MIT Institute's Gloomy Prediction: 'Global Economic Collapse' By 2030 816
suraj.sun writes "A new study from researchers at Jay W. Forrester's institute at MIT says that the world could suffer from 'global economic collapse' and 'precipitous population decline' if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace. The study's researchers created a computing model to forecast different scenarios based on the current models of population growth and global resource consumption, different levels of agricultural productivity, birth control and environmental protection efforts. Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without 'drastic measures for environmental protection,' the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash."
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll personally be surprised if we get through this year and the next without a major economic disaster.
crappy difference-equation mathematics (Score:5, Interesting)
This group was wrong in the 1970s. And is still wrong in the 2010s.
Re:Club of Rome Study 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's amazing how few people understand that Club of Rome's predictions were never disproved in principle. Sure the timing was off, but it's impossible to predict the oil peak accurately given uncertainty of reserve data and technological progress. BTW, if you put your money on the latter, please know that it cannot outrun the laws of nature. The economic growth will have to stop (or, at least, become less than exponential, which is anathema just the same to most modern economists) before the humankind will boil itself with the amount of energy it will need to use to continue it. As things stand, we may not even be able to tech our way out of the oil crunch.
Re:politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not finding fault with this study, but the conclusion seems to have stepped outside the realm of science and into politics by assuming (at least this is the impression the article gives) that government policy is the only way to limit the growth of our ecological footprint.
The good old freedom-loving alternative has inspired such movies as Mad Max 2.
It's peculiar how science is only OK as long as its conclusions are harmless to powerful interests.
Re:Malthus again??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Malthus would have been correct, save for the development of atmospheric nitrogen-fixing processes for making fertilizer.
We are currently using 10 calories worth of energy (mostly from non-renewable petro-chemicals) to make 1 calorie of food --- this is not sustainable, and rising food prices will eventually push the poorest of the poor into starvation, unless there is some sort of intervention.
Simple math (Score:5, Interesting)
Land Area of the Earth: 148,940,000 km^2
Population of the Earth 7,000,000,000
Land Area Per Person: 0.02127 km2 -> 21270m^2
So approx 200m x 100m (americans read yds per person)
But then there are mountains, desert, barren lands, asphalt to take into account.
Lets say 100m x 100m per person (roughly 2 football fields). That is the source of your food, your clothes, ....
This is ignoring all other life as that is likely part of the food chain that feeds us.
And that land is used year after year, getting less fertile, limited resources disappearing, getting smaller and smaller as more people appear.
The year is 2012, guys... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, the data started to decouple from predictions, circa year 2000. It seems rather convenient to say that 1970-2000 matches the model, and then simply ignore 2000-onward.
And could we maybe narrow down that prediction a bit, too? Anything between economic collapse (zero) and "unlimited economic growth" is pretty open-ended. (And what the fuck does the term "unlimited economic growth" actually mean, anyway? Money growing on trees?)
Reading predictions of economic doom always brings to mind a quote from "The West Wing" about how economists and futurologists almost always fail to account for technological progress:
BARTLET: You ever read Paul Erlich's book?
TOBY: "The Population Bomb"?
BARTLET: Yeah. He wrote it in 1968. Erlich said it was a fantasy that India would ever feed itself. Then Norman Borlaug comes along. See the problem was wheat is top-heavy. It was falling over on itself and it took up too much space. The dwarf wheat... it was an agricultural revolution that was credited with saving one billion lives.
Re:Good Timing! (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy. Enjoy life, enjoy all those little pleasures that are either immoral or you get fat/sick from them. Drop dead before the onset of senility. QED.
Every single male from my extended family during the last 2 generations has dropped dead from heart attack/stroke way before they turned into barely moving lump of protein requiring 3 nurses, 2 iPads and a mobile toilet to "live". Me, with my pack a cigarets a day - I am expecting the same fate. Long life is not as nice as people think...so no, I have covered that angle (ergo, no need for children to take care of me).
If am wrong, I've covered that angle too - as a scientist and a person with enormous interest in all kinds of subjects I keep my mind very busy, so no senility for me. Thus, when the body really starts giving up but the mind is still clear...well, meet my little friend - 2L bottle with compressed nitrogen and a face mask. You cannot fire me, I quit! (bonus: no (grand) children will be hurt by my action).
Rationality - can't beat it! So join it!
Re:Club of Rome Study 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Idiot Malthusians have predicted the imminent end of the world due to overpopulation for hundreds of years. Every time they go out on a limb and say the end will be by a given date, they are outed for the charlatans that they are.
You have to understand that you can't just pick a hypothesis and refuse to refine it with the coming of new data. When you continue to make wrong prediction after wrong prediction, you have to consider the possibility that your hypothesis is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, and start from scratch. Let the DATA guide you, not your own dumb ideas that are based on nothing but your own destrudo.
Re:Club of Rome Study 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to understand that you can't just pick a hypothesis and refuse to refine it with the coming of new data. When you continue to make wrong prediction after wrong prediction, you have to consider the possibility that your hypothesis is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, and start from scratch. Let the DATA guide you, not your own dumb ideas that are based on nothing but your own destrudo.
Recent data tell that the global oil production has been on a plateau since 2005, despite the rollercoasting prices. It's hard to tell without hindsight, but the peak of the oil-fueled civilization may be happening now. And there has never been a time in history when people had to change their primary fuel source on the global scale, when the previous best option was becoming scarce. But let this not upset your cozy, self-assured, technologically optimistic worldview.
Re:Club of Rome Study 2 (Score:2, Interesting)
This is like saying that my prediction that the world was going to end today at 7am was never disproved in principle, it was just my timing that was off.
Their predictions are based on impossibility to continue using a finite resource at an exponentially growing rate, which is what the humankind has been doing to date. The timing may have been off by decades, but the gap is closing with exponentially increasing speed. So by the time it becomes evident that Malthusians were right, the catastrophe is already happening.
Re:Good Timing! (Score:5, Interesting)
No. I am being completely honest. I was born into a fundamentalist christian cult. I know them from the inside out in a way that no outsider ever really can.
Absolutely (Score:2, Interesting)
If the residents on Planet Earth insist on treating the universe as a closed system confined to their little planet, they are going to run out of resources at some point. Sooner or later, someone will realize that the Sun is contributing resources to Earth and these off-planet resources should not be used. I can't imagine the environmentalist/limited growth response to this revelation. It is certain to be severe.
There are two choices here - zero growth (stagnation) with a greatly reduced population so life is sustainable within its limited bounds, or the serious pursuit and acquisition of off-planet resources. It is a choice that we have nearly made with the virtual abandonment of manned space flight. Within a few years the decision will be irreversable and there will be no choice of either embarking on a massive population reduction program or watching while it is done for us.
The idea that without nuclear energy we can sustain life for over 6 billion people on the planet is a joke. It is the only possible course of action for constant, reliable energy - both electrical power and other forms. The idea of burning anything to produce heat in large quantities is just absurd - look at a steel mill for an example of large amounts of thermal energy that could be from non-fossil fuel sources. Sure, fusion power is a great goal and we will likely get there, but we will never get there if the zero-growth "sustainable" crowd gets there way.
Anyone that has studied biology understands there are two and only two states for life: growth and death. If we aren't growing, we are dying. It applies to mold in a petri dish and it applies to the human race. There is a substantial fraction of humanity that believes constant growth is impossible and we must "cut back" to remain "sustainable" They do not understand that this sustainable way of life is just a delayed form of extinction because they weren't paying attention in high school.
So yes, we need off-planet resources to maintain life on Earth. The universe is not a closed system on any scale humans can comprehend and the resources are out there for the taking. If we fail in this we doom the human race to extinction - nobody is going to be coming to rescue us from our own folly and there is no third "sustainable" alternative. Grow or die. It is a lesson learned by every form of life one way or another.
Re:Club of Rome Study 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
From the AnnRand tea party point of view? yes.
But they were right if you look at the true disparity in rich and poor. The poor in the rest of the world live in fricking dirt holes. The poorest in the USA live like the rich in many 3rd world countries.
The gap between the worlds poor and rich is growing exponentially. right now the top 1% of the united states could buy real homes for 100% of the worlds poor and still be the top 1% rich. Yes it's that bad. And it will get worse. The rich have no problem with $6.00 a gallon gas. The poor have to decide is it worth paying 50% of their weekly income to pay for gas to get to work. Why? well the poor cant afford a nice shiny new Hybrid. they have to drive what they can afford to buy for $500-$2000 junker from 12 years ago. That means a 8-18mpg gas hog that is falling apart.
They also cant live near work or take public transportation in many places because of rich assholes refusing to pay for trains and buses. Large cities have it like NYC and Chicago, but then the poor cant afford to live there unless they are in the slums where it's dangerous to live and, suprise, bus serivce has been cancelled. so they get to walk 2 miles to the nearest bus stop.
It self perpetuates. The rich will not pay for things for the evil PARASITES to use. Walk to work you prole! a lot of things can be done to turn it all around. problem is it gives things to the poor, and that just can not be allowed to happen.
Re:Again... (Score:4, Interesting)