3 ms·

Well hang on a second. You show a graph and claim that "the actual development is pretty close to a scenario predicting a collapse mid century". But the model

Well hang on a second. You show a graph and claim that "the actual development is pretty close to a scenario predicting a collapse mid century". But the model to date (1900-2000) shows steadily increasing population, food production, pollution, etc. Unsurprisingly, the 25 years of reality on the graph (1975-2000) following the date of the model shows steadily increasing population, food production, etc. The model then predicts a sudden shift in 2025 without any inherent explanation. There's a vaguely-defined downward-sloping "resources" line on the graph that seems to drive the sudden shift, but there's no actual data given for the 1975-2000 period to know if actual "resources" are tracking the model. I'd guess not --- as much as the Bakken shale oil formation may have some serious environmental impacts, it (and many other discoveries) have dramatically increased energy resources. Food production doesn't show any signs of immediate collapse. Renewable energy is still expensive, but it's getting better faster than many expected. Etc. So, 25 years of steadily increasing population does not validate this model in any meaningful way. The model depends on a sudden shift in ~2025 that no empirical evidence supports. It might still happen -- I can't rule it out -- but the data given hardly confirms this model.

gamerdonkey 11y ago
Not to say that this is concrete evidence or to lend any credence to The Limits of Growth predictions, but there are at least some concerns about overfishing the oceans and a possible collapse there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/just-how-badly-are-we-overfishing-the-ocean/0/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/j...
nostromo 11y ago
There's no denying that civilization today is unsustainable. I doubt any of these models will be accurate. But do they need to be? Either our technology will make our current lifestyles sustainable, or reality will catch up with us and cause much distress.
- schizoidboy 11y ago
  How do you define sustainability? Various metrics suggest human society has a likely chance of sustaining its most important trajectories: http://radicaloptimism.org/wiki/Human_Society http://radicaloptimism.org/wiki/Human_Society See also The Rational Optimist by Ridley, The Improving State of the World by Goklany, etc.
- api 11y ago
  Our unsustainability is exponential, and our innovation is exponential. We have two exponential curves. If the depletion/unsustainability curve wins, we all die horribly in something resembling a cross between Mad Max, ISIS in Iraq, and Day of the Dead. If the innovation curve wins, we might reach 'escape velocity' and achieve some kind of post-scarcity society. This is the road we are on: hideous mass death or utopia. I don't see a third possible outcome. Exponential stuff is like that-- the only potential outcomes are extreme. Makes me wonder if the ancient religious visions -- e.g. Revelations -- about a 'heaven or hell' outcome aren't prescient bits of intuition about the fundamentally binary nature of human destiny. One way of thinking of it is that we're a cosmic civilization in its early startup phase... meaning that success or failure are the only two possible outcomes.
- melling 11y ago
  So, I guess you didn't read the article? If you're going to contradict the article maybe you should give a few reasons. After all the guy from Stanford was wrong.
api 11y ago
"without any inherent explanation." This is what complex systems do. Simple linear causal reasoning just breaks down... there are too many feedback loops, chaotic functions, etc. Things will look completely normal and then wham, the system will suddenly and without apparent warning undergo a radical shift. Look at how economic bubbles pop. You'll have a roaring, humming economy collapse within hours or days and nobody knows why. The postmortem generally takes years. Sometimes the reasons seem 'obvious' but that is only in hindsight. Nobody ever succeeds in calling the top of a bubble -- despite the huge financial reward of doing so -- except by sheer luck. LTG was an attempt to apply complex systems modeling at the global scale to answer questions about the long term viability of our current civilization. So far it seems to be tracking reality in some ways, but as you correctly state we do not know whether this is spurious correlation or actual evidence for the validity of the model. We also know -- see the work of folks like Ilya Prigogine -- that it is actually impossible to predict the future of systems like this with certainty. There are strict limits on prediction in complex systems. So we don't know. LTG is scary, but for all we know it won't come to pass. But we'll know soon. We get to find out in the next 25 years if all the work we've done to build a better future over the past 500 years is a total mirage and all our children are all doomed to starvation, warfare, and misery. Fun times.
schiffern 11y ago
>The model then predicts a sudden shift in 2025 without any inherent explanation. There's a vaguely-defined downward-sloping "resources" line on the graph that seems to drive the sudden shift What a fantastic question! You're thinking in the right direction. The explanation involves systems theory, so I'll let an expert explain. https://youtu.be/HMmChiLZZHg?t=420 https://youtu.be/HMmChiLZZHg?t=420 1h30m, but it's the best explanation of Limits to Growth out there.

gamerdonkey 11y ago

Not to say that this is concrete evidence or to lend any credence to The Limits of Growth predictions, but there are at least some concerns about overfishing the oceans and a possible collapse there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/just-how-badly-are-we-overfishing-the-ocean/0/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/j...

nostromo 11y ago

There's no denying that civilization today is unsustainable. I doubt any of these models will be accurate. But do they need to be? Either our technology will make our current lifestyles sustainable, or reality will catch up with us and cause much distress.

schizoidboy 11y ago
How do you define sustainability? Various metrics suggest human society has a likely chance of sustaining its most important trajectories: http://radicaloptimism.org/wiki/Human_Society http://radicaloptimism.org/wiki/Human_Society See also The Rational Optimist by Ridley, The Improving State of the World by Goklany, etc.
api 11y ago
Our unsustainability is exponential, and our innovation is exponential. We have two exponential curves. If the depletion/unsustainability curve wins, we all die horribly in something resembling a cross between Mad Max, ISIS in Iraq, and Day of the Dead. If the innovation curve wins, we might reach 'escape velocity' and achieve some kind of post-scarcity society. This is the road we are on: hideous mass death or utopia. I don't see a third possible outcome. Exponential stuff is like that-- the only potential outcomes are extreme. Makes me wonder if the ancient religious visions -- e.g. Revelations -- about a 'heaven or hell' outcome aren't prescient bits of intuition about the fundamentally binary nature of human destiny. One way of thinking of it is that we're a cosmic civilization in its early startup phase... meaning that success or failure are the only two possible outcomes.
melling 11y ago
So, I guess you didn't read the article? If you're going to contradict the article maybe you should give a few reasons. After all the guy from Stanford was wrong.

api 11y ago

"without any inherent explanation." This is what complex systems do. Simple linear causal reasoning just breaks down... there are too many feedback loops, chaotic functions, etc. Things will look completely normal and then wham, the system will suddenly and without apparent warning undergo a radical shift. Look at how economic bubbles pop. You'll have a roaring, humming economy collapse within hours or days and nobody knows why. The postmortem generally takes years. Sometimes the reasons seem 'obvious' but that is only in hindsight. Nobody ever succeeds in calling the top of a bubble -- despite the huge financial reward of doing so -- except by sheer luck. LTG was an attempt to apply complex systems modeling at the global scale to answer questions about the long term viability of our current civilization. So far it seems to be tracking reality in some ways, but as you correctly state we do not know whether this is spurious correlation or actual evidence for the validity of the model. We also know -- see the work of folks like Ilya Prigogine -- that it is actually impossible to predict the future of systems like this with certainty. There are strict limits on prediction in complex systems. So we don't know. LTG is scary, but for all we know it won't come to pass. But we'll know soon. We get to find out in the next 25 years if all the work we've done to build a better future over the past 500 years is a total mirage and all our children are all doomed to starvation, warfare, and misery. Fun times.

schiffern 11y ago

>The model then predicts a sudden shift in 2025 without any inherent explanation. There's a vaguely-defined downward-sloping "resources" line on the graph that seems to drive the sudden shift What a fantastic question! You're thinking in the right direction. The explanation involves systems theory, so I'll let an expert explain. https://youtu.be/HMmChiLZZHg?t=420 https://youtu.be/HMmChiLZZHg?t=420 1h30m, but it's the best explanation of Limits to Growth out there.