<DrumBeat: March 21, 2008The Oil DrumHofmeister v. Simmons>

138 comments on The Problem of Growth

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

kenny on March 21, 2008 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

About the World3 simulation, to quote Monty Python "it's only a model!"

But I haven't seen any alternative scenarios either. If there is a population readjustment, what we might call a disorderly retreat from 7 billion to 1 billion or less, it will likely wipe out any groundwork in the process.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dwig on March 21, 2008 - 6:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Jeff:

without addressing the problem of growth itself we'll just reset the population at some lower level, then grow again in excess of carrying capacity, and crash again, ad infinitum.

kenny:

But I haven't seen any alternative scenarios either.

Greer's Catabolic Collapse is one alternative model, that plays out much as Jeff describes above. In his the comment section of his most recent post on his Archdruid Report blog, he discusses the idea that the current financial thrashing is an example of the model in that area.

It'd be interesting, but beyond what I have the time or knowledge to take on, to try to apply his 4-factor model to the recent credit bubble and its collapse. Anyone here have good tools and expertise in system dynamics?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kenny on March 22, 2008 - 10:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Greer's an interesting person. And of course he's a winner of the prestigious Order of Bards Ovates and Druids Mount Haemus Award for Druid scholarship...

I like the piece on Catabolic collapse, but it doesn't seem to be much more than a restatement of the ideas behind the World3 system dynamics model discussed in Limits to Growth.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on March 24, 2008 - 4:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But I haven't seen any alternative scenarios either. If there is a population readjustment, what we might call a disorderly retreat from 7 billion to 1 billion or less, it will likely wipe out any groundwork in the process.

There isn't any solid evidence that 10 billion or more people can't be sustainably provided for, so I don't understand why so many assume that the population will implode. We have ample nuclear fuel for millions of years at 1000 times the global energy demand now and thats been demonstrated on a large scale (say all of france) without even bothering getting into the argument that renewables can also provide energy to power civilization.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sofistek on March 24, 2008 - 10:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I guess it depends on whether one thinks of your estimates as being able to see into the future or as hypothetical, and on whether it really is just a matter of energy as to being able to provide all of the resources and food that we we consider vital, without severely damaging our habitat, for a population of 10 billion, at moderate standards of living.

I'm sure many people disagree with both.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on March 24, 2008 - 11:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm sure many people disagree with both.

I know many do. On the later point, its based on undemonstrated assertions that there are somehow components that aren't producable by energy despite reasonable evidence to the contrary.

On the former, they're just plain wrong.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.