I purchased the World3 model CD, but was rather disappointed. The main item is a program that lets you choose one of the 10 canned scenarios and run it. This lets you look at the scenarios in more detail (you can get various charts or all the raw numbers) and compare them.

But you can't alter the model at all. Given the complexity of the model, this is perhaps a reasonable choice. I doubt it is easy to alter just a few initial values and parameters in such a complex model in a way that makes sense, unless you understand the entire model and have had some training in this type of modeling.

You can look at the model, sort of. But all you get is a large picture of tons of circles and arrows, with indecipherable variable names like "del ind out pc 40". No legend for what the various pieces are, no explanation of what the boxes, circles, and arrows mean (beyond the variable names).

It does seem to be open source. If you have a spare $1899 you can get a copy of Stella, the simulation software the model runs on. (You can also get a free save-disabled trial version that expires in 30 days).

What would I like to see? More detailed explanations of: the model elements and how they fit together. Probably the LTG folks have papers in journals that go over all this stuff -- I admit I haven't searched for it yet.

I consider these modeling efforts to be critically important for high-level decision makers to "get it" that everything is interrelated and you can't just try to force one problem (energy for example) to go away and ignore the others.

But for these models to have the requisite credibility they MUST be open for scrutiny. I expect that experts in different fields will scrutinize how the model treats their field, and render an opinion on how realistic the model is in that sub-area (e.g. population, or agriculture, or energy).

And generalists (like many of us at TheOilDrum) who have some appreciation of modeling should be able to get into the details as well.

It sounds like Mr. Lawrence has these goals in mind:

One goal of the project is to develop a simple game-like user interface that makes the model accessible to those without experience in modeling complex systems. Others with more expertise will be able to go into the model, understand how it works (“transparency” is another goal), and develop their own scenarios. Model users from around the world will be able to communicate with each other using a web site dedicated to model discussion, modification, and operation.

I'm interested in the "more expertise" version. However, the game version could be important for spreading the word. Have you considered contacting Will Wright, the creator of The Sims videogame? He did a game called SimEarth in 1990.

Finally, here is a disclaimer paragraph from the LTG CDROM:

The ten scenarios published in the book and presented on the CD are World3-03 scenarios. If you import the equations into STELLA and make changes in the model to conduct experiments with other assumptions, you are not any more working with World3-03, and you should not represent your results as coming from our model.

You can see their point. They don't want people altering their model and then claiming the results are "from the LTG World3 model". Openness has its consequences.

Don't try to predict the future. Get ready for it.

The Limits to Growth study was published with the intent of shaking the world and raise awareness about sustainability issues.
At the recent International System Dynamics conference (Boston Jul 29, Aug 3), Jay Forrester, Jorgen Sanders, and Dennis Meadows have repeated once again that their intent was to stimulate a discussion among different groups. They also admitted that they completely failed and could not reach their main goal (i.e. change policy making) because most of the people (mainly scientists and academia) kept undermining their study without trying to understand it.

Nowadays we can certainly do better, maybe without gaining much visibility, but assuring transparency and openness.

Simulation models usually are not open source because most of the people can easily misunderstand their results and simulate unrealistic scenarios that can undermine models' validity.

What we are doing with this model is to use full and extended variable names and provide tools (the user interface) that allow to review the main structure of the model at no cost.
A full documentation of the USA model is already available (about 500 pages) and will be updated in occasion of the release of the North America model.

In spite of all the effort we put in this project, I expect furious criticism from some reviewers of the model. Modelers speak different (modeling) languages, economists have their own concepts and theories, etc. Unless we use a common framework and we try to understand each other there will be no collaboration on interrelated but still diverse issues.

Best,

Andrea