by Sten Rodenborg
Positionality and Purpose
This essay emerges from deep concern and professional curiosity. Observing the escalating ecological crises, from climate change to biodiversity loss, it becomes evident that surface-level solutions are insufficient. My work has led me to believe that many of our challenges are rooted in deep structural patterns and the worldviews that sustain them. The global monetary system is one such deep structure. Therefore, this paper is not presented as a neutral academic overview; rather, it is an act of advocacy for a preferred future, one grounded in ecological sanity. While this preferred future involves linking the money supply to the sustainable yield of the planet, my aim in this essay is not to litigate why this is necessary or the mechanics of how it is done. This is addressed at length in my forthcoming book, EcoMoney: Currencies Powered by the Sun. Rather, this essay is primarily an epistemological analysis of the deep, metaphorical shift required to transform society from money issued as debt by private banks to money grounded in and backed by the sustainable yield of the planet. To achieve this, I use the tools of futures studies, particularly Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) and Dator’s Four Futures, to explore the underlying metaphors and worldviews that shape our relationship with money and, by extension, the planet. I argue that a transformation toward sustainability requires not just technical policy changes but a profound shift in our collective story about what money is and what it is for. This essay attempts to map that transformative journey.
Introduction
The modern economic system is built on a fundamental paradox: a commitment to infinite exponential growth on a finite planet. Since the 1970s, the unsustainability of this trajectory has been well-documented (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens III, 1972), yet the global system continues to operate as if no limits exist and thereby endangers critical processes that are essential for the stability of the biosphere (Rockström, et al., 2009). As Kenneth Boulding famously remarked, “Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist” (as cited in Olson 1973, p. 3).
The recent school of ecological economics has noticed this problem. While neoclassical economists treat energy, natural resources, and pollution as externalities of marginal importance to economic theory, this position is becoming increasingly untenable in the face of resource shortages and global warming. It is instructive to note that the first person to highlight this issue was not an economist but the Nobel Prize-winning chemist, Frederick Soddy, who argued in Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (1926) that debt-money’s compound growth was ultimately irreconcilable with the thermodynamic limits of real wealth. This was followed by K. William Kapp, who, as early as 1950, argued that capitalist production is structured to shift its ecological and social costs onto third parties, future generations, and the natural world. In the preface to the 1971 edition of his book The Social Cost of Private Enterprise, Kapp argues that “the disruption of man’s environment may reveal itself as our most crucial problem, exceeded in overall significance only by the urgent necessity of guaranteeing human survival in the age of nuclear weapons”(Kapp, 1971, p. viii). The founding figure of ecological economics is often taken to be Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who, in 1971, published his influential work The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (Georgescu-Roegen , 1971), where he observed that the second law of thermodynamics guided our use of natural resources; in other words, all use of raw materials leads to inevitable losses. Hence, we are gradually drawing down our finite supply of natural resources, which will ultimately lead to the end of human civilisation. Georgescu Roegen’s student Herman Daly argued for a steady-state economy (Daly, 1991), and can probably be seen as the initiator of the degrowth movement. Other economists in this tradition include Howard Odum, Charles A.S. Hall and Kate Raworth.
At the heart of this growth engine is the monetary system itself. Before turning to how that monetary system operates today, it is useful to reflect on what money is and where it came from — a question on which there is less agreement than most people realise. Three principal traditions can be distinguished. The metallist school (Menger, 1892), subscribed to by classical and Marxist economists alike, argues that money arose as a necessity to overcome the limitations of barter trade; by specifying one commodity, often a metal such as gold or silver, as a common means of exchange, it made trade easier. The chartalist school, first propounded by Georg Friedrich Knapp (1924), argued that money was created by states as a means to control the economy, and that the way to get money accepted was to introduce taxes that had to be paid in the currency the government issued. A direct descendant of this view is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), as expounded by Randall Wray (1998). Finally, the credit theory of money, based on the work of Henry Dunning Macleod, emphasised that “Money and Credit are essentially of the same nature: Money being only the highest and most general form of Credit” (Macleod, 1889, p. 82). The debate remains unsettled. In her evaluation of the claims of the different traditions, Alla Semenova concludes that “both the Metallist and the Chartalist perspectives lack an adequate historical, anthropological background to support their theoretical formulations of money’s origins” (Semenova, 2011, p. 17). David Graeber, in his best-selling Debt: The First 5,000 Years, takes a similar position. While he agrees that money has frequently been created by the state, he holds that money can also be a creation of society. He also admits that “money is almost always something hovering between a commodity and a debt-token” (Graeber, 2014, p. 75), and consequently ends up incorporating all three traditions of the origins of money.
Regardless of which position is right, it is clear that money in its present form has no value in itself and is simply representative wealth — a claim on goods and resources within the scope of the market. As it requires energy to produce goods and services, “ultimately money can be best understood as a lien on energy” (Hall & Klitgaard, 2012, p. 93).
From the middle of the 15th century to the 19th century, money was linked to gold (Graeber, 2014, p. 214). While paper money was used to settle debts between local businesses, global trade was settled in precious metals. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, a monetary system was established in which all world currencies would be linked to the US Dollar at fixed exchange rates, and the US Dollar would be linked to gold at a price of USD 35 per troy ounce (Steil, 2013).
This arrangement ended in 1971, when Richard Nixon took the US Dollar off the gold standard and allowed currencies to float freely against each other (Hudson, 2003, p. 13). While most accounts attribute this move to unsustainable spending on the Vietnam War, there were structural reasons for the severance as well. Driven by the exponential expansion of the fossil-fuelled economy since the mid-19th century, global economic activity had grown far beyond what any conceivable gold reserve could back.
With the delinking of the US Dollar from gold, money became an endogenous social construct, created primarily by private banks through the issuance of loans (Ryan-Collins, Greenham, Werner, & Jackson, 2011). This delinking allowed the money supply to expand in perpetuity to meet investor demand, fuelling an ever-growing economy. This essay posits that this system, while perfectly suited to a growth-based paradigm, is fundamentally incompatible with a sustainable one.
The critical question then becomes: what are the futures of money in an age of ecological limits? Using Causal Layered Analysis (Inayatullah, 2004) and Jim Dator’s four generic futures (Dator, 2009), this paper will explore the question. It will deconstruct the worldview and metaphors underpinning our current monetary system, map alternative scenarios, and articulate a preferred future where money is reimagined not as a driver of infinite growth but as a facilitator of sustainable well-being.
A Causal Layered Analysis of Monetary Paradigms
To understand the profound nature of the required shift, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) provides a framework for moving beyond the technical headlines to the deeper cultural narratives. The litany, or the surface-level issue, is how money is created. Changing this is not merely a technical fix, as it is likely to send shockwaves through the entire system, challenging the dominant culture and stories that give it meaning. As the saying goes, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” (Inayatullah, 2015). A sustainable monetary strategy cannot succeed if the underlying culture of growth remains intact.
The table below contrasts the current monetary paradigm with a potential sustainable alternative across the four layers of CLA.
| CLA Analysis of the Monetary System | ||
| Today | Preferred future | |
| Litany | Money is created as interest-bearing debt by banks in the process of making loans. | The money supply is linked to the planet’s sustainable ecological yield, managed as a public utility. |
| Systemic causes | The ever-increasing money supply fuels economic expansion, consumerism, and the accelerating exploitation of natural resources. | A stable money supply enables a steady-state economy that operates within planetary boundaries. |
| Worldview | Continuous exponential growth: The world is a resource to be exploited for endless material growth. Success is measured by GDP and accumulation. | Ecological sustainability: The world is a living system to be stewarded. Success is measured by the well-being of all within ecological limits. |
| Metaphor of money | Tokens of power and control: A tool for accumulation, competition, and exercising influence. | Certificates of sunlight: A tool for equitably sharing the energy and resources available from nature’s bounty. |
The transition from one column to the other is a hegemony-replacing transformation (Saglietti, Brabant, & Holmén, 2026). It moves from a worldview of endless expansion to one of sufficiency and stewardship. In our current society, the metaphor of money as tokens of power and control encourages a worldview driven by infinite growth, where people struggle to accumulate power, resources and material wealth in ever larger quantities. Such a worldview, in turn, leads to a system dependent on GDP growth, increased energy supplies, and a never-ending quest for more and more natural resources. As an expanding money supply enables the economy to grow exponentially, this leaves few options at the litany level. To support the existing system, money has to be created out of nothing in response to investor demand. However, if we were to change the metaphor from money as an instrument of power to money as a symbol of our shared dependence on the sun’s energy, the ultimate source of all life and resources, profound changes are likely to take place. Such a change could lead to a worldview that sees the world as a living system and us as its stewards. Success is measured by how well we carry out this stewardship. This, again, would lead to a completely different structure of society, where the purpose of the economy would be to supply people’s needs within the planet’s biophysical limitations. This would likely preclude an exponentially growing economy, and money, the driver and enabler of exponential growth, would no longer be created on demand based on the desire of investors. The money supply would, by necessity, be linked to the sustainable yield of the planet.
Note that the opposite trajectory is not possible. As long as the prevailing metaphor, worldview and system of society are in place, it would be impossible to muster the political will to make the necessary changes to how money is made and created. Any attempt to reform the monetary system, therefore, requires reshaping the core values of our society, “guided by a shared aspirational image of the future” (Hines, 2023, p. 123).
Four Futures of Money and Ecology
While a sustainable monetary system is our preferred future, it is only one of several possibilities. Jim Dator’s (2009) four generic futures provide a robust framework for exploring the landscape of possibilities. While human choices are unpredictable, these scenarios can be weighed against the non-negotiable laws of biophysical reality.
- Continued Growth: In this scenario, society continues its pursuit of exponential economic expansion. It includes various attempts at “green capitalism,” which aim to address ecological problems through increased consumption and market-based mechanisms (Salovaara & Hagolani-Albov, 2025). Newer forms of money, such as CBDCs, stablecoins and tokenised assets, change the substrate but not the underlying logic: they remain claims on future output. This future relies on the belief that technology and efficiency can decouple growth from environmental impact indefinitely. In essence, it is a society that doubles down on money as “tokens of power and control” and uses them to maximise growth at all costs. From a biophysical standpoint, given the realities of climate change, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004), this scenario appears to be a pathway to systemic failure rather than a stable, long-term future. It is the default future, the path of least resistance.
- Collapse: This scenario is not a choice but the likely outcome of the “Continued Growth” trajectory. It is the future predicted by the Limits to Growth report, where the economic system overshoots planetary boundaries and experiences an uncontrolled decline. In this future, monetary systems would likely break down, and the “tokens of power” would lose their power. With nothing to take its place, the world order would collapse, and the carefully crafted economic system would no longer function, leading to a return to economies based on barter, local wars and conflicts, and possibly the forcible imposition of authoritarian control. This is the future we risk if we fail to consciously choose another path.
- Limits and Discipline: This is the scenario that aligns with our preferred future. Here, society consciously adapts to ecological limits (Daly, 1991). It involves a shift in values away from consumerism and towards sufficiency, equity, and well-being (Komatsu & Rappleye, 2024). The monetary system would be redesigned to function within a stable, non-growing economy, with the money supply linked to sustainable yield. Money as “Certificates of Sunlight” is the central metaphor of this future. However, this is not a simple transition, but one defined by the friction between the old and the new worldviews, where money as “Certificates of Sunlight” will gradually replace money as “Tokens of Power”. This is the future of a managed, intentional transition.
- Transformation: This scenario represents a radical, paradigm-shifting change that transcends the other three. In the context of our topic, this would require a technological breakthrough of immense proportions—such as the advent of limitless clean energy—that would fundamentally alter humanity’s relationship with planetary resources (Inayatullah, 2021). While a possibility, relying on such a deus ex machina is a high-risk strategy. This future represents a radical reinvention that, while imaginable, is a far-fetched outlier.
This analysis suggests we are at a critical crossroads. The choice is not between growth and no growth, but between a managed descent into a sustainable state (Limits and Discipline) (Odum & Odum, 2001) or an unmanaged, chaotic collapse resulting from a blind pursuit of growth.
Is the Time Right for Change?
The capitalist economy appears all-powerful, yet macro-history teaches us that no system lasts forever. Macrohistorian P.R. Sarkar (1967) theorised a social cycle where the current “age of acquisitors” (capitalists) is due for a major transition. More contemporary analysts, such as Ray Dalio (2021), also predict an imminent and significant shift in the global order. From this long-term perspective, a fundamental transformation of our economic and monetary systems within the next few decades is not only possible but probable. The convergence of ecological, social, and political pressures creates a historical window of opportunity for profound change.
Visioning a Sustainable Future
A creative vision of this preferred future, where the money supply is linked to the sustainable yield of the planet, might look like this:
The year is 2060. Sylvia has an early breakfast of locally produced grains and fruit. Imported food is rare, as the environmental cost of long-distance transport is now fully accounted for. Most essentials are produced regionally, a stark contrast to the sprawling global supply chains of the early 21st century. After the turbulent decades of transition, society had learned that happiness is not found in amassing material things (Komatsu & Rappleye, 2024). There are exceptions, of course; raw materials and complex capital goods are still traded globally. While local renewable energy meets most needs, the transition away from fossil fuels is still underway.
Sylvia takes her daughter to the local health clinic for a check-up. Healthcare, like education, is a public good, funded by the community. On her way home, she stops to buy groceries. The money she uses is no longer a token of power, an instrument for the wealthy to buy influence. In this equitable society, money is understood as a certificate representing each person’s share of the common resources of nature, a tool for participating in the flow of energy that sustains them all.
How to Get There: A Backcasting Approach
The final step is to build a plausible path from the present to this preferred future using backcasting (Boulding & Boulding, 1995). Looking back from 2060, the journey might have unfolded as follows:
The late 2020s were marked by the development and publication of clear frameworks for a global monetary system linked to nature. Throughout the early 2030s, a concerted effort was made via social media, lectures, and alternative media to spread the vision of a future in which money was redefined. This narrative work was crucial in building a global movement for changing the underlying worldview. By the mid-2030s, intensifying environmental crises and a growing disillusionment with the failures of the growth-based model created the political will for change. The period from 2036 to 2045 saw the gradual, often difficult, adoption of an ecological monetary system, laying the foundation for the broader transition to a sustainable economy over the following 15 years.
Summary and Conclusion
As this essay has shown, a shift in our underlying metaphor and worldview is the critical leverage point for achieving an ecologically sustainable society. While the technical details of monetary reform are important, they cannot be implemented without a corresponding transformation in our collective psychology and values. The tools of futures studies reveal that the path forward requires us to make our unconscious stories conscious and to have the courage to write a new one. The choice presented by the alternative futures is stark: consciously create a future of discipline and well-being, or default to one of collapse. By embracing a new metaphor for money—as a certificate of our shared sunlight—we can begin the essential work of building a future that is not only sustainable but also just and prosperous for all.
Ethical Reflections on Monetary Transformation
Embarking on this transformative journey, however, requires humility. The preferred future of “Certificates of Sunlight” is not an endpoint free of conflict but poses profound ethical dilemmas. The fundamental question of governance immediately emerges: who holds the wisdom to define and manage the planet’s sustainable yield, and what political structures can prevent the forthcoming system becoming another form of, perhaps greener, authoritarian control? While diligence and planning can shift the planet in a green direction (Inayatullah & Tanner, 2024), changing a system does not change human nature. There will always be those trying to play the system and benefit personally, regardless of how well the system is designed.
Moreover, the transition itself raises deep questions of justice. How does a society navigate the immense economic and cultural dislocations that will inevitably occur, ensuring that the burdens of change do not fall disproportionately on its most vulnerable members? The new metaphor provides direction, but to reach the desired goal, the path must be walked with constant ethical deliberation and a profound sense of shared responsibility.
Author
Sten Rodenborg
Grammarly was used for spelling and language checks throughout. From version 5 onward, AI input and feedback were used for developmental editing, guided by the author.
References
Boulding, E., & Boulding, K. (1995). The Future: Images and Processes. London: Sage.
Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-State Economics (2nd with New Essays ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Dator, J. (2009). Alternative Futures at the Manoa School. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2), 1-18.
Georgescu-Roegen , N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Graeber, D. (2014). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. New York: Melville House.
Hall, C. A., & Klitgaard, K. A. (2012). Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy ([Kindle] ed.). New York: Springer.
Hines, A. (2023). Imagining After Capitalism. Journal of Futures Studies, 28(2), 123-137.
Hudson, M. (2003). Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance (Second ed.). London: Pluto Press.
Inayatullah, S. (Ed.). (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology. Taipei: Tamkang University Press.
Inayatullah, S. (2015). Ensuring Culture Does Not Eat Strategy for Breakfast: What Works in Futures Studies. World Future Review, 7(4), 351-361. doi:10.1177/1946756715627373
Inayatullah, S. (2021). The Future of Energy—Reinvented: Case Study of the Radical Scenario Development Approach. Journal of Futures Studies, 25(4), 81-90.
Inayatullah, S., & Tanner, S. (2024, June 12). Choosing your Energy Adventure: Energy Futures in Transition. Journal of Futures Studies. Retrieved from https://jfsdigital.org/2024/06/12/choosing-your-energy-adventure/
Kapp, K. W. (1971). The Social Cost of Private Enterprise. New York: Schocken Books. Retrieved July 2, 2026, from https://kwilliam-kapp.de/documents/SCOPE.pdf
Knapp, G. F. (1924). The State Theory of Money. MacMillan: London.
Komatsu, H., & Rappleye, J. (2024). Well-Being in Times of Decline: The Feasibility and Effectiveness of Degrowth for Sustainability. Journal of Future Studies, 29(1), 59-72.
Macleod, H. D. (1889). The Theory of Credit. Harvard: Longmans, Green and Company.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. I., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report to the Club of Rome. Club of Rome.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Menger, C. (1892). On the Origins of Money 2. The Economic Journal, 239-255. Retrieved 06 13, 2020, from https://cdn.mises.org/On%20the%20Origins%20of%20Money_5.pdf
Odum, H. T., & Odum, E. C. (2001). The Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Olson, M. (1973). Introduction: The No Growth Society. Daedalus, 102(4), 1-13.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, S. F., Lambin, E., . . . Foley, J. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2)(32).
Ryan-Collins, J., Greenham, T., Werner, R., & Jackson, A. (2011). Where Does Money Come From? A Guide to the UK Monetary and Banking System (2012, 2nd ed.). London: New Economics Foundation.
Saglietti, C., Brabant, C., & Holmén, J. (2026). Snails ahead! Metaphors of change and distributed prefiguration in the degrowth movement. Futures, 175, 103726.
Salovaara, J. J., & Hagolani-Albov, S. E. (2025). A greener future cannot be bought: On the paradoxes of practising contemporary consumption-driven sustainability. Futures, 173, 103683.
Sarkar, P. R. (1967). Human Society Part II. Calcutta: Ananda Marga Publications.
Semenova, A. (2011). The Origins of Money:: Evaluating Chartalis and Metalist Theories in the Context of Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia. Kansas City: University of Missouri – Kansas City. Retrieved 06 12, 2020, from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/10843/SemenovaOriMonEva.pdf
Soddy, F. (1926). Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt: The Solution to the Economic Paradox. George Allan & Unwin.
Steil, B. (2013). The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wray, L. R. (1998). Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability. Northampton: Edgar Elgar.
