global inequalities to create more stable and equitable societies.

Massive and priority investments in renewable energy and sustainable technologies, diverting resources currently allocated to armaments.

Ultimately, peace cannot be fully realized in a system that, to maintain its growth logic, is structurally prone to crisis and violence. Building a future of lasting prosperity means abandoning reliance on unlimited growth and embracing a model based on cooperation, equity, and respect for the intrinsic limits of our unique planet. It is a monumental challenge, but the stakes—the survival and well-being of humanity—make it not only necessary, but morally imperative. It is time for a true reset, not of destruction, but of regeneration and shared well-being.

Table of Contents:

Part 1: The Paradox of Capitalism: Infinite Growth in a Finite World

Part 2: War: A Hidden "Reset" for the Capitalist Economy?

Part 3: Beyond the Limit: The Unsustainability of a Destructive Model

Part 4: Towards a Future of Well-Being: Proposals for a Paradigm of Peace and Sustainability

Full Bibliography

[1] ABN AMRO. (2024). Can defence spending revitalise the eurozone economy? Macro Watch.
[2] Antolin-Diaz, J., & Surico, P. (2022). The Macroeconomic Effects of Military Spending: A Century of Evidence. CEPR Discussion Paper DP17316.
[3] Ben-David, D. (2007). Trade and the Rate of Income Convergence. Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 77-93.
[4] Boulding, K. E. (1966). The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy (pp. 3-14). Johns Hopkins University Press.
[5] CADTM (Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt). (2025). From welfare to warfare: military Keynesianism.
[6] Chomsky, N. (various works, e.g., Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order or speeches on the military-industrial complex).
[7] d'Agostino, S., d'Agostino, F., & Scartozzi, F. (2023). Military expenditure and economic growth: a meta-analysis. Defence and Peace Economics, 34(5), 580-608.
[8] Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press.
[9] Dunne, P., & Tian, N. (2013). Military expenditure and economic growth. In Handbook on the Economics of Conflict (pp. 58-75). Edward Elgar Publishing.
[10] Earth.org. (2023). How Does Overpopulation Affect Sustainability? Challenges and Solutions.
[11] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (Various reports and publications on the circular economy).
[12] EBSCO Research Starters. (Undated but citing the original book). The Limits to Growth (book).
[13] Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books.
[14] Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Monthly Review Press.
[15] Global Footprint Network. (2024). National Footprint Accounts 2024.
[16] Hobsbawm, E. J. (1994). The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. Michael Joseph.
[17] Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1947). Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente. Querido Verlag.
[18] International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2000). World Economic Outlook: Focus on Transition Economies. IMF.
[19] IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
[20] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023.
[21] IPS Journal. (2025). Military Keynesianism is a dead end — both economically and politically.
[22] Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge.
[23] Kallis, G. (2018). Degrowth. Agenda Publishing.
[24] Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan.
[25] Latouche, S. (2007). Petit traité de la décroissance sereine. Mille et une nuits.
[26] Lutz, W. (2017). Advanced Introduction to Demography. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[27] Mandel, E. (1975). Late Capitalism. Verso.
[28] Malthus, T. R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson.
[29] Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Band I: Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals. Otto Meissner.
[30] Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.
[31] Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, L., Kuokkanen, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau.
[32] Ramey, V. A., & Zubairy, S. (2018). Government Spending Multipliers in Good Times and in Bad: Evidence from U.S. Historical Data. Journal of Political Economy, 126(2), 850-901.
[33] Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
[34] Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.
[35] Rockström, J., & Gaffney, O. (2021). Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet. DK.
[36] Sarkees, M. R., & Wayman, F. W. (2010). Resort to War: A Data Guide to Inter-State, Extra-State, Intra-State, and Non-State Wars, 1816-2007. CQ Press.
[37] Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
[38] Skidelsky, R. (2009). Keynes: The Return of the Master. PublicAffairs.
[39] Smil, V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. MIT Press.
[40] Steffen, W., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.
[41] Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2024). The planetary boundaries framework.
[42] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Tables.
[43] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UN DESA). (2022). World Population Prospects 2022.
[44] Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System, Vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.
[45] War Prevention Initiative. (Undated). Economic Impact of Military Spending.
[46] Yale University's Journal of Industrial Ecology. (2020). Is The Limits To Growth still relevant?
[47] Levi Montalcini Foundation https://www.levimontalcinifoundation.org/

* Board Member, SRSN (Roman Society of Natural Science)