Good questions. The ideas of "limits to growth" (small l) are fascinating and important. And the initial report and book "Limits to growth" should of course not

Good questions. The ideas of "limits to growth" (small l) are fascinating and important. And the initial report and book "Limits to growth" should of course not be the end of the discussion (and it's not). Even if (as is likely - it seems to me - just because it's too easy to get this wrong) that research was completely wrong, it's still an interesting research direction. In the case of Peak Oil, the root idea is obviously correct: "finite reservoir means finite oil, means peaky exploitation curve - nothing earth-shattering there". But "peak oil" - the meme - completely mis-estimates where we were on the curve of how large the reservoir is. That the next oil is technically more difficult to reach than the previous oil is not even true (see fracking - once understood, fracking was not exactly difficult.) There are more aspects like that: GDP: GDP is itself an evolving measure, and not necessarily the right measure. Population: population trends have changed at dramatic rates. Not necessarily a great thing, but it seems to me more dramatic changes than anyone expected. When mankind wants to change population trends, it can. Solar, wind, batteries: I personally feel that lots of money was put into solar too early - before the engineering was really there - wastefully then. But there is no avoiding the dramatic change in the energy landscape in a ridiculously short period. Same here then: when mankind wants to change its energy mix, it can. without shutting down, it goes without saying. Population again: It used to be that growth of a country was equated to population growth (bounded by population growth), plus a little productivity. Globalisation threw a wrench in there. And current developments (ex-hype AI) may be about the entire relevance of population (with of course lots of space to agree or disagree - that's not the point, the point is that the question is raised.) And all these changes were not exactly happening in a rational manner. Lots of random ideas get thrown at the wall, by one government or another, at taxpayer expense (the one lasting aspect), and the next ones by the next shift. And yet, dramatic change is achieved. It would be nice if it was more rational.