This article summarizes the current issues in the 'limits to growth' c
ontroversy. It argues that the debate is meaningless unless participan
ts define world growth, specify the non-substitutable natural resource
s essential to world growth and the outlook for their availability, an
d rigorously examine whether growth, as opposed to no growth, must ine
vitably reduce the productivity of the environmental assets that make
life possible. It also concludes that the timeframe for limits to grow
th should be finite - no more than a century - since uncertainties wit
h respect to technology and physical developments are so great as to m
ake predictions to the indefinite future valueless.