Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Expect early stages of global collapse to appear soon - Limits to Growth was right; Sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity
Topic Started: 3 Sep 2014, 02:54 PM (1,647 Views)
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse

Four decades after the book was published, Limit to Growth’s forecasts have been vindicated by new Australian research. Expect the early stages of global collapse to start appearing soon

Graham Turner and Cathy Alexander
theguardian.com, Tuesday 2 September 2014 11.15 AEST

The 1972 book Limits to Growth, which predicted our civilisation would probably collapse some time this century, has been criticised as doomsday fantasy since it was published. Back in 2002, self-styled environmental expert Bjorn Lomborg consigned it to the “dustbin of history”.

It doesn’t belong there. Research from the University of Melbourne has found the book’s forecasts are accurate, 40 years on. If we continue to track in line with the book’s scenario, expect the early stages of global collapse to start appearing soon.

Limits to Growth was commissioned by a think tank called the Club of Rome. Researchers working out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, including husband-and-wife team Donella and Dennis Meadows, built a computer model to track the world’s economy and environment. Called World3, this computer model was cutting edge.

The task was very ambitious. The team tracked industrialisation, population, food, use of resources, and pollution. They modelled data up to 1970, then developed a range of scenarios out to 2100, depending on whether humanity took serious action on environmental and resource issues. If that didn’t happen, the model predicted “overshoot and collapse” – in the economy, environment and population – before 2070. This was called the “business-as-usual” scenario.

The book’s central point, much criticised since, is that “the earth is finite” and the quest for unlimited growth in population, material goods etc would eventually lead to a crash.

So were they right? We decided to check in with those scenarios after 40 years. Dr Graham Turner gathered data from the UN (its department of economic and social affairs, Unesco, the food and agriculture organisation, and the UN statistics yearbook). He also checked in with the US national oceanic and atmospheric administration, the BP statistical review, and elsewhere. That data was plotted alongside the Limits to Growth scenarios.

The results show that the world is tracking pretty closely to the Limits to Growth “business-as-usual” scenario. The data doesn’t match up with other scenarios.

These graphs show real-world data (first from the MIT work, then from our research), plotted in a solid line. The dotted line shows the Limits to Growth “business-as-usual” scenario out to 2100. Up to 2010, the data is strikingly similar to the book’s forecasts.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

As the MIT researchers explained in 1972, under the scenario, growing population and demands for material wealth would lead to more industrial output and pollution. The graphs show this is indeed happening. Resources are being used up at a rapid rate, pollution is rising, industrial output and food per capita is rising. The population is rising quickly.

So far, Limits to Growth checks out with reality. So what happens next?

According to the book, to feed the continued growth in industrial output there must be ever-increasing use of resources. But resources become more expensive to obtain as they are used up. As more and more capital goes towards resource extraction, industrial output per capita starts to fall – in the book, from about 2015.

As pollution mounts and industrial input into agriculture falls, food production per capita falls. Health and education services are cut back, and that combines to bring about a rise in the death rate from about 2020. Global population begins to fall from about 2030, by about half a billion people per decade. Living conditions fall to levels similar to the early 1900s.

It’s essentially resource constraints that bring about global collapse in the book. However, Limits to Growth does factor in the fallout from increasing pollution, including climate change. The book warned carbon dioxide emissions would have a “climatological effect” via “warming the atmosphere”.

As the graphs show, the University of Melbourne research has not found proof of collapse as of 2010 (although growth has already stalled in some areas). But in Limits to Growth those effects only start to bite around 2015-2030.

The first stages of decline may already have started. The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt, with suddenly higher prices for food and oil contributing to defaults - and the GFC.

The issue of peak oil is critical. Many independent researchers conclude that “easy” conventional oil production has already peaked. Even the conservative International Energy Agency has warned about peak oil.

Peak oil could be the catalyst for global collapse. Some see new fossil fuel sources like shale oil, tar sands and coal seam gas as saviours, but the issue is how fast these resources can be extracted, for how long, and at what cost. If they soak up too much capital to extract the fallout would be widespread.

Our research does not indicate that collapse of the world economy, environment and population is a certainty. Nor do we claim the future will unfold exactly as the MIT researchers predicted back in 1972. Wars could break out; so could genuine global environmental leadership. Either could dramatically affect the trajectory.

But our findings should sound an alarm bell. It seems unlikely that the quest for ever-increasing growth can continue unchecked to 2100 without causing serious negative effects – and those effects might come sooner than we think.

It may be too late to convince the world’s politicians and wealthy elites to chart a different course. So to the rest of us, maybe it’s time to think about how we protect ourselves as we head into an uncertain future.

As Limits to Growth concluded in 1972:

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

So far, there’s little to indicate they got that wrong.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
szokolay
Member Avatar


The book’s central point, much criticised since, is that “the earth is finite” and the quest for unlimited growth in population, material goods etc would eventually lead to a crash.

So were they right?

Of course they were right, common sense and every precept of science related to it says the earth has finite resources.
People just like to ignore inconvieniet truths in their pursuit of happiness.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

szokolay
3 Sep 2014, 05:45 PM
The book’s central point, much criticised since, is that “the earth is finite” and the quest for unlimited growth in population, material goods etc would eventually lead to a crash.

So were they right?

Of course they were right, common sense and every precept of science related to it says the earth has finite resources.
The central point is based on a false premise, since there is no 'quest for unlimited growth in population'. Such a quest doesn't exist.

Populations have not expanded as a result of some 'quest'. They have expanded naturally as a result of improved health, lifespan, productivity, ability to harness natural resources etc. And populations will cease expanding just as naturally as a result of declining birth rates - this is already happening (the birth rate has been below replacement rate even in Australia since the 1970s).

There is no catastrophic doom and gloom scenario on the cards here. The idea that we will just keep expanding until the world collapses is nonsense. The global population is generally expected to top out naturally in around 40-50 years at around 10 billion, which is a perfectly sustainable level.
Edited by Shadow, 3 Sep 2014, 06:05 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Queue Black Pudenza with video of global migration to new solar system. Prices to the moon!
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Gossamer
Member Avatar
44th most prolific poster on APF

The book was originally published in 1972. For those not aware of the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

A recent research paper was released by the University of Melbourne which investigated the predictions made in this book.

http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/files/mssi/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf

Food for thought.
Common sense is a curse - those who have it need to suffer dealing with those who don't have it.

APF idiot list
Nelson
Black Panther
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Malthusian Theory always seemed extraordinarily easy stuff to get my head around when I studied it - Blindingly obvious even?
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
Shadow
3 Sep 2014, 05:58 PM
The central point is based on a false premise, since there is no 'quest for unlimited growth in population'. Such a quest doesn't exist.

Populations have not expanded as a result of some 'quest'. They have expanded naturally as a result of improved health, lifespan, productivity, ability to harness natural resources etc. And populations will cease expanding just as naturally as a result of declining birth rates - this is already happening (the birth rate has been below replacement rate even in Australia since the 1970s).

There is no catastrophic doom and gloom scenario on the cards here. The idea that we will just keep expanding until the world collapses is nonsense. The global population is generally expected to top out naturally in around 40-50 years at around 10 billion, which is a perfectly sustainable level.
Plus 2...
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
CSI
Member Avatar


Whether or not this decline in fertility is enough to avert disaster is a matter for some debate. But even under the best case scenario the transition from rapid economic and population growth to very low economic growth and population stability is bound to be traumatic.

And any species which expands as rapidly as humans have done always declines rapidly once they reach they peak. They don't just neatly level out at some plateau and stay there indefinitely. If humans are a remarkable enough animal to avert this is unknown (but probably unlikely).
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
goldbug
Default APF Avatar


Shadow
3 Sep 2014, 05:58 PM
The central point is based on a false premise, since there is no 'quest for unlimited growth in population'. Such a quest doesn't exist.
Don't try and argue logically shadow, it's not your strong suit. Just remember who you are, a deadbead drone from the suburbs of sydney who bought into a pyramid scheme near its end and is getting left holding the empty cup.

House prices double every 7 years (sucker)
Rents always go up with inflation (chump)
Shadow was hopelessly wrong about the Gold Bull Market.
What else is he wrong about?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
CSI
3 Sep 2014, 07:58 PM
Whether or not this decline in fertility is enough to avert disaster is a matter for some debate. But even under the best case scenario the transition from rapid economic and population growth to very low economic growth and population stability is bound to be traumatic.

And any species which expands as rapidly as humans have done always declines rapidly once they reach they peak. They don't just neatly level out at some plateau and stay there indefinitely. If humans are a remarkable enough animal to avert this is unknown (but probably unlikely).
Approx 30% of the worlds population growth to 10 billion is due to the 'demographic momentum', or more people living longer, not new babies. Peak population growth was 1965 and we have been reducing the growth rate since.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcDjd9EwE1E&list=UUYzGoXQYEaAroxgd8GNafIw

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg

"The population age structure at the starting point of the projection also influences the future growth trajectory. Even with assumptions of fertility at replacement level, constant mortality, and no migration, the total population will not necessarily remain constant. Total population could either increase or
decrease before reaching a stationary population size. This phenomenon is called momentum of population growth and its value is defined by the ratio of ultimate population size to current population size (Keyfitz, 1971). In the countries in the midst of demographic transit ion and with young age
structures, the total population will continue to grow because births produced by a large number of females of reproductive age will exceed deaths , even if total fertility is at replacement level .
In this case, population momentum has a positive effect on population growth.
In the countries that completed the demographic transition and with relatively old age structures due to long periods of low fertility and population ageing, the total population will actually decline before reaching ultimate population size. In this case, population momentum has a negative effect on population growth .
The population growth brought about by the population momentum can be attributed exclusively to the initial age structure of population."

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/technical/TP2013-3.pdf
Edited by ThePauk, 3 Sep 2014, 08:54 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy