4. Insurmountable limits of the capitalist model and the need for new paradigms
The perpetuation of an economic system that intrinsically requires destructive shocks like war to sustain its growth is inherently unsustainable from an ethical, social, ecological, and species survival standpoint. The claim of unlimited growth on a finite planet is, as widely denounced by the thinkers cited, a dangerous illusion. This is where understanding the economic stimulus mechanisms linked to war directly connects with fundamental critiques of capitalist logic and the biophysical limits of our planet.

4.1 The convergence of crises: population, resources and environment
Capitalism's ability to "reset" through war is a symptom of a deeper tension: the discrepancy between a system that demands exponential growth and a planet with linear or decreasing resources.
Natural resource depletion. The current global consumption and production model, fueled by capitalist growth logic, is leading to accelerated depletion of non-renewable resources (metals, fossil fuels) and overexploitation of renewable ones (freshwater, forests, fertile soil, fish stocks). As early as 1972, the Club of Rome's report, "The Limits to Growth" (Meadows et al., 1972) [38], based on the World3 model, simulated that the continuation of trends in population growth, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource consumption would lead to exceeding the planet's carrying capacity within the 21st century, resulting in a "sudden and uncontrollable decline" in population and industrial capacity. More recent studies, such as those cited in Yale's Journal of Industrial Ecology (2020) [48], confirm the general validity of the original conclusions, highlighting that the physical limits of the Earth system are real and approaching.
Overloading ecological systems: the concept of "Planetary Boundaries". Beyond depletion, the growth model produces an unsustainable volume of waste and pollution, exceeding the planet's absorption capacity. The concept of "Planetary Boundaries" (Rockström et al., 2009 [40]; Steffen et al., 2015 [43]) identifies nine biophysical processes that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth system. Exceeding these boundaries (such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and biogeochemical cycles of nitrogen and phosphorus) pushes the planet out of its Holocene stability state. Currently, six of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed, signaling an increasing risk of irreversible and potentially catastrophic environmental changes (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2024 [44]). This includes the climate crisis (with an average global temperature increase of approximately 1.2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels) and accelerated biodiversity loss (with species extinction rates tens to hundreds of times higher than the background rate) (IPCC, 2023 [20]; IPBES, 2019 [19]).
Ecological footprint and inequality. The ecological footprint measures human demand on the biosphere, comparing the productive land and sea area required to support a lifestyle with the planet's available bioproductive capacity. Data from the Global Footprint Network (2024) [15] show that humanity consumes resources as if it had approximately 1.7 Earths available. This annual "overshoot" results in an ecological deficit that accumulates over time, eroding natural capital. This footprint is not evenly distributed: high-income countries have significantly larger ecological footprints than low-income countries, highlighting how growth in wealthy nations is often unsustainable and relies on an unjust appropriation of global resources.
Population growth and systemic pressure: The world population, which continues to grow (United Nations projections indicate approximately 9.7 billion by 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100 – UN DESA, 2022 [45]), exerts increasing pressure on every aspect of sustainability. More people mean greater demand for food, water, energy, housing, and consumer goods. This pressure can lead to deforestation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and increased emissions, exacerbating social tensions and competition for resources. The inability to provide basic services and opportunities to a growing population can also increase the risk of internal instability and conflict (Earth.org, 2023 [10]; Ehrlich, 1968 [13]).

4.2 The illusion of decoupled growth and the need for a paradigm shift
The conventional response to the crisis of limits, often advanced by proponents of continuous growth, is "dematerialization" or "decoupling" economic growth from resource consumption and environmental impact, primarily through technological efficiency. However, empirical evidence shows that, while efficiency can improve (relative decoupling), the "rebound effect" and the overall scale of global economic growth often nullify these gains, leading to an absolute increase in resource consumption and ecological footprint (Jackson, 2017 [22]; Parrique et al., 2019 [38.5]). There is no evidence of absolute decoupling sufficient to achieve sustainability within planetary boundaries.
This leads us to the conclusion that the model of unlimited growth is fundamentally incompatible with the biophysical reality of our planet. The system's reliance on destructive "reset" mechanisms like war highlights its inability to manage its internal contradictions in a sustainable and peaceful manner. It is imperative, therefore, to envision and build alternative economic and social models that move away from dependence on quantitative growth and that intrinsically integrate planetary limits as inviolable guiding principles.

Bibliography (Part 3)

[10] Earth.org. (2023). How Does Overpopulation Affect Sustainability? Challenges and Solutions. 
[13] Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books. https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/Ehrlich-Population-Bomb-Ch1.pdf
[15] Global Footprint Network. (2024). National Footprint Accounts 2024. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
[19] IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/system/files/2021-06/2020%20IPBES%20GLOBAL%20REPORT(FIRST%20PART)_V3_SINGLE.pdf
[20] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
[22] Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Prosperity-without-Growth-Foundations-for-the-Economy-of-Tomorrow/Jackson/p/book/9781138935419?srsltid=AfmBOorjwnDqwJTFKTGMDU0cX0L9NLkx_wyw_dN8BJLnbFM73WeGZw3c
[38] Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books. https://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf
[38.5] 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. https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/
[40] Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a
[43] Steffen, W., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1259855
[44] Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2024). The planetary boundaries framework. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
[45] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UN DESA). (2022). World Population Prospects 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf
[48] Yale University's Journal of Industrial Ecology. (2020). Is The Limits To Growth still relevant?.

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

Board Member, SRSN (Roman Society of Natural Science)

Note to the reader: You have completed Part 3 of our essay. In the next and final installment, Part 4: Towards a Future of Well-being: Proposals for a Paradigm of Peace and Sustainability, we will present alternative economic and social models and the final conclusions of our study.