People in Western economies believe they have a right to constantly improving living standards. Those in less-developed countries, understandably, aspire to the lifestyle and opportunities of their peers in advanced economies.

But a significant portion of higher living standards is based on unsustainable financial, environmental and resource management practices. The problems of the current economic model, rising debt levels and how this will be repaid, and demographics are well-documented. But there are other pressing issues.

The rising population of the world requires an additional 64 billion cubic meters of water each year, equivalent to the annual water flow through Germany’s Rhine River. By 2025, two-thirds of the world will face significant water stress. Food production will need to increase 60%-100% by 2050 to feed the world’s population; a task complicated by diminishing gains in crop yields, limited arable land and declining soil quality. Around 90% of fish stocks are being exploited at or beyond their sustainable limits

Money for nothing? Universal Basic Income gains traction

Current oil reserves are sufficient for another 50-to-60 years at projected rates of consumption. Recoverable coal reserves and proven gas reserves will meet demand for around 150 and 60 years, respectively. In the absence of a sharp and sustained reduction in the levels of emissions allowing a fall in overall CO2 concentration, a dramatic change in climate may be inevitable with far-reaching effects on the human population, habitable land areas, food and water supply and diseases.

Technological developments may defer some of these problems but cannot solve them entirely . Renewable energy such as solar power suffers from problems of intermittency, low energy density, and storage. The grain needed to generate ethanol to fuel all U.S. cars, for example, is equivalent to an amount that could feed 400 million people.

The magnitude of the difficulty of reversing this spiral of expectations can be seen from a “thought experiment” of what a transformation to a more sustainable future — sometimes referred to as frugal living — would look like.

High-density living would become the norm, with limitations on permitted living space designed to reduce environmental impact, consumption, and increase transport efficiency.

Vegetarianism would be mandatory. The inputs needed to produce animal protein does not match the added calorie value. Eating only locally produced food (loca-vorism) would minimize food waste and energy utilized in transportation and storage. All water would be recycled, with limits on consumption. Bottled water would be eliminated other in emergencies. Disposable items, such as redundant packaging and non-reusable storage, would be banned.

Access to private cars and non-essential air travel would be restricted to reduce energy and resource utilization and emissions. Electricity consumption would be rationed. Air-conditioning may need to be eliminated to reduce energy demand.

Mandatory population control would limit population growth and the resulting pressure on resources and the environment. To reign in rising health care and aged care costs, lifetime spending on these items would be restricted.

These actions would reduce resource use and environment impact, preserving both for future generations. It would result in an immediate sharp contraction in economic activity. But over time, the global economy would stabilize.

Such changes in fact are not as drastic as they might appear. Much of humanity, especially those living in emerging countries, already live like this. The conditions described would also be readily familiar to previous generations.

“ Advanced societies today are unwilling to even consider actions that would reduce their living standards. ”

Of course, there is no chance of adoption of these proposals. As philosopher David Hume recognized, any proposals that assume significant changes in mankind’s habits, especially consumption, are illusory. Advanced societies today are unwilling to even consider actions that would reduce their living standards or impinge on personal freedoms.

Instead of real solutions, the world will undertake token gestures. The Paris Climate Accord, which is the result of political and scientific compromise, has set a goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees centigrade.

That number was never scientifically rigorous and the underlying model assumptions were not universally accepted. But to even meet the Paris goals, by 2050, carbon emissions from energy and industry, which are still rising, will have to fall by around 50% in each decade and emissions from land use (deforestation and the like) will have to be eliminated. It is not only unlikely to be met, but is probably inadequate to limit severe changes in weather, agriculture, mortality, and economic conditions.

It is telling that thought leaders, such as Stephen Hawkins and Elon Musk, have already given up on earth, embracing a science fiction future of mass interplanetary migration.

Economic growth, prosperity, and high living standards are almost entirely byproducts of consumption (much of it debt-fueled) and unsustainable resource exploitation. It is difficult to conceive how societies and individuals expect these to continue in a world of mainly finite resources without a radical transformation that reverses the current spiral of expectations. Real solutions will continue to elude mankind so long as we remain unwilling to confront the truth of our predicament and our difficult and painful choices.

Satyajit Das is the author of “The Age of Stagnation” (published internationally as “A Banquet of Consequences”). He is also the author of “Extreme Money” and “Traders, Guns & Money.”