Is Sustainability Even Economically Feasible?

One evening last week someone named Eric Rosengren, introduced as the president of the Boston Fed spoke on Marketplace, an NPR finance program saying, “The population isn’t growing; therefore, the economy won’t have a higher growth.” (Or words to that effect.)

What?

            Does that mean that unless we have more people the economy stagnates? What are the implications for the environment? Does this fact articulated by Boston Fed Chairman  Rosengren mean that sustainability—at least in economic terms—is not even theoretically possible? That you must always be increasing population to have an economy that is doing well?

More consumers? More car buyers? More drivers? Growing more food, more pollution? More people buying stuff and throwing it in the landfill? More people heating/cooling houses, etc.

            Is this what we have been doing all along—taking wide open, unoccupied spaces and filling them up with new people—either by virtue of an excessive birthrate or immigration? Is this why we are supporting immigration? Is this the history of the whole human race—displacing indigenous people for their resources—to use up their stuff?

            Nothing but questions about this!