> This cat is catching downvotes but that Club of Rome thing and (Limits of Growth, which is a paper this group published) is interesting economic stuff I'm us

> This cat is catching downvotes but that Club of Rome thing and (Limits of Growth, which is a paper this group published) is interesting economic stuff I'm used to downvotes here since facts are not popular (bitcoin ...) The "infinite growth in a finite world" is a traditional line from the school of thought this Club of Rome started. However, as you correctly found out in the wikipedia article, it's dubious at best "the forecasts of the world's future are very sensitive to a few unduly pessimistic key assumptions. The Sussex scientists also claim that the Meadows et al. methods, data, and predictions are faulty, that their world models (and their Malthusian bias) do not accurately reflect reality" I gave a very simple example (combinatorial explosion) that shows how the whole thing is wrong, and why (here, attacking a key assumption) - but there are many many more holes. It's not really redeemable, after having been proved wrong more than wrong - just like Malthusianism actually. > It's worth two minutes of reading Indeed, in just 2 minutes you can notice even more holes - I just pointed to the most glaring one for people used to algorithm. Hopefully you will not fall prey to ideological arguments based on a castle of cards with such a flimsy base