Readers reply: Is it inevitable that consumerism will literally fill up the planet?

The long-running series in which readers answer other readers’ questions considers whether there is sufficient global physical capacity for all our discarded and worn-out purchases

If consumer capitalism continues at its current rate, will we reach a point at which there is literally no space left on Earth for all the stuff that has been created? Alex Robinson, Alnwick, Northumberland

Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.

Readers reply

When we’re full up here, we can send all our crap to the moon. I believe some people have already started. BobAgg

It’s not inevitable if we keep recycling with fervour and keep buying in secondhand shops. RP Orlando, by email

No. Within 100 years the world’s population will have reduced by 95%. The causes will be war, famine, plague and pestilence and our new shinier curses. The survivors will consume very little of anything. Alan Webb, by email

It will probably go into the holes left from open-cast mining and in 5m or 6m years’ time, it will be a layer in the geology for Cockroach sapiens to marvel at, from “when monkeys ruled the Earth”. JoninBomo

If we run out of space on Earth for all the stuff that has been created, we can just order a new one on Amazon. Sagarmatha1953

Stuff we make is not going to “fill” the planet, because everything that goes to make more stuff is made from the other stuff we dig out from the ground. What we might do is convert everything that was seen as raw materials when we got here into new stuff that nobody needs, wants or really knows how to dispose of. That new stuff could fill the holes we made digging out the stuff to make it. It’s not going to weigh much more or occupy a lot more space than what we started with – but it could be practically useless. We might use up all of what was previously raw materials, and from the processing leave enough toxic residue and pollutants to make human life on Earth near impossible. leadballoon

Jared Diamond’s Collapse examines previous civilisations that collapsed, why, and the archaeological evidence that sheds light on the consequences. In all cases the cause was one or more of the following: climate change, interruption of trade routes, war or disease. In all of the cases, there was evidence of cannibalism. James Lovelock (of Gaia fame) opined that our current trajectory would result in our species being reduced “to a few breeding pairs in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable”.

Our global society will inevitably end. There will be far fewer of us, and our lives will be far harder, than now. We will consume less because there will be less to consume. But the world won’t end. When most of us are gone, the planet and its ecosphere will recover. It will take hundreds of years, but the future of the planet is assured. Ours, not so much.

It’s also worth mentioning Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, made into a film, Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston. It describes a world overrun with people, the only food available being soylent green biscuits provided by the government, purportedly made from soya beans and lentils. But soylent green isn’t made from pulses, but from people. Recycling taken to an extreme. rumblestrips
In reply: Something like a million years ago we were reduced to a thousand or so breeders; it took millennia before we got going again. Some species bounce back, others don’t, but we’re probably the first ones endangered because we did bounce back. jno50

No, the Earth won’t ever get over-full of manufactured items, and storage space is not really the problem. It’s much more serious.

Unsustainable consumption, in all its many forms, is the issue here, under every political and economic system. Consumer capitalism is very much part of the problem, but it runs much deeper.

One group has calculated an “Earth overshoot day”, currently 30 July, a date in the year by which we have used more ecological resources and services than the Earth can naturally regenerate. The UN reckons that if we can move that date back by “just” five or six days each year we would be back in equilibrium by about 2050. NickEM

Thanks to the purchasing activities of Mrs N, our house ran out of space years ago. That has not stopped her. This whole consumerism thing is beyond my understanding. I assume that acquiring “stuff” must meet some deep need in those afflicted, but have they no regard for anyone else?

And why? Something to do with dopamine? Whatever the answer, the planet and those on it will inevitably pay a very heavy price. neepheid

There’s been a hypothesis floating around, which might be based on Marx, that the constant purchasing of stuff nobody wants or needs is something society trains into us from babyhood. We are receptive to it because we’re so alienated. There’s a hole in our middle that we don’t know how to fill. For shopping addicts, the act of purchasing makes us feel meaningful and connected. My own theory is that once we buy the stuff, we felt compelled to hoard it, because throwing it away would expose the truth: we buy for the sake of buying. Buying makes us feel good. krokodil

Find a place to store your waste plastics where they won’t degrade, they’re a good carbon store. Vraicon

Humans seem to be hardwired to self-destruct. I think we might well have been created as a joke, and I don’t mean in the biblical sense. poorprints

There was a science fiction story about a portal that opened up, leading one way to another universe/dimension. What would the people of Earth immediately think of using it for: shovelling our garbage into it. Truckloads were driving up from all four corners of the world, and it worked beautifully for some time, until another portal appeared, and the garbage began arriving back. Regori

The habitability of the planet will collapse long before we run out of room to store shit we bought on the interwebs. This is likely to depress Amazon’s sales – you would think they would care more about it.

The numbers: the land area of the Earth is about 57m sq miles (149m sq km). World population is predicted by the UN to peak at around 10 billion, in 2084. If we decide to divide up the land equally (very unlikely), everyone gets around 14,000 sq metres, which is a square 120 metres on a side. And if you do manage to fill up your plot, you can always go upwards. SemiFunctional

What we’re going to end up with is an endless, lifeless desert of crumbled concrete and little pieces of UV-degraded plastic. BrianO_Blivion

No one else watched Wall-E? LintHuman

Capitalism’s need for constant growth depends on the exploitation of two things: the environment and human labour.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, both will have collapsed due to other factors before it’s impossible to set foot on anything but waste. getomov

Infinite production growth is impossible on our finite planet. thevicaragecat

No, not in any foreseeable future. Not even in the right ballpark. For example, Hannah Ritchie calculates that all the world’s plastic could be disposed of in landfill in a layer 10 metres deep, 30 metres below the surface in an area of 1,800 sq km. The land surface area of the world is 148,900,000 sq km.

This does not imply that there are not important issues with pollution and waste management that must be dealt with. quokkaZ

Unbridled consumerism is already taking a terrible toll on our mental and physical wellbeing and nature as well. It’s time to rethink the concept of consumerism to halt going backwards progressively. macmccarthy999

How to declutter your home planet? EddieChorepost

I don’t think it will come to that. The question of where we will put all our stuff in the future assumes a continuation or acceleration of our current lives: holidays, homes, celebrations and everyday acquisition.

For decades, I’ve been anticipating a global calamity that will put a stop to our thoughtlessness and leave those who survive to share the remains. In such a world, random items would gain special status.

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four salvaged objects like a blank book, a lipstick and a ticking clock become symbolic of subversion in a dystopian future. And in Graham Oakley’s Henry’s Quest (1986) people repurpose the debris of a long-past industrial society to recreate an Arthurian one. WoollyAphid
In reply: Advocating for better waste management and recycling is more likely to lead to better outcomes than anticipating global calamity. quokkaZ

The laws of physics prevent adding new stuff. We’re making new stuff from old stuff. Plastics from oil, disposable Ikea furniture from wood pulp and plastics, SUVs from iron ore and plastics, phones from silicon, silicates and plastics.

As long as we make stuff that lasts, and it can either be recycled or composted when no longer needed, the world won’t fill up with our stuff. TopGyre

A lot of stuff is really cheap now in comparison with previous times. In the 80s a decent TV would sell at £300-plus, maybe two or three grand in today’s money. Nobody would have had things like leaf blowers for their garden but they’re pretty inexpensive now. PeteTheBeat

We need to overhaul education. Learn about sustainability, learn how to cook from scratch, gardening, learn how to budget so at 1am we are not sending another £40 to Jeff Bezos for stuff we probably don’t need; nutrition, stuff like sewing, basic car repairs. Too many people give up on something that can be repaired and just buy new.

Stop, even on these pages showing off new gadgets or the latest fashions. Buy some good clothes and wear them whenever and for ever-ish.

I think someone will come up with a solution that maybe lets every piece of crap become some sort of power source in the future. We have a long way to go. catchytitled
In reply: Yep, the inability to sew was a great eye-openener for me. A (female) friend who, at the time, was about 30 years old, asked me for a special favour – to resew a button that had fallen off. What! Really? But basic car repairs? Oh I wish. Modern cars are all but impossible to do anything yourself. Even changing blown bulbs is now made way too awkward. lucyfam

Nobody wants to talk about overpopulation. I thought England and Wales was cramped in the 80s (56 million) but we’ve managed to add another third to that figure, on a small island. But politicians are desperate for the next generation to pay their bills, growth is always the mantra but misses the big picture completely. boli

People used to burn their rubbish. If they ran low on coke or coal they burnt what they had. TVs were repaired and sold secondhand.

In future, we will mine landfill for resources. It will be filthy work – people do that across many countries where we export our rubbish. Better that we upcycle and grow everything we can, compost and use grey water – and get science-based solutions. confusedofengland

We’ve all seen a stretch limousine, one of the most cheap, ridiculous, pompous, and unnecessary wastes of human endeavour. This isn’t a stretch planet, and it’s already full.

There was a point when Joni Mitchell was singing about a “tree museum”, and [paradise turned into] “a parking lot”, this has now been trumped by an almost limitless factory making Ikea cupboards.Growth? Which growth is that then? When the fields are brown, and the trees are burned. bricklayersoption