Comment by Arubis

9 hours ago

Folks, "Limits to Growth" was published _over fifty years ago_ (https://www.clubofrome.org/ltg50/) and revisited repeatedly since, each time in so doing effectively confirming their worst-case hypotheses.

Yes, their website is...unconvincing. Which is poetic in its own way. Wikipedia's take on the original report at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth is probably a better read.

But we've been able to take a highly systems thinking-inflected, as quantitative as possible approach to looking over how human's current perspective of what "growth" means and applying it over time to the resources of the planet we live on, and conclude with decent confidence and error bars that it's not just unsustainable, but that we're past the point of overconsumption and will have a very uncomfortable "correction", and we've been able to indicate that for decades.

7 comments

Arubis

Reply
myrmidon  5 hours ago

Looking at this somewhat critically, did the predictions not turn out to be completely incorrect?

Specifically the industrial output and food per person, as well as the "available ressources" curve.

In my view, this should have been expected from the very start. Every single fixed-reserve + extrapolated usage rate calculation that we ever did produced incorrect predictions from what I know (and I'm not even really exaggerating here); this happens because increasing scarcity provides a lot of backpressure against both assumptions.

Just consider e.g. fracking or oil sands for the "fixed reserves" of something like gas (from a 1970 perspective), and things like aluminium conductors for the "extrapolated use rate" for something like copper.

I'm not saying that the whole concept is wrong. Long term exponential growth is obviously going to run into a wall basically by definition.

But I think for humanity right now, current population trends (i.e. negative growth everywhere) is all we need to keep ressource usage physically possible for the next centuries at least (and probably going to cause negative economic growth simply from population decrease).

pfdietz  9 hours ago

Back when LtG came out, there was a study of the limits imposed by resource availability. The conclusion was that, to first approximation, the only resource that we had to worry about was energy. Fossil fuels would have to go, but everything else was either available in effectively unlimited amounts or could be substituted with things that were. An example of the latter was mercury -- effectively all previous uses have been replaced with better substitutes (because of toxicity issues, not shortage of the element.)

Pollution also has to be worried about, but there's nothing in a non-fossil fuel powered world that would prevent the current world population from enjoying prosperity indefinitely. There are ultimate limits to energy use on Earth from direct thermal pollution but the world could enjoy US levels of wealth without great trouble.

The exponential process one should be most concerned about today is exponential decline in population.

  • projektfu  8 hours ago

    When is the world population expected to decline? Or are you talking about a specific country?

    • pfdietz  8 hours ago

      I'm talking about the entire world.

      Almost everywhere, the total fertility rate is well below replacement (which is around 2.1). UN estimates that say global population will peak around 2084; they assume global TFR increases back to 1.6, but there is no evidence for this assumption, so global population will likely peak sooner. Every first world country will be in population decline by 2050; some already are.

      There's something about global civilization that's acting like a kind of human pesticide. People just aren't having kids, and this is getting worse, not better.

      1 reply →