7 ms·

I remember the first time reading this book, or rather the 30 year update -- https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/193149858X https://www.am

by spodek 9y ago

I remember the first time reading this book, or rather the 30 year update -- https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/193149858X https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19... -- thinking, "this is the approach to take to understand how the economy, ecology, pollution, and so on interact." Everything else was just looking at elements. Technology is important, for example, but exists within a system. They looked at the system. They had to simplify and assume a lot, which the media didn't understand (probably benign ignorance) and critics blew out of proportion (probably maliciously), but I found their approach the most meaningful. Sadly, I know many people who care about the environment but don't understand the (relatively simple) math in their approach, and many people who understand the math but don't care about the environment, but almost no one who cares and understands. So in about a decade since reading it, I haven't found anyone I can talk to about it meaningfully. A great companion by one of the authors is Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows -- https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557 https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp.... Both changed my views more than almost any other books.

wjnc 9y ago
With all respect to the authors, the thinking at that point in time and the impact it made on the world and you: Much of their predictions haven't stood the test of time. -No exhaustible has been depleted yet and the price mechanism combined with technological progress seems pretty able to set incentives straight. Look at what the oil price bubble of the '00s did for electric cars and batteries in the now. -The world has seen massively more population growth than they modelled, but not the accompanying food shortages they predicted. I'd argue the shortages of the '80s and '90s are over, although local situations obviously have tragic effects (Syria, Venezuela). -Material goods production (plastics) is at an all time high. -Many more humans alive at lower poverty levels than ever before and ever imagined by the Club of Rome They got the depletion of fish stocks right though. Although arguably, that was the simplest prediction since the 'tragedy of the commons' is so profound in international fishery. The gloom of the club of Rome just didn't work out. I guess outside of way we are treating our environment, humanity has a lot to be proud of. (I feel the environment is going bonkers and we are a plastic-addicted throw away society.)
- tiatia 9y ago
  Hey Dude, keep bullshitting! "There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)" http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat... Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growth-at-our-doorstep-but-not-recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growt... Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-... Galactic-Scale Energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
- jk2323 9y ago
  Hey Dude, keep Bullshitting! "There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)" http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat... Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growth-at-our-doorstep-but-not-recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growt... Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-... Galactic-Scale Energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Thanks! And are the arguments put forward in these links considered at executive level? Seems to me - not at all because preset agendas dominate, drowning out the logic.
  - Symmetry 9y ago
    I read the first link you posted and it seemed, if anything, to support the OP's point. Perhaps you could express your objections in your own words?
DennisP 9y ago
I agree, and for climate economics especially it makes a lot more sense than equilibrium models. Something I found especially interesting in the LtG model is that the costs of dealing with environmental damage and extracting more scarce resources build up gradually over time, but the way it works out is that economic output keeps growing rapidly, until these costs become overwhelming and it all suddenly crashes down. Everything looks great until you're on the verge of catastrophe. But to this day, people look at our growing economy and think it refutes LtG, because they assume LtG predicts a gradual decline.
Certhas 9y ago
Research into this is still ongoing: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/projects/activities/copan/copan-introduction https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/projects/activities/copa...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tunesmith 9y ago
I found it fascinating, too... it send me on a hunt to try and better understand their World3 model. I bought Wolfram SystemModeler since one of their extensions has the model, and I also found some online resources that have modeled it through javascript too. One thing that was a little disheartening is that I found that one of the inputs to the model appeared to be highly determinant, and the initial values chosen seemed controversial. If I changed the initial value to something else that still seemed within a reasonable range, the model projections didn't seem so bad. I wish I could remember details, I've been searching my hard drive for my notes.
- tunesmith 9y ago
  I found it... if you go to bit-player.org/limits and increase the "output consumed" variable by a couple of percentage points, the outlook is massively improved. This implies that as business reinvest less, the outlook improves. So apparently if we want to avoid overshoot and collapse, we should be convincing profitable companies to increase their dividend payouts!

by spodek 9y ago

wjnc 9y ago

With all respect to the authors, the thinking at that point in time and the impact it made on the world and you: Much of their predictions haven't stood the test of time. -No exhaustible has been depleted yet and the price mechanism combined with technological progress seems pretty able to set incentives straight. Look at what the oil price bubble of the '00s did for electric cars and batteries in the now. -The world has seen massively more population growth than they modelled, but not the accompanying food shortages they predicted. I'd argue the shortages of the '80s and '90s are over, although local situations obviously have tragic effects (Syria, Venezuela). -Material goods production (plastics) is at an all time high. -Many more humans alive at lower poverty levels than ever before and ever imagined by the Club of Rome They got the depletion of fish stocks right though. Although arguably, that was the simplest prediction since the 'tragedy of the commons' is so profound in international fishery. The gloom of the club of Rome just didn't work out. I guess outside of way we are treating our environment, humanity has a lot to be proud of. (I feel the environment is going bonkers and we are a plastic-addicted throw away society.)

tiatia 9y ago
Hey Dude, keep bullshitting! "There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)" http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat... Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growth-at-our-doorstep-but-not-recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growt... Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-... Galactic-Scale Energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
jk2323 9y ago
Hey Dude, keep Bullshitting! "There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)" http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat... Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growth-at-our-doorstep-but-not-recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growt... Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-... Galactic-Scale Energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
- vixen99 9y ago
  Thanks! And are the arguments put forward in these links considered at executive level? Seems to me - not at all because preset agendas dominate, drowning out the logic.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  I read the first link you posted and it seemed, if anything, to support the OP's point. Perhaps you could express your objections in your own words?

DennisP 9y ago

I agree, and for climate economics especially it makes a lot more sense than equilibrium models. Something I found especially interesting in the LtG model is that the costs of dealing with environmental damage and extracting more scarce resources build up gradually over time, but the way it works out is that economic output keeps growing rapidly, until these costs become overwhelming and it all suddenly crashes down. Everything looks great until you're on the verge of catastrophe. But to this day, people look at our growing economy and think it refutes LtG, because they assume LtG predicts a gradual decline.

Certhas 9y ago

Research into this is still ongoing: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/projects/activities/copan/copan-introduction https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/projects/activities/copa...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tunesmith 9y ago

I found it fascinating, too... it send me on a hunt to try and better understand their World3 model. I bought Wolfram SystemModeler since one of their extensions has the model, and I also found some online resources that have modeled it through javascript too. One thing that was a little disheartening is that I found that one of the inputs to the model appeared to be highly determinant, and the initial values chosen seemed controversial. If I changed the initial value to something else that still seemed within a reasonable range, the model projections didn't seem so bad. I wish I could remember details, I've been searching my hard drive for my notes.

tunesmith 9y ago
I found it... if you go to bit-player.org/limits and increase the "output consumed" variable by a couple of percentage points, the outlook is massively improved. This implies that as business reinvest less, the outlook improves. So apparently if we want to avoid overshoot and collapse, we should be convincing profitable companies to increase their dividend payouts!