Anyone who does serious research in STEM knows that articles from Scientific Reports [1] are to be taken with a pinch (or even a lump) of salt. And yet, here w

Anyone who does serious research in STEM knows that articles from Scientific Reports [1] are to be taken with a pinch (or even a lump) of salt. And yet, here we have a so-called environmental-science reporter using such an article to make doomsday predictions: > People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules. This has as much scientific content as Ian Malcolm's prediction (using "chaos" theory) about the collapse of Jurassic Park. So much nonsense has been written about the complexity of natural systems and the collapse of the environment that it's very hard to take any article that starts with such claims seriously. And saying things like "it follows certain mathematical rules" as if that gives your claims some sort of credibility is just one of the many examples of the misuse of mathematics [2] in the "softer" sciences. The real reason for the majority of environmental problems is overpopulation, not capitalism. Capitalism and globalization has had an important role in bringing people out of poverty, especially in large countries like India and China. If you think this is not true, look at the poverty levels of India before economic liberalization. Less poverty means more education and better family management. Much of this is obvious to anyone who has had an objective look at capitalism, but not to the Guardianistas who come up with such low-effort pseudo-scientific tripe. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports [2]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.705.9946&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.70...