3 ms·
This paper appears to be the description of the "World Model" which led to the "Limits to Growth" book series. The paper is by Jay Forrester, and another influe
by tunesmith 10y ago
This paper appears to be the description of the "World Model" which led to the "Limits to Growth" book series. The paper is by Jay Forrester, and another influential name in the field is Donella Meadows.
"Limits to Growth" made several forecasts for humanity that basically predicted mass negative changes, with best-case scenario being that it would settle out with humanity having an average quality of life equal to that of what eastern europe has (or perhaps had 10-20 years ago).
The forecast gets updated every ten years or so, and I've lost track of what the most recent updates said. They generally claim that the metrics are tracking what the model predicted in its worst-case scenario, which would lead to quite a lot of horrible worldwide societal changes in the 2020-2030 range.
The model has generally been ignored and criticized for being too pessimistic and not based on rigorous data.
When they talk about levers for change, one of the most powerful ones they recommend is changing the goal entirely, in this case removing the emphasis on "growth". It's interesting to think about changing the definition of GDP, since our entire definition of recession and depression is based off of that.
It sounds like some of their prescriptions to avoid the worst outcomes are pretty draconian, like limiting food production to help control population growth.
- MawNicker 10y agoGDP is a terrible metric. It encodes all sorts of micro-regressions as growth. For instance, a hostile society induces more people to live alone; They purchase a new everything. GDP goes up but utilization goes down. If it was our own business we'd fix it. When it's our society we're too busy clawing after that newly minted GDP.
- randyrand 10y agoYour example doesn't really prove to me that GDP is a terrible metric for economic growth. Not perfect, sure. But also better than any other metric I know of.
- tunesmith 10y agoWhat's more interesting is to think of another metric - one that doesn't calculate economic growth differently, but measures something else entirely that isn't so built around economic growth. Depends on what you want to maximize, though. Income equality? Planet health? Life expectancy? Some sort of happiness index? Probability of becoming an interstellar species?
- randyrand 10y agoInterestingly, all those other metrics you listed are very tied to GDP and economic growth, which means GDP growth is a decent measure for all those other measures. Maximizing one is not the answer. We want to maximize all of them. And in that sense GDP is a great measure since it impacts all of them greatly. Even sustainability is linked to GDP growth. Green technologies are typically the most expensive, and we need growth so that we can one day afford them across the board.
- MawNicker 10y agoI specifically didn't reference the psychological effects that are also a huge problem. Those just have to be assumed by reasonable humans. Hostility creates material problems that we can actually analyze. We can form metrics for the utilization of goods and calculate their actual value to the human's that buy them. It's just a lot more complicated. Businesses do these sorts of things for themselves internally. They're not as deterministic as GDP is. The models change slightly over time. The signal gets noisy. GDP is easier to optimize against for this reason. It isn't jumping around when we're standing still. We know when we're actually moving. We don't know where but it's better than noise. We think. Besides, no one has proven that GDP is a terrible metric. That and these other systems are just so complicated... How do you ever know if they're "right"? You win. As in beat the market. Nobody is winning on behalf of the government. They're too busy winning elsewhere.