Arguments supporting economic growth

Supporters argue that global income inequality is in fact diminishing, and
that the rapid reduction in global poverty is in large part due to economic
growth, according to World Bank. The decline in poverty has been the slowest
where growth performance has been the worst (ie. in Africa). Happiness
increases with a higher GDP/capita, at least up to a level of $15,000 per
person. Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas
Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in
Europe, The Population Bomb (1968), Limits to Growth (1972), and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980) have, according to critics, been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically. The book The Improving State of the World argues that the state of humanity is rapidly improving.
Those more optimistic about the environmental impacts of growth believe that,
although localized environmental effects may occur, large scale ecological
effects are minor. The optimists claim that if these global-scale ecological
effects exist, human ingenuity will find ways of adapting to them.
Mainstream economists would argue that economies are driven by new technology
and ongoing improvements in efficiency — for instance, we have faster computers
today than a year ago, but not necessarily computers requiring more natural
resources to build. Also, physical limits may be very large if considering all
the minerals in the planet Earth or all possible resources from space
colonization, such as solar power satellites, asteroid mining, or a Dyson
sphere. The book Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and
Planets is one example of such arguments. However, depletion and declining
production from old resources can sometimes occur before new resources are ready
to replace them. This is, in part, the logical basis of the Peak Oil phenomenon.
The predicted rate of economic growth has important implications for climate
change policy with regards to a reduction in economic growth due to a reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions, versus the economic threat of climate change in the
next 100 years.
Some insurance industry analysts claim that the rate of increase in property
destruction due to the effects of climate change are projected to exceed the
world's total economic output by 2065.
The Stern Review, published by the United Kingdom Government in 2006, concluded
that an investment of 1% of GDP per annum would be sufficient to avoid the worst
effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being
20% lower than it otherwise might be.
Although not related to climate change, if economic growth is sustained over the
long term, future generations may be so wealthy that they will have nothing to
fear. Nigel Lawson claimed that people in a hundred years time would be "seven
times as well off as we are today", therefore it is not reasonable to impose
sacrifices on the "much poorer present generation"