It's unfortunate this topic is usually dominated by crackpots[1]. There is some serious research out there that is quite troubling though - this research paper

It's unfortunate this topic is usually dominated by crackpots[1]. There is some serious research out there that is quite troubling though - this research paper is an academic review of limits to growth done in 2014, published by a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M... "Based simply on the comparison of observed data and the LTG (limits to growth) scenarios presented above, and given the significantly better alignment with the BAU (business as-usual) scenario than the other two scenarios, it would appear that the global economy and population is on the cusp of collapse. This contrasts with other forecasts for the global future (eg. Raskin et al., 2010, Randers, 2012), which indicate a longer or indeterminate period before global collapse; Randers for example forecasts collapse after 2050, largely based around climate change impacts, with features akin to the LTG comprehensive technol- ogy scenario." Now, there probably arent a lot of collapse sceptics who would do this research in the first place, so in all likelyhood it contains some bias. Then again society seems to have a way of ignoring scientists who report back with too much bad news. I have 2 further pieces of trivial data to add to this post, 1) I have a general interest in end-of-the-world type literature, probably because my parents were millenium bug preppers (I spent all my high school years eating stored rice hahaha) - and my opinion is that collapse isn't that likely overall. Why/why not is a long debate but I think we're overall probably safe. I think we have some very serious problems that should not be ignored, but they can all be dealt with if push comes to shove, and many are being handled though probably not fast enough. I'm an engineer though so my internal bias probably leans towards coming up with solutions. 2) I recently caught up with an old colleague, another software engineer, and this topic came up. It made me wonder if there might be some internal bias in the way we think that we both maintained these ideas even though objectively we are both doing pretty well at life. We really need more quality research conducted, unfortunately its hard to find. [1] Shoutout to whoever else from here is on /r/collapse - it's not me cross-posting all the "AI will kill us all but also take all the grocery bagging jobs" articles from HN. If you're not a reader I'll summarise, its 80% paranoid crazies with 20% interesting doomsday porn. Not a place of serioua discussion. The author of this piece posted there and is basically doing an AMA.