3 ms·

Nor can technology continue to match population growth / Part of the Zeitgeist. The first rumblings of limits were starting to echo about in the 1960s, though t

Nor can technology continue to match population growth / Part of the Zeitgeist. The first rumblings of limits were starting to echo about in the 1960s, though the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth wasn't published until 1972. We've gone way past the Club Of Rome's theoretical limits. Food supply isn't so much a matter of production or distribution anymore, but a matter of politics. I'd say technology is keeping up well with population; a quintessential example being third-world tribesmen owning cell phones. Undoubtedly, the world of A.D. 2014 will have agreed on the [lowering the birth rate]. / Sadly, not. Actually the world birth rate is tapering off, to the point that some countries face a population implosion. Japan is in dire risk of actually vanishing from sub-sustainable replacement rates. Russia is promoting reproduction as a national policy goal. It's not a matter of agreement on a goal, it's the human nature of highly developed societies toward insufficient procreation (luxurious living with easy contraception makes the inconveniences of parenthood undesirable and avoidable).

dredmorbius 13y ago
We've gone way past the Club Of Rome's theoretical limits. First: LTG wasn't a forecast, it used models to explore "the predicament of mankind". Modeling was used to project trends forward and to give a better understanding of how factors interrelated. Second: LTG didn't include a single projection, but seven, including doubling natural resources, unlimited resources, unlimited + pollution controls, unlimited + increased ag productivity, unlimited + pollution controls + perfect birth control, unlimited + pollution controls + ag productivity + perfect birth control, and a "standard run". You can read/download the original online now: http://www.donellameadows.org/the-limits-to-growth-now-available-to-read-online/ http://www.donellameadows.org/the-limits-to-growth-now-avail... And third: the standard run has proven very accurate in projecting trends forward, more so than the alternatives in which various constraints were lifted, as multiple authors have noted: A COMPARISON OF THE LIMITS TO GROWTH WITH THIRTY YEARS OF REALITY Graham Turner http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf As shown, the observed historical data for 19702000 most closely matches the simulated results of the LtG "standard run" scenario for almost all the outputs reported; this scenario results in global collapse before the middle of this century. The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time. Given the complexity of numerous feedbacks between sectors incorporated in the LtG World3 model, it is instructive that the historical data compares so favorably with the model output. If you prefer slides: http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/downloads/2011/Biophysical%20Limits/G%20Turner%20-%20BiophysLimits_Jun2011_v2.pdf http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/downloads/2011/Biophysical... Also: Growing within Limits Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500201001.pdf http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500201001.pdf The Limits to Growth publications received praise, but they have also been criticised, among other things with respect to representation of technology, the aggregated representation of resources and environmental factors, and the misinterpretation of estimated reserves. In that context, it is often claimed that history has proved those projections to be incorrect, which is specifically based on the popular believe that Limits to Growth predicted resource depletion and associated economic collapse by the end of the 20th century (Hall and Day, 2009). In reality, the `standard' scenario (without policy changes) in the publication showed global collapse in the middle of the 21st century. Almost four decades since the publication of Limits to Growth in 1972, Turner (2008) compared the historic trends with the original projections. This comparison showed the `standard' scenario to be very close to the actual trends for many variables, such as total population levels, birth and death rates, industrial output, and per-capita food consumption. For more complicated indices, such as resource depletion and persistent pollution, the results were more difficult to check. Using data on energy resources and CO2 concentration for comparison, Turner concluded that, also for these variables, the Limits to Growth projections reflected past trends reasonable well. For instance, the report indicated an increase in global CO2 concentrations, from 320 ppm in 1970 to 380 ppm in 2000; in reality the concentration in 2000 was 369 ppm. In contrast, alternative scenarios presented in Limits to Growth showed emission projections that lie below the actually observed trend. Birth Rate When major political parties and a major world religion continue to oppose family planning and birth control, with a population already well over carrying capacity, the battle cannot be said to be won. The "demographic transition" has to date relied on standards of living, in absolute terms, which are not sustainable (or even attainable) on a global basis. It's a very short-term phenomenon in the history of humanity. It's been a huge benefit, but I'm very leery of depending upon it.

dredmorbius 13y ago

We've gone way past the Club Of Rome's theoretical limits. First: LTG wasn't a forecast, it used models to explore "the predicament of mankind". Modeling was used to project trends forward and to give a better understanding of how factors interrelated. Second: LTG didn't include a single projection, but seven, including doubling natural resources, unlimited resources, unlimited + pollution controls, unlimited + increased ag productivity, unlimited + pollution controls + perfect birth control, unlimited + pollution controls + ag productivity + perfect birth control, and a "standard run". You can read/download the original online now: http://www.donellameadows.org/the-limits-to-growth-now-available-to-read-online/ http://www.donellameadows.org/the-limits-to-growth-now-avail... And third: the standard run has proven very accurate in projecting trends forward, more so than the alternatives in which various constraints were lifted, as multiple authors have noted: A COMPARISON OF THE LIMITS TO GROWTH WITH THIRTY YEARS OF REALITY Graham Turner http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf As shown, the observed historical data for 19702000 most closely matches the simulated results of the LtG "standard run" scenario for almost all the outputs reported; this scenario results in global collapse before the middle of this century. The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time. Given the complexity of numerous feedbacks between sectors incorporated in the LtG World3 model, it is instructive that the historical data compares so favorably with the model output. If you prefer slides: http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/downloads/2011/Biophysical%20Limits/G%20Turner%20-%20BiophysLimits_Jun2011_v2.pdf http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/downloads/2011/Biophysical... Also: Growing within Limits Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500201001.pdf http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500201001.pdf The Limits to Growth publications received praise, but they have also been criticised, among other things with respect to representation of technology, the aggregated representation of resources and environmental factors, and the misinterpretation of estimated reserves. In that context, it is often claimed that history has proved those projections to be incorrect, which is specifically based on the popular believe that Limits to Growth predicted resource depletion and associated economic collapse by the end of the 20th century (Hall and Day, 2009). In reality, the `standard' scenario (without policy changes) in the publication showed global collapse in the middle of the 21st century. Almost four decades since the publication of Limits to Growth in 1972, Turner (2008) compared the historic trends with the original projections. This comparison showed the `standard' scenario to be very close to the actual trends for many variables, such as total population levels, birth and death rates, industrial output, and per-capita food consumption. For more complicated indices, such as resource depletion and persistent pollution, the results were more difficult to check. Using data on energy resources and CO2 concentration for comparison, Turner concluded that, also for these variables, the Limits to Growth projections reflected past trends reasonable well. For instance, the report indicated an increase in global CO2 concentrations, from 320 ppm in 1970 to 380 ppm in 2000; in reality the concentration in 2000 was 369 ppm. In contrast, alternative scenarios presented in Limits to Growth showed emission projections that lie below the actually observed trend. Birth Rate When major political parties and a major world religion continue to oppose family planning and birth control, with a population already well over carrying capacity, the battle cannot be said to be won. The "demographic transition" has to date relied on standards of living, in absolute terms, which are not sustainable (or even attainable) on a global basis. It's a very short-term phenomenon in the history of humanity. It's been a huge benefit, but I'm very leery of depending upon it.