HN Gopher Feed (2017-12-14) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]
48 points by lainon
http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Gro...ts-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf
___________________________________________________________________
spodek - 2 hours ago
I remember the first time reading this book, or rather the 30 year
update -- https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-
Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19... -- thinking, "this is the approach to
take to understand how the economy, ecology, pollution, and so on
interact."Everything else was just looking at elements. Technology
is important, for example, but exists within a system. They looked
at the system. They had to simplify and assume a lot, which the
media didn't understand (probably benign ignorance) and critics
blew out of proportion (probably maliciously), but I found their
approach the most meaningful.Sadly, I know many people who care
about the environment but don't understand the (relatively simple)
math in their approach, and many people who understand the math but
don't care about the environment, but almost no one who cares and
understands. So in about a decade since reading it, I haven't found
anyone I can talk to about it meaningfully.A great companion by one
of the authors is Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows --
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-
Donella-H-Meadows/dp....Both changed my views more than almost any
other books.
wjnc - 2 hours ago
With all respect to the authors, the thinking at that point in
time and the impact it made on the world and you: Much of their
predictions haven't stood the test of time.-No exhaustible has
been depleted yet and the price mechanism combined with
technological progress seems pretty able to set incentives
straight. Look at what the oil price bubble of the '00s did for
electric cars and batteries in the now. -The world has seen
massively more population growth than they modelled, but not the
accompanying food shortages they predicted. I'd argue the
shortages of the '80s and '90s are over, although local
situations obviously have tragic effects (Syria, Venezuela).
-Material goods production (plastics) is at an all time high.
-Many more humans alive at lower poverty levels than ever before
and ever imagined by the Club of RomeThey got the depletion of
fish stocks right though. Although arguably, that was the
simplest prediction since the 'tragedy of the commons' is so
profound in international fishery.The gloom of the club of Rome
just didn't work out. I guess outside of way we are treating our
environment, humanity has a lot to be proud of. (I feel the
environment is going bonkers and we are a plastic-addicted throw
away society.)
chappi42 - 1 hours ago
> although local situations obviously have tragic effects
(Syria, Venezuela) Considering people who came to Europe in the
last time you can at least add Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Palaestina, some African countries to this list. And I'd say
(apart from often atrocious politics) it's b/c there are too
many young man and no work.> Material goods production
(plastics) is at an all time high with worldwide measurable
effects on the sea. (Immission probably due to only 6 large
rivers, but still)(many more signs)I fear the Club of Rome will
work out very well in time
tom_mellior - 1 hours ago
> No exhaustible has been depleted yetWhat did they predict
would be depleted by December 2017, and where did they predict
it? Be specific please.> The world has seen massively more
population growth than they modelledHas it? What does their
model predict for December 2017? Be specific.(http://sustainabl
e.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M... shows an almost
perfect fit of population growth predictions and historical
data until 2014)> Material goods production (plastics) is at an
all time high.Yes, that's lovely. Where did they predict
otherwise, for December 2017?> I guess outside of way we are
treating our environment, humanity has a lot to be proud of. (I
feel the environment is going bonkers and we are a plastic-
addicted throw away society.)Agreed.
wjnc - 1 hours ago
Are you not asking of me a much higher degree of rigour than
the Club of Rome demonstrated?The simplest: No exhaustible
has been depleted yet. See table 4. Add the years in columns
3 or 4 or 5 to 1972. Gold, mercury, silver were predicted to
be exhausted by 2017. None are.
danmaz74 - 1 hours ago
With this kind of long term predictions, it's practically
impossible to get the numbers right - ie the number of years it
will take for resource X to end, how many billion people Earth
can sustain, etc. But this doesn't mean that there are no
limits to growth (on Earth): in the last 40 years we invented
lots of great technologies that improved the efficiency in how
we use lots of resources and reduced the pollution created by
production, but there is no silver bullet in sight that could
make those disappear.Just like Moore's law, it worked much
longer than anybody expected, but in the end we still hit many
limits, and we can say for sure it's not going to last forever
even if we don't know when it's going to really end.
[deleted]
spodek - 1 hours ago
You've mischaracterized their work.They didn't predict what you
said they did. They showed a range of possible outcomes based
on assumptions, among many. You seem to have picked one outcome
as their only one and called it their prediction.They created a
model based on a systems approach whose output depended on
assumptions on physical properties of the planet and future
human choices. Given the large uncertainties, they ran the
model under many sets of assumptions and presented the
outcomes.The point of the book is to illustrate and promote a
systems perspective, not just a linear, event-based approach,
which you seem to prefer.
jk2323 - 2 hours ago
Hey Dude, keep Bullshitting!"There is No Steady State Economy
(except at a very basic level)"
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-
stat...Limits to Growth?At our doorstep, but not recognized
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-
growt...Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy
-...Galactic-Scale Energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
vixen99 - 1 hours ago
Thanks! And are the arguments put forward in these links
considered at executive level? Seems to me - not at all
because preset agendas dominate drowning out the logic.
DennisP - 46 minutes ago
I agree, and for climate economics especially it makes a lot more
sense than equilibrium models.Something I found especially
interesting in the LtG model is that the costs of dealing with
environmental damage and extracting more scarce resources build
up gradually over time, but the way it works out is that economic
output keeps growing rapidly for a while, until these costs
become overwhelming and it all suddenly crashes down. Everything
looks great until you're on the verge of catastrophe.But to this
day, people look at our growing economy and think this refutes
LtG, because they assume it predicts a gradual decline.
shoo - 3 hours ago
Here's a paper from 2014 that compares historical data from the 40
years since the limits to growth study was released:http://sustaina
ble.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M...