Future planning assumes growth
Every planning system—from personal retirement accounts to national infrastructure projects—assumes continuous growth. This assumption has become so fundamental that we’ve lost the ability to plan for any other kind of future.
──── The growth imperative in planning models
Financial planning assumes your investments will grow at 7% annually. Urban planning assumes population and economic expansion. Corporate strategy assumes market growth. Educational planning assumes increasing enrollment and funding.
These aren’t neutral forecasting tools. They’re ideological frameworks that make growth the only conceivable future.
When growth assumptions are embedded in planning models, alternatives become literally unplannable. Steady-state economies, degrowth scenarios, or cyclical patterns can’t be processed by systems designed around exponential expansion.
──── Pension systems as growth dependencies
The entire global pension system is predicated on continuous economic growth. Social Security, 401(k)s, pension funds—all require future workers to be more productive and numerous than current workers.
This creates a demographic and economic pyramid scheme. Each generation must generate more value than the previous one to fund retirement promises made under growth assumptions.
When growth slows or reverses, the system doesn’t adjust gracefully. It collapses catastrophically because there’s no mechanism for planning non-growth scenarios.
──── Infrastructure trapped in expansion logic
Highway systems are designed for increasing traffic volumes. Power grids assume growing energy demand. Water systems plan for population growth. Housing policy assumes expanding markets.
This infrastructure becomes a growth enforcement mechanism. It literally makes shrinkage impossible because the physical systems can’t adapt to reduced scale.
Cities that lose population face infrastructure costs spread across fewer users, creating fiscal death spirals. The infrastructure demands growth to remain viable.
──── Educational credentialism and growth
The education system promises that more education leads to better outcomes, requiring continuous expansion of degree requirements and institutional capacity.
But this creates credential inflation where job requirements escalate faster than actual skill needs. A bachelor’s degree becomes the new high school diploma, forcing everyone into longer educational tracks.
The system can’t plan for scenarios where educational expansion stops because that would mean admitting the growth promise was false.
──── Healthcare growth assumptions
Healthcare planning assumes medical costs will continue rising faster than inflation indefinitely. This assumption justifies elaborate insurance systems and financing mechanisms designed around exponential cost growth.
But the assumption makes it impossible to plan for healthcare systems that prioritize prevention, limit intervention, or accept mortality as natural. The entire framework assumes technological expansion and cost escalation.
──── Technology adoption cycles
Tech companies plan product lifecycles around assumed user growth and adoption acceleration. Platform strategies require expanding user bases to justify infrastructure investments.
This makes sustainable technology development nearly impossible. Products must capture growing markets rather than serving stable populations efficiently.
The tech industry can’t plan for scenarios where markets saturate or users reduce consumption because their business models require endless expansion.
──── Debt structures require growth
All debt-based financial systems assume the borrower’s future capacity will exceed their current capacity. Mortgages, student loans, corporate bonds, government debt—all require growth to remain viable.
This makes debt the enforcement mechanism for growth. If economies don’t grow, debt becomes unpayable, creating systemic crisis.
Alternative economic models based on stability rather than expansion become impossible because they can’t service growth-dependent debt structures.
──── Planning horizons and growth rates
Short-term planning (1-5 years) assumes modest growth. Medium-term planning (10-20 years) assumes substantial growth. Long-term planning (50+ years) assumes transformational growth.
These assumptions compound over time. A 3% annual growth rate doubles the economy every 23 years. Planning systems assume this doubling will continue indefinitely.
But compound growth over long periods requires exponential resource extraction and waste production that clearly can’t continue on a finite planet.
──── Value systems embedded in growth planning
Growth planning embeds specific values:
- More is always better than less
- Future generations should be richer than current ones
- Technological progress is always positive
- Efficiency means scaling up, not scaling appropriate
- Success means expansion, not optimization
These value judgments become invisible because they’re built into planning methodologies rather than stated as explicit goals.
──── Alternative planning becomes impossible
Non-growth planning requires different tools, metrics, and assumptions that current institutions don’t possess.
How do you plan a steady-state economy using models designed for expansion? How do you design sustainable cities using growth-dependent financing? How do you manage education systems without credential inflation?
The tools themselves prevent alternative thinking.
──── Political economy of growth assumptions
Growth assumptions serve political functions by avoiding distributional questions. If the pie keeps growing, you don’t have to fight over how it’s divided.
But this postpones rather than resolves distribution issues. When growth slows, accumulated inequalities become politically explosive because the growth promise can no longer defer redistribution demands.
──── Corporate planning and growth mandates
Publicly traded companies face legal requirements to maximize shareholder value, which courts have interpreted as requiring growth strategies.
This makes corporate planning legally unable to optimize for stability, sustainability, or other values that might conflict with expansion imperatives.
Even companies that want to plan for steady-state operations face fiduciary duty challenges if they reject growth opportunities.
──── Psychological growth assumptions
Individual life planning assumes personal growth, career advancement, wealth accumulation, and expanding capabilities throughout life.
This makes it psychologically difficult to plan for scenarios involving decline, limitation, or acceptance of current conditions as sufficient.
Personal financial advice, career counseling, and life coaching all embed growth assumptions that make contentment or sufficiency unplannable.
──── Environmental contradiction
Growth-based planning creates systematic contradiction with environmental constraints.
Climate planning requires reducing consumption while economic planning requires increasing it. Biodiversity conservation requires limiting development while urban planning requires expansion.
These contradictions can’t be resolved within growth-based planning frameworks because they make environmental constraints external to rather than integral to planning processes.
──── The planning trap
Once institutions adopt growth-based planning, they become dependent on growth for basic functionality.
Pension obligations require market returns. Infrastructure maintenance requires tax base expansion. Debt service requires increased revenue. Social programs require economic growth to remain affordable.
This creates institutional lock-in where organizations can’t survive without growth even if growth creates problems they’d prefer to avoid.
────────────────────────────────────────
Future planning assumes growth because our institutions, tools, and conceptual frameworks were designed during periods of rapid expansion. But this assumption has become a trap that prevents us from planning for the futures we’re actually going to experience.
The growth assumption isn’t neutral prediction—it’s active value imposition that shapes what kinds of futures become possible to imagine and plan for.
Until we develop planning methodologies that don’t require growth, we’ll remain trapped in expansion cycles regardless of their sustainability or desirability.
The question isn’t whether growth is good or bad. The question is whether we can develop the capacity to plan for futures that don’t assume it.