Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

donellameadows.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#21

Post by Symmetry »

wjnc wrote: post #4
spodek wrote: post #3

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…

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…

They may have been off and potentially very off on the timing. But the amount of physical resources theoretically available to us is certainly limited by the speed of light so even making the most generous possible assumptions exponential material growth can't continue forever.

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#22

Post by Symmetry »

jk2323 wrote: post #6
wjnc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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://physi…

I read the first link you posted and it seemed, if anything, to support the OP's point. Perhaps you could express your objections in your own words?

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#23

Post by muxator »

From a purely logic point of view, I have some problems accepting this:

> "When the facts change, I change my mind," I included because of its implied inverse: "When the facts don't change, I don't change my mind."

It is my understanding that "A implies B" does not imply "not A implies not B".

Maybe I am just hairsplitting, but when I read/hear something I see these kind of sentences as bad indicators.

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#24

Post by jk2323 »

Symmetry wrote: post #22
jk2323 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://physi…

I read the first link you posted and it seemed, if anything, to support the OP's point. Perhaps you could express your objections in your own words?

Read the second link.

Own words? Most of the blog posts are done by people much smarter than me. I could do a 1 or 2 hour PPT Presentation trying to get to the point. I think only a few people would be able to follow me. Not, because I am so tremendously smarter than them (I have a PhD), but because the topic is so tremendously complex and interlinked.

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#25

Post by jk2323 »

wjnc wrote: post #20
jk2323 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The simplest: No exhaustible has been depleted yet" You are correct. In fact, they never will be depleted. Same with the oil. Most of the oil that is still in the ground will stay there. "These forecasts are made possible by assuming the limit on the amount of oil extracted is the amount of oil in the ground. In fact, the limit is likely to be a financial (debt) limit that comes much sooner." https://ourfiniteworld.…

I find it hard to have an open discussion if you're mainly dropping links without much added substance in the content (quotes like "business as usual", "keep bullshitting" don't help). The links are really long, actually seem to contain some relevant points, but also raise my BS-filter-flag (especially the links to 'prehistoric' economics papers).

As I posted below:

Own words? Most of the blog posts are done by people much smarter than me. I could do a 1 or 2 hour PPT Presentation trying to get to the point. I think only a few people would be able to follow me. Not, because I am so tremendously smarter than them (I have a PhD), but because the topic is so tremendously complex and interlinked.

This being said. It does not hurt to read this blog posts and think about them. The conclusion would be: We are f...ed. I may have a very negative outlook into the future and I hope that I am wrong. But I am afraid we are running into mathematical limits. Quote from the last blog post (Galactic energy scale) "But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes." Then again, if you understand how energy, debt, growth and our society are interlined, this is NOT good news. Stay on the level we have now? Impossible. Read the first blog post. We are running in circles.

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#27

Post by agumonkey »

metallah wrote: post #26
agumonkey wrote: post #19

I'm still looking for a video or audio of that conference.

Same. Please let me know if you're able to find anything!

So far nothing (google,ddg,this website). I'm not even sure it was recorded at this point.

I should email the website team directly they probably know.

ps: mail sent

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#28

Post by johnsea »

wjnc wrote: post #17
johnsea wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 men and no work. > Material goods production (plastics) is at an all time high with worldwide measurable effect…

Don't conflate being critical of the CoR of not being afraid for our environment. Mostly I am saying that the global market has shown to be more robust to changes in population and that supply and demand has been able to accomodate more changes than the CoR held for possible. That's positive point for our global system. It seems robust within the parameters of the last 150 years.

Yes that's true. Personally I don't care too much about the precise prognoses but about the general idea. 40 years ago, the model was simple and also today I don't think the complexity could be modeled accurately.

There are examples in smaller areas, e.g. Easter Island, Trinidade South were 'over-usage' lead to consequences. I could image this to happen to the earth as a whole in time when we do not regulate.

The global system seems robust, yes. But there is plenty of oil still and most nations are stable. But who knows? This will/could change. For the former there is technology. But for the latter it seems difficult, a former-china-like-one-child-policy would be in order for certain regions, but I don't see this coming.

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#29

Post by zardo »

muxator wrote: post #23

From a purely logic point of view, I have some problems accepting this: > "When the facts change, I change my mind," I included because of its implied inverse: "When the facts don't change, I don't change my mind." It is my understanding that "A implies B" does not imply "not A implies not B". Maybe I am just hairsplitting, but when I read/hear something I see these kind of sentences as bad indicators.

The trouble with applying formal logic to natural language, is in the translation.

You are interpreting "when" as indicating an implication, it could also be an 'if and only if'.

Re: The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf]

#30

Post by Certhas »

wjnc wrote: post #16
spodek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Say I agree (at least I get your point ;) - I'm curious how does one test (in the empirical science sense) a systems perspective with regards to predictions / scenario's? Because at least in popular opinion the Club of Rome is known for a pretty grim worldview and political advocacy. Perhaps I'm too much schooled in traditional economics but Robert Nobel wasn't too kind [1] and even in my environmental economics clas…

It's important to understand that the aim of systems isn't to predict things but to understand potential mechanisms.

The fact that certain scenarios that the Club of Rome anticipated seemed to not come true also unveiled new mechanisms to us.

Predictions can't be the benchmark, we are simply not advanced enough in the science for that.

Certainly the social sciences, like economics, should understand that best. Economics has hardly been able to predict anything.

Post reply on HN