Civilization Trajectories: Mapping Future Pathways
Where Are We Going (And Where Have We Been)?
Humanity and the biosphere face an uncertain future. Climate change, biodiversity loss and the depletion of natural resources are accelerating, forcing us to address the reality that our current trajectory is unsustainable. As we come to terms and confront these crises, some of the most urgent questions we must answer are:
What kind of futures are possible?
What pathways to these futures are open to us?
What will it take to get there?
I have been working on a “Future Pathways” visualization tool (described here) to help find a way to explore these questions. By mapping potential pathways through three interconnected dimensions—economic growth, CO2 emissions and material use—it aims to help us better understand the trade-offs, risks and opportunities involved in building a more sustainable future. Here is a video of the visualization:
A Lens for Viewing Possible Futures
The model creates a three-dimensional space where each axis represents a fundamental aspect of our civilization's trajectory:
Economic Growth (measured in percent per year) - AKA "Progress", "Civilisation Complexity", "GDP"… and yes, lumping everything together under “Growth” is a bit contentious, I will explore this in future posts.
CO2e Emissions (gigatons per year) - carbon dioxide equivalent emissions represent the combined impact of all greenhouse gases expressed as the amount of CO2 needed to produce the same global warming potential (GWP) over a standard time frame, usually 100 years.
Material Use (gigatons per year) - the total mass of raw materials extracted and consumed globally per year: all the materials used to sustain human activities and infrastructure, such as Biomass, Fossil Fuels, Metal Ores and Non-Metallic Minerals
Within this space, different "zones" represent possible states of civilization:
The Energy Transition Zone (2.5-5% growth): Represents successful transition pathways where emissions decrease while maintaining or improving economic growth.
The Intermediate Zone (0-2.5% growth): Represents moderate transition scenarios
The Descent Zone (negative growth): Represents scenarios involving economic contraction
The Future Materials Use Zone: Represents pathways involving increased material consumption.
A Quick Note On Growth
The concept of “growth” means different things to different people, and the idea of whether we should have growth at all will be discussed in a future post. For the purposes of this discussion, “growth” is used here as a proxy term for the interconnected expansion of civilization, encompassing increases in GDP, culture, happiness and energy use, reflecting the broader complexity and progress of human development. I am not an economist and welcome discussion on how best to present growth in the visualisation.
Where Are We?
Our current position in 2024 (red spot) sits at approximately 2.5% “growth”, 50 gigatons of CO2e emissions per year, and 106 gigatons of material use per year. From this starting point, the model plots several possible futures.
Past Reality and Competing Visions of the Future
The model maps several distinct transition pathways, one showing our actual trajectory from 1995 to 2024 while the others represent different philosophical and practical approaches to navigating our future:
From 1995 to 2024
Since the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) climate conference in 1995 to the present day we have seen ever-increasing CO2e emissions and material use, while growth saw a significant reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Business as Usual (BAU)
This pathway shows the consequences of maintaining current trends: increasing emissions, growing material use, but gradually declining economic growth. The BAU trajectory suggests this approach may be fundamentally unsustainable.
Degrowth (Hickel)
Based on Jason Hickel's work, this pathway envisions a managed reduction in resource consumption by wealthy nations while enabling development in poorer regions. The goal is to reach a steady state with zero growth, low emissions, and circular material use.
The Great Simplification (Hagens)
Nate Hagens' concept of "The Great Simplification" suggests a managed descent to lower resource use and emissions levels, acknowledging potential limitations in our ability to maintain current consumption patterns.
Eco-modernist Utopia
This pathway represents an optimistic vision where technological innovation enables simultaneous reduction in emissions and material use while maintaining economic growth.
Way et al. Transitions
The model includes three variations of transition pathways (Fast, Slow, and No Transition), helping visualize how the speed of change affects our trajectory through this three-dimensional space.
Historical Trajectory: Learning from Three Decades of Data
The model's historical trajectory from 1995 to 2024 tells a sobering story about our progress since the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) climate conference. By plotting actual data points for global emissions, growth, and material use, we can trace humanity's path through this three-dimensional possibility space:
1995-2010: The Era of Unconstrained Growth
During this period, we see a steady climb across all three dimensions:
CO2 emissions rose from 23.0 to 33.5 gigatons per year
Material use increased from 45.0 to 78.0 gigatons per year
Economic growth remained robust, averaging around 3-4% annually
This trajectory shows how economic growth was achieved through increasing material consumption and rising emissions, with little evidence of decoupling between these factors.
2010-2019: Acceleration Despite Awareness
Despite growing climate awareness and multiple COPs, this period showed:
Continued acceleration of emissions from 33.5 to around 40 gigatons
Material use growth from 78.0 to over 95 gigatons
Maintained economic growth around 2.5-3%
The path during this period suggests that international climate agreements had little effect on the fundamental relationship between growth, materials, and emissions.
2020: The COVID-19 Disruption
The pandemic created a dramatic but temporary deviation:
Negative economic growth (-3.3%)
Slight decrease in material use
2020-2024: The Rebound
The post-pandemic period has shown:
Quick return to pre-pandemic emission levels, reaching 50 gigatons
Recovery of economic growth to 2.5%
Material use reaching new highs at 106 gigatons
This "return to normal" suggests that without structural changes, even major disruptions lead only to temporary deviations from the established trajectory.
Implications for Future Pathways
The historical trajectory provides several crucial insights:
Persistent Coupling: Despite technological advances and policy initiatives, we have not achieved significant decoupling of economic growth from emissions and material use.
Accelerating Trends: Rather than showing progress toward sustainability, our historical path shows acceleration in both emissions and material use.
Zone Migration: We have moved steadily away from the sustainable zones defined in the model, making future transitions increasingly challenging.
Policy Effectiveness: The minimal impact of three decades of climate negotiations on our actual trajectory suggests the need for more fundamental changes in approach.
Transition Urgency: The growing gap between our current position and sustainable zones highlights the increasing difficulty of achieving a successful energy transition without dramatic changes in direction.
Our historical trajectory shows the immense momentum of our current system. Even the unprecedented global disruption of COVID-19 only briefly reduced emissions and material use before they rebounded to previous levels, highlighting how deeply these are embedded in our economic structure.
This serves as a stark warning: transitioning to sustainability will take far more than incremental changes. It demands a fundamental transformation of how we operate as a civilization. Each year of delay widens the gap between our current path and a sustainable future, making the necessary transition steeper and more urgent.
We are not just failing to reduce emissions and material use—we are accelerating in the wrong direction. In the words of Professor Kevin Anderson: are “we are choosing to fail”? Turning this around is like steering a supertanker; the longer we wait, the harder it becomes to avoid disaster. Can we implement sustainable solutions at the necessary scale and speed while maintaining social stability? I think we can, but it is going to be hard. What do you think?
The Model as a Discussion Tool
The Future Pathways visualization is not one of predictive power but, hopefully, can act as as a shared model to facilitate meaningful discussions about our future options. By mapping different proposals in three-dimensional space, it helps us:
Visualize Trade-offs: The model makes explicit the relationships between growth, emissions, and material use, helping us understand what we might need to sacrifice to achieve specific goals.
Challenge Assumptions: By plotting different pathways, we can question whether certain combinations (like high growth with low emissions and material use) are realistically achievable.
Frame Debates: The model provides a common framework for discussing different approaches to transition, helping clarify where various proposals differ and where they might complement each other.
Storytellers: Pathways as Future Narratives
Each trajectory through this three-dimensional space isn't just a line on a graph – it's a possible story of our future, complete with its own set of living conditions, challenges and opportunities for the people (and other fellow Earth dwellers) who would inhabit that future. Thinking of these pathways as narratives can help us better understand what they might mean for daily life.
By thinking of these pathways as settings for human stories, we can better grasp:
The Human Element: How different futures might feel to live in, not just their technical parameters
Complex Trade-offs: The real implications of choices between growth, emissions, and material use
Adaptation Challenges: How societies might need to change along each pathway
Innovation Opportunities: What new ways of living might emerge in each scenario
Biodiversity and Habitation Loss: The anodyne terms “Growth”, “Emissions” and “Materials Use” hide the uncomfortable realities of human impact on the biosphere, from species extinction, habitat loss to plastic pollution and wider contamination.
This narrative approach helps bridge the gap between abstract models and lived experience, making the implications of different choices more tangible and relatable. It reminds us that whichever path we take, it will be traveled by real people with hopes, fears, and dreams – people who will need to navigate whatever world our choices create.
Limitations and Future Development
This visualization is a starting point, not the final word. It’s a tool designed to spark discussions, track trends and inspire exploration rather than to predict the future with certainty. While it offers (hopefully) valuable insights, it necessarily simplifies complex interdependencies.
Limitations
Simplified Axes: Growth, emissions, and material use are proxies for broader dynamics. Factors like biodiversity, habitat loss, and pollution are not explicitly modelled but are deeply intertwined with these variables.
Static Zones: The defined zones are illustrative, but the boundaries are not fixed. Real-world transitions will likely blur these lines.
Hidden Variables: Other critical factors—such as technological innovation, geopolitical shifts, and cultural change—are not directly captured but remain crucial for understanding the bigger picture.
Opportunities for Expansion
New Pathways: Users can add scenarios reflecting local, regional, or sector-specific transitions. Imagine exploring what a renewable energy boom in your community might look like in this 3D space.
Additional Dimensions: Future versions could incorporate other key factors, such as biodiversity, resource circularity, or social equity, to provide a richer picture of possible futures.
Dynamic Interactions: Enhancing the model to simulate feedback loops (e.g., how declining emissions might improve biodiversity) could bring greater depth to the analysis.
This tool invites curiosity and collaboration. Whether you’re a researcher, policymaker, or concerned citizen, your ideas can help expand this framework into a richer, more inclusive conversation about our collective future.
Your Pathway
As science fiction stories often tell us, the future is not set in stone—it’s a collective choice shaped by the decisions we make today. This visualization aims to be more than just a tool; it’s an invitation to explore, imagine and participate in charting the course for a sustainable civilization and biosphere.
By playing with the model, you can explore how different pathways through growth, emissions and material use might look. You can even create your own pathways, adding your unique perspective to this critical global conversation.
How to Get Involved
1. Explore the Visualization
Take a moment to navigate through the model. What do the different zones and trajectories suggest to you? What trade-offs stand out? Which pathways seem most realistic, and why?
2. Download the Code
The code for the model is open source and freely available on GitHub:
https://github.com/bernardSolar/future_pathways.git
Clone the repository, run the model and try tweaking its parameters to visualize your ideas. What happens when you introduce new assumptions or scenarios? Can you design a pathway that balances sustainability with human development?
3. Add Your Pathways
Create your own narratives by mapping new pathways through the 3D space.
What might a transition pathway look like in your community or country?
How would different policy choices or innovations alter the trajectory?
Could a scenario you imagine lead to a better—or worse—future?
4. Share and Discuss
Please post your pathways and thoughts in the comments. Let’s discuss the implications, the trade-offs, and the potential solutions they suggest. Your contributions could spark ideas or debates that lead to meaningful insights.
If you would like further information, please contact the author at: bernard@solarnautics.org
Sources
Way, R., et al. (2022). "Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition" INET Oxford Working Paper No. 2021-01
Garrett, T. J., Grasselli, M., & Keen, S. (2019). Thermodynamics of Economic Growth.
Hickel, J. (2020). "Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World" William Heinemann, London
Hickel, J. & Kallis, G. (2020). "Is Green Growth Possible?" New Political Economy, 25(4), 469-486
Hagens, N. (2020). "Economics for the Future – Beyond the Superorganism" Ecological Economics, Volume 169
For material footprint and resource use data:
UNEP International Resource Panel (2023). "Global Resources Outlook 2023"
Circle Economy (2024). "Circularity Gap Report 2024"
For CO2 emissions data:
Global Carbon Project (2023). "Global Carbon Budget 2023"
IPCC (2023). "Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report"
For global economic growth data:
World Bank World Development Indicators
IMF World Economic Outlook Database
Useful Links: