so, the empirical data indicates nothing but widespread progress, and the basic tenets of the old Club of Rome report -- that we were running out of a wide range of resources -- have been shown to be wrong.
But yet, a new forecast claims that things are turning around right about now, and that the future is very dark indeed. To quote W's quote of The Who: fool me twice -- can't get fooled again.
I am not sure where you get the idea from that we were making progress. Persistent pollution, industrial production and food production of the old Club of Rome forecasts fit the 'Standard Run' very well. But standard run is the scenario where we do not make any progress on reducing greenhouse gases. What the newer studies from 2008 and 2023 show is that the old Club of Rome forecasts were remarkably accurate so far.
So, reading between the lines it seems you may be reinforcing the old saying that the real purpose of economic and social forecasts is that we can prove them incorrect at some later time. Personally, I gave up trying to predict anything and do my best to react to the situation I find myself in. I think most of us will get to that with time. My hope - if most of us look after our own patch, and let others do the same, we'll all be ok.
The researchers you are quoting did not know anything about the possibility of atomic weapons. As the human species have had wars since it split from the apes and probably before then, and we continue to develop ever more destructive weapons, I think we shall destroy ourselves before we reach the end of the forecasted period (2100). Even the little war in Ukraine is touch and go.
Not yet. The last predicts the turn occurs this year, but the models cannot show the differences betwee nations.
It's likely many nations turnned towards decline already, while conversely energy inputs from solar & wind could push some nations like China into higher economic gains, maybe for decades.
It's also likely renewables delay the economic graph somewhat more than the recalibrations show, not sure how much global of course. Yet, if you live somewhere like Pakistan then you do not really care that China continues their economic growth.
Also, both China and Europe have no oil themselves. I'd thus expect oil ties their short-term economic fortunes closer to the world economic graph. If they can agressively cut oil consumption then their populations should enjoy more benefit from their internal economic production, meaning they delay their own decline. China has more political power to impose oil import tariffs, reduce car sizes, etc than Europe.
I’m not sure if it’s my own stupidity but I’m really not sure what’s going on in the 2023 recalibration’s charts. Or the study as a whole (I have not read it, only your post). Seems most of them predict things suddenly and drastically changing very shortly after 2023, I guess in order to fit with the constraints of the original model? But I don’t understand why one would believe that means we’re fucked, rather than that the model is clearly wrong?
It seems quite obvious to me that we will continue being able to produce more stuff in the future. Industrial automation continues to increase, raising productivity, and AI is beginning to do the same for white collar jobs (I realise that AI will have negative consequences too, but I think it’s hard to deny that it will raise productivity).
so, the empirical data indicates nothing but widespread progress, and the basic tenets of the old Club of Rome report -- that we were running out of a wide range of resources -- have been shown to be wrong.
But yet, a new forecast claims that things are turning around right about now, and that the future is very dark indeed. To quote W's quote of The Who: fool me twice -- can't get fooled again.
I am not sure where you get the idea from that we were making progress. Persistent pollution, industrial production and food production of the old Club of Rome forecasts fit the 'Standard Run' very well. But standard run is the scenario where we do not make any progress on reducing greenhouse gases. What the newer studies from 2008 and 2023 show is that the old Club of Rome forecasts were remarkably accurate so far.
So, reading between the lines it seems you may be reinforcing the old saying that the real purpose of economic and social forecasts is that we can prove them incorrect at some later time. Personally, I gave up trying to predict anything and do my best to react to the situation I find myself in. I think most of us will get to that with time. My hope - if most of us look after our own patch, and let others do the same, we'll all be ok.
The researchers you are quoting did not know anything about the possibility of atomic weapons. As the human species have had wars since it split from the apes and probably before then, and we continue to develop ever more destructive weapons, I think we shall destroy ourselves before we reach the end of the forecasted period (2100). Even the little war in Ukraine is touch and go.
Now somebody has a great Monday... 🤣
gonna throw my book at you, feel perfectly free to ignore like everyone else
https://www.amazon.com/CIVILIZATION-CANNOT-PERFECTED-Marshall-Lentini/dp/B0CSWRLRND
Looks interesting. Thanks for the rec.
are we collapsing right now according to worldometer the human population is stil growing and if so do you expect a loy of dying people ?
Not yet. The last predicts the turn occurs this year, but the models cannot show the differences betwee nations.
It's likely many nations turnned towards decline already, while conversely energy inputs from solar & wind could push some nations like China into higher economic gains, maybe for decades.
It's also likely renewables delay the economic graph somewhat more than the recalibrations show, not sure how much global of course. Yet, if you live somewhere like Pakistan then you do not really care that China continues their economic growth.
Also, both China and Europe have no oil themselves. I'd thus expect oil ties their short-term economic fortunes closer to the world economic graph. If they can agressively cut oil consumption then their populations should enjoy more benefit from their internal economic production, meaning they delay their own decline. China has more political power to impose oil import tariffs, reduce car sizes, etc than Europe.
I’m not sure if it’s my own stupidity but I’m really not sure what’s going on in the 2023 recalibration’s charts. Or the study as a whole (I have not read it, only your post). Seems most of them predict things suddenly and drastically changing very shortly after 2023, I guess in order to fit with the constraints of the original model? But I don’t understand why one would believe that means we’re fucked, rather than that the model is clearly wrong?
It seems quite obvious to me that we will continue being able to produce more stuff in the future. Industrial automation continues to increase, raising productivity, and AI is beginning to do the same for white collar jobs (I realise that AI will have negative consequences too, but I think it’s hard to deny that it will raise productivity).