Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40080465›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Revisiting the physical limits to economic growth, with a focus on the waste heat limit.

Dorian S Abbot, Anup Malani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dorian S AbbotDepartment of the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8335-6560
Anup MalaniLaw School, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2594-5778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether there are imminent physical limits to economic growth has been the focus of a long-standing debate, often (but not exclusively) pitting natural scientists against economists. One side of the debate posits that finite resources constrain human economic growth, the other that productivity improvements and substitution can relax those resource constraints. However, the two sides lack a common framework to resolve their disagreement. We provide this framework and mediate this dispute using a combination of low-order economic and physical models, focusing especially on the waste heat limit. To start, we use a simple accounting identity to show that historical rates of growth in average productivity can support modest economic and population growth (totaling 1.2%). We model the future trajectory of productivity growth by combining a canonical production function (Cobb-Douglas) with a flexible model where population growth drives total-factor-productivity growth. We find remarkable parameter sensitivity: across a plausible range of parameters waste heat either never constrains economic growth in the model or does so in a few hundred years. Interestingly, either decreasing or increasing population growth can dramatically extend the time to heat constraint in the model, the latter due to increases in innovation. Finally, we use a more flexible (constant elasticity of substitution) production function and historical changes in the relative use of different resources to show that humans have the ability to substitute away from resources in shorter supply. Although there are vast uncertainties in this type of projection, our work highlights the potential for an optimistic future for humanity in which economic growth continues on a millennial timescale.

Indexed as

Economic DevelopmentModels, EconomicHot TemperatureHumansPopulation Growth

Identifiers

PMID40080465
PMCPMC11906051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.