[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 134 KB, 607x553, SOON.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10389027 No.10389027 [Reply] [Original]

What's the over-under on Limits to Growth being correct?

>> No.10389183

The general idea is largely correct, the exact timeframe given is probably complete bullshit.

>> No.10389189

IIRC the idea behind it is just a boom and bust cycle, along with finite resource depletion. At that level it is probably a reasonable model, but there are some issues:
*The parameter settings are probably way off, and those dynamics are generated very much through the initial conditions
*Effect of pollution and resource depletion are probably overstated
*The whole thing was used as a propaganda piece by David Rockefeller via the Club of Rome to scare people into fighting an invisible enemy: Mother nature

>> No.10390341

>>10389027
yeah, this is pretty much horseshit. pretty much the only "resource" that anyone is actually worried we are running out of is fossil fuels and people have been freaking out that it's happen "in the next twenty years!" since like the 70s.

>> No.10390414

>>10389183
Seems somewhat reasonable considering we're seeing the rapid collapse of insect, fish, bird and mammal populations.

>> No.10390745

>>10389027
How are births going up and population going down?
That model is fucked.

>> No.10390749

>>10390745
>t. brainlet

>> No.10390750

>>10390341
Well, of course people freaked out, you just used technology as a band-aid to delay the problem, ever heard of peak oil?

>> No.10390753

>>10390749
Oh wait. So if the death rate goes up the people will start having kids to compensate as the world gets wrecked by scarcity and lack of resources?
I kind of doubt it since protection exists. Once a population finds out how to use birth control they don't care about having kids.

>> No.10390754

>>10390745
Population peaks and starts going down at the point where deaths cross above births.

>> No.10390755

>>10390745
Death going up maybe?

>> No.10390766

>>10390754
Why would births go up though?

>> No.10390796

>>10390766
If you look at the combination of factors through the lens of countries that currently exist then it becomes more obvious. Third world countries today have low food, services and industrial output per capita. And they also have high birth and death rates. The specific reasons why birth rates increase in third world countries include: lack of family planning and education (ie low services per capita), high infant mortality (low services per capita, high death rate) and the fact that third world people are increasingly rural and rely on children to work on their farms and look after their parents in old age (low industrial output, low services per capita). This is not an exhaustive list, but there's a couple for you

>> No.10390799

>>10389027
This is some Mayan apocalypse level bullshit.

>> No.10390816

>>10389027
In case anyone wants to read the article this is from:
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/2019-world-economy-is-reaching-growth-limits-expect-low-oil-prices-financial-turbulence-our-finite-world/

>> No.10390817

>>10390796
>The specific reasons why birth rates increase in third world countries include: lack of family planning and education (ie low services per capita), high infant mortality (low services per capita, high death rate)
These things would probably go away by 2100 or maybe even 2080. Due to development. Once development has happened would things really return to his they were before though?

>> No.10390825

>>10390796
Problem with this is that family planning and contraception aren't going away and in a situation where the food supply stats collapsing, people aren't just going to abandon birth control and have more babies which they can't feed. If anything, the population collapse would be even faster.

>> No.10390830

>>10390817
>Due to development.
Not if the development is causing the system to collapse (which it is). Even if you're a climate change "skeptic," there's still the fact that insect populations are collapsing rapidly. So are fish, birds and mammals.
Requiring unlimited growth with limited resources is inherently going to end badly.

>> No.10390840

>>10390817
>>10390825
Both fair points.
However I think that:
>third world people are increasingly rural and rely on children to work on their farms and look after their parents in old age
Would still very much be valid following a massive economic collapse due to resource shortages. When people don't have jobs and can't afford food, they will be forced to become increasingly rural and rely on their family (ie children as an insurance policy) to provide services like healthcare and welfare that the government can no longer provide.

>> No.10390841

>>10390816
>>10389027
I was going to say, it's quite clearly something someone's reused from the early 00's, 2019 should be almost in the middle between 2000 and 2050. Very lazy.

>The 2019 line is drawn based on where the world economy seems to be now, rather than on precisely where the base model would put the year 2019.
That just means it's bollocks.

>> No.10390842

>>10390830
I'm willing to bet that the system can handle it till 2100 or so. We have alot of time.

>> No.10390851

>>10390840
Are there signs that people return to that lifestyle after development?
Third world countries are actually dropping agriculture for industry. By the time the system collapses they'll probably be industriel societies.
Are there signs in Europe of people returning to a rural lifestyle? Of course I don't think so because there's no scarcity yet.

>> No.10390869

>>10390841
Actually the graph is from research in a book called Limits to Growth by Meadows et al which was published in 1972. Not sure where exactly the 2019 line came from, but I'd say somebody collated world data and approximated it's position. It's current applicability is contentious, but the graph does fit the downfall of previous civilizations, although typically these were closed economic and resource systems unlike what we have now. I remember in uni we studied how it accurately described the downfall of the people who lived on Easter Island for example.

>> No.10390872

Reminder that peak oil is demand side and not supply side. We will not run out of oil, we will simply stop using it.

>> No.10390876

>>10390869
What is the models accuracy level?

>> No.10390900

>>10390876
50-50 Either it is accurate or it isn't.

>> No.10390902

>>10390851
There are signs in previous civilizations that this happens, but not currently, because as you say, we haven't experienced scarcity yet. As I mentioned in the other post, Easter Island is a great example. But there are also other historical examples from the middle East and Africa in ~250 AD, around the time massive droughts and desertification struck the area causing resource scarcity. These examples are less accurate with this model than the Easter island example as they're not closed systems. Instead of just staying put and dying, people were able to immigrate elsewhere. Which interestingly is a contributing factor of why the Roman Empire fell.

>>10390876
There is no answer to that because it's an approximation and broad description of factors, not a fine tuned model.

>> No.10390914

For anybody interested you can download the Limits to Growth book for free here: https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-limits-to-growth/
Heads up, it's a 40 mb pdf.
It's an interesting read imho, with decent first principles for sustainability

>> No.10390941

>>10390840
That would be true under a slower collapse scenario. But in this, the whole thing falls apart in a couple of decade. I don't really think that's enough for people to revert and adjust to a large family strategy. By the you really feel the changes, additional children will just be more mouths to feed/take care of, rather than the helping hands you should have gotten started on 14 years earlier.

>> No.10390946

>>10390869
>although typically these were closed economic and resource systems
This is pretty much applicable to the world as a whole isn't it?

>> No.10390952

>>10390902
>we haven't experienced scarcity yet
Aren't projections saying that agricultural yields are set to decrease per acre of land due to climate change and related issues?

>> No.10390977

>>10390941
Yeah practically you're right, planning for a family and resource depletion should start earlier. But humans aren't rational they're reactionary, tragedy of the commons etc. A massive economic collapse could be sudden though so perhaps it's not too unrealistic. According to the model births only increase once services per capita drop sharply and it only takes 9 months for a birth to be realised. I do think though that the steepness of the birth curve after collapse is probably a bit high as prior education, contraception etc will continue as mentioned

>> No.10391026

>>10390946
Yeah it was designed to be representative of the world as a whole, but it's hard to determine it's applicability worldwide given that resource scarcity and population collapse hasn't been realised yet. Which is why past civilizations are a better case study

>>10390952
Yes, but these scarcities haven't been realised yet

>> No.10391038

>>10390977
Maybe, but I'd guess that the strategy of having lots of children might be something that results from the environment you grew up in. It would be your kids, the ones that grew up in a low resource, high mortality environment who would go for the large families. Of course this just speculative.

>> No.10391042

>>10390750
He is taking about peak oil. Pak oil is like climate change, predicted 20 year doom shit that keeps getting pushed back. These predictions are about as credible as the Mayan calendar at this point. That being said, of course fossil fuels will eventually run out.

>> No.10391046

>>10391026
>Which is why past civilizations are a better case study
I guess the question is: is there anything fundamentally different about today's civilization which would break past patterns?
On one hand, we have instant communication, the ability to quickly gather data and come up with solutions in ways that have never been possible before.
On the other hand, we're MUCH more reliable on the system and much more vulnerable to systemic disruption. Just think of what would happen if food supplies collapsed and grocery store shelfs were empty. What percentage of people are even capable of growing/catching a portion of their food compared to past times? Grocery stores are stocked on a "just in time" basis.

>> No.10391049

>>10390825
Condoms are a luxury resource. A society that can't feed itself doesn't waste time on production of rubbers.

>> No.10391060

>>10391038
>I'd guess that the strategy of having lots of children might be something that results from the environment you grew up in
Yeah I'd agree. I was just having a read of the book the graph is from and it actually stipulates that the post downfall birth rate is pretty speculative based on past observations:
>We do not mean to imply by this link that rising income is the only determinant of desired family size, or even that it is a direct determinant. In fact we include a delay between industrial output per capita and desired family size to indicate that this relationship requires a social adjustment, which may take a generation or two to complete. Again, this relationship may be altered by future policies or social changes. As it stands it simply reflects the historical behavior of human society. Wherever economic development has taken place, birth rates have fallen. Where industrialization has not occurred, birth rates have remained
high.

>> No.10391062

>>10389027
I believe that instead of global collapse we will curb our intake. However, it takes great scarcity for one to understand the value in consuming less.

It seems that globally we all want to pretend we have more than we do. Individually, familialy, culturally, communally... Is it a matter of shame? Mirroring others? Status? Or do we simply have a hard time curbing our cravings?

If we pretend we have everything available to us, that the entire world is our dominion -- nay the entire universe -- will we not eat up our insides in hopes that whatever is outside of us -- outside of ourselves, our homes, our state, our state of mind, our borders, our planet -- will save us?

I choose to believe in humanity finding solutions to the problems we face in the future. In the present. I can find solutions in my life. We can find solutions in ours. You can too.

I believe in us.

>> No.10391092

>>10391046
>I guess the question is: is there anything fundamentally different about today's civilization which would break past patterns?
In addition to what you've said, I think our biggest benefit now is our understanding of these systems which give us the potential to be proactive rather than reactive. However our greatest downfall is still the same as past civilizations, in that decision makers, people in power and people in general are not rational and will tend to act only in short term self interest. As described by the tragedy of the commons scenario in game theory. Efficient long term planning and forecasting is now very possible but remains a very unrealistic thing to implement if it's going to cost somebody a $ today.

>Inb4 I get called a socialist
I'm honestly a capitalist, but I think better accounting of currently uncosted externalities would lead to much more efficient systems in the longer term

>> No.10391597

>>10391092
I think we can paint a pretty pessimistic picture of our ability to be proactive when we look at various environmental issues. We've had some significant successes, such as the banning of ozone destroying chemicals, but on the whole, there simply hasn't been the political will to enact the kinds of changes required to stop climate change, soil degradation and the collapse of insect, fish, bird and mammal populations that we're currently seeing. Mainly because it's too hard and very profitable for politically powerful entities that we don't enact significant changes.
Even now, when estimates of insect die-offs are roughly 2.5% per year (we've already lost about 70% of biomass), very few people are even aware of the issue, beyond having some vague notion from some 4 minute piece they might have caught on the news at some point. This is unambiguously an existential threat to our global civilization of billions, but we're more concerned about comparatively banal social issues, like if misgendering a trans person should be a god damn crime (recent story in the UK of someone getting arrested over it). Society isn't paying attention and we're collectively losing our minds as we accelerate toward a cliff.
Is this hyperbolic? I'm honestly not sure, but I'm finding it this conclusion increasingly difficult to escape.

>> No.10392494

>>10390869
>Not sure where exactly the 2019 line came from, but I'd say somebody collated world data and approximated it's position
Yes I'm sure the author did that by using the "Put the current year just before the disaster" method of approximation.

>>10391042
>He is taking about peak oil. Pak oil is like climate change, predicted 20 year doom shit that keeps getting pushed back. These predictions are about as credible as the Mayan calendar at this point. That being said, of course fossil fuels will eventually run out.
Peak oil describes a real and inevitable process, but the additional assumptions that get stuck on to build a "model" like in the OP get it further and further from reality and real predictive strength. The main issue is that the model seems to assume a Malthusian disaster is bound to happen and is it's main reason for being a pos. Other common assumptions are around economic ideas and models like the Coase Theorem and sometimes schools like neo-liberalism or keynesianism or whatever. Typically there is a lot of talk about low price oil and low transaction cost to ensure an open cross border economy.

We're already seeing issues with this because of higher transaction cost, especially in ocean shipping. It's not as much of an issue because it isn't a sharp change, people react to the changing costs, ocean shipping already had a lot of issues because of lead times and being environmentally unfriendly so there are already alternatives anyway.

The one thing I take away from peak oil is that you can have a lot of a resource left, but not be able to increase production or even extract it. That's what it really means, and that causes issues with predictions and what have you for sure, but adding in all that other stuff...

>> No.10393176

>>10392494
>Yes I'm sure the author did that by using the "Put the current year just before the disaster" method of approximation.
No. The graph was made in 1972 and the 2019 line was drawn in place on the original graph.

Also the graph is not based on Malthusian theory, in the Limits of Growth they actually directly argue against its simplicity. The graph is not really based on any one economic theorem, but on a combination of economic, political, natural, and social factors. Unlike the fear mongering picture that a graph like this portrays, they're very open about the limitations and uncertainties (like timelines) that are inherent in modelling an entire world system. But I think their ultimate conclusions that we must try to move towards global population, pollution, resource use etc equilibriums instead of infinite growth is still very valid. You should have a read of it :)