[Quinny]

So you can just ignore the print our own money to buy our own bonds as legitimate means of bailing out the system. That's not fraudulent or funny money then?

[yesplease]

Given the alternative I can't say that loans seem all that bad. If we had all the major banks and automakers go bankrupt at once, the situation would've made the GD look like a cakewalk. As it stands, even though the government is losing money on the interest, loaning those companies enough to stay on their feet and letting them pay it back over time isn't too bad. Granted, there were the straight up give aways to AIG and co under BushCo, but just like the no-bid contracts that's more about cronyism than anything else.

[Pops]

11/2023

There is a New New LtG

5 - CONCLUSION
In this paper, the World3 model of the LtG study has been recalibrated to reflect the behavior of empirical data over the last 50 years. For this purpose, 35 parameters of the model were selected and optimized for a selected set of eight different empirical data sets that most closely reflect historical developments. An algorithm was developed to minimize the aggregated NRMSD between the model data and the empirical data using aniterative method. A new scenario with the improved parameter set was presented. Of the original 1972 LtG scenarios, the BAU scenario matches these parameters and the evolution of the variables most closely. Like the BAU scenario of the LtG publication, the new scenario Recalibration23reflects the overshoot and collapse mode due to resource scarcity. However, the peaks of certain variables are raised and partially shifted intothe future

The picture is bleak, Merry Xmas.



The original LTG book in PDF

A Youtubeage

.

[Pops]

My thought here is the new model still predicts die-off predicated on first, falling natural resources, then a dive in both food and industrial production.

None of that is evident. Non-renewable natural resources certainly haven't fallen by 75%. Surely we've been consuming them but not sure where the "empirical" data is behind this plot.

They show a dip in human welfare, I assume from the pandemic. But the bend in the population curve is entirely predictable today where it could not be easily foreseen in '75. The actual limit to growth is educated, independent women and birth control. The other stuff will go it's course but that simple fact is upsetting a whole lottga sausage-carts, LOL

[theluckycountry]

My thought here is the new model still predicts die-off predicated on first, falling natural resources, then a dive in both food and industrial production.

None of that is evident. Non-renewable natural resources certainly haven't fallen by 75%. Surely we've been consuming them but not sure where the "empirical" data is behind this plot.

What do you regard as non-renewable natural resources? Certainly it would include coal and oil but also copper and tin etc. Then we have to consider the touted reserve estimates which are always questionable. After Saudi-Aramco was kicked out the Saudis revised their reserves upward, many fold. The other OPEC nations did the same possibly because under their quota agreement the more reserves they had the more oil they were permitted to sell.

My last read was LTG-II and it was ontrack then, pollution and population figures being the strong suit. We put around 40 Billion tons of CO-2 into the atmosphere each year now. C is 12g/mol and O,16 g/mol so that's about 10 Billion tons of carbon. Just imagine if all that carbon was in a solid lump? A cube 8.6 km a side. If my math is correct lol.

Starvation is a given though. You can't make fertilizer or pesticide with oil and gas.

[Pops]

It looks like the biggest adjustment —only one actually —to the original assumptions was to increase resources by one-third or so. Because of course we've used much more than anticipated. The whole thing about lower quality ore has been batted around for decades— and no small amount by yours truly

The other thing noticable is pollution was to have skyrocketed right along with industry but in this run that peak is put off until the end of the century rather than the end of this decade. Why? Because the bleeding hearts and Deep State fought and beat the polluting corporations and business. Yes, carbon is a problem, known at the time, but anyone alive before Nixon's EPA can tell you we're in better shape than then.

No one foresaw China's expansion and I'm no expert but other countries' experience is certainly not ours—one reason corps went there to pollute.

Starvation is a given though. You can't make fertilizer or pesticide with oil and gas.

I assume you meant "without oil and gas."

But actually you can make N from thin air. Not sure how viable it is on a large scale. P & K are more problematic, especially phosphorus.

But much of the world eats so high on the hog now, literally, we feed half our food to animals. And, we pay many times to farm gate cost to middlemen for pretty packaging and advertising when we do by farmed food. Heck, half the corn crop in the US is used to make ethanol, and not the good kind. (distillers grains is the left overs and is also used for feed) IOW, we could have a large loss of production and only lose out on some bacon and hot wings.

Here is the thing not input into the LTG run— or mabe it was and it just isn't that sexy: don't underestimate the rise of women in society, and their say in the population curve.

"Randers' "most likely scenario" predicted a peak in world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline" (a co-author of LTG II; from wiki). He explained it as part of the move from farm to city. Which is valid, On a farm kids are free labor and old-age nurse, in town they're merely an expensive hobby.

Here is the UN's latest guess showing a range of possible curves.



Depending on how soon Gilead is established to institutionalize the current fad of forced births (2025 anyone?) the US could go into shrink any time. Mortality is already high and rising, the camps will help with that and deporting however many brown-skinned gals (and guy) will also help.

I spent my first 60 years as somewhat of a doomer. Now that I've lived longer than my parents I don't worry about things as much. In fact I try to keep a positive outlook for my grandkids—they never listened anyway, LOL

[theluckycountry]

I spent my first 60 years as somewhat of a doomer. Now that I've lived longer than my parents I don't worry about things as much. In fact I try to keep a positive outlook for my grandkids—they never listened anyway, LOL

Yeah, me either LOL. I don't even know why I come here, morbid curiosity perhaps, force of habit? I really could give a stuff about all these issues and I certainly don't talk about them to family of friends, except one, and she's a "The Universe will look after me" type but wants me to keep her updated on possible threats.

Perhaps coming here and speaking my mind takes the pressure off any ideas I might have of voicing matters face to face? You certainly don't want to do that when you realize your neighbors are neck deep in debt and already panicking about interest rates, food costs, mass immigration and global wars. I'm fairly well insulated from all that now, even from a banking crises, screw banks! So the last thing I want is a street full of eyes glaring at me because I don't share their pain. Thing is all the chickens are coming home to roost at the moment and I find a perverse pleasure in watching the wheels fall off. HaHaHa.

[Pops]

I've always thought that the tapping helps me consolidate my thoughts ... scrutinize them maybe, something like that. Navel gazing. So much of what we "believe" is unconsidered, irrational, subconscious delusion and social-conditioning.

And, there have been smart people here such as yourself, Kub, Tanada, lots of others over the years that I've learned from. In fact I've taught myself a bit as well, Many times I've started out with a knee-jerk reaction/assumption, then googled a bit to keep myself from looking the fool, only to find my gut reaction actually was foolish.

Still my knee-jerk is doom and I accept that. I've just learned to temper it with a bit of uncertainty. I once asked here whether folks considered themselves pessimist or optimist and to a person they all said realist. The thing is, reality is entirely between the ears, it's just a construct invented in the wetworks from our megar senses to keep us safe from sabre tooth tigers and make babies. Considering oneself to have unbiased vision is the greatest bias. I mean it must be comforting to think one knows the ultimate truth but...

[theluckycountry]

Yes I agree with all that pops, you've summed it up nicely. Writing and researching this stuff does help cement it in your brain, it keeps you from wandering down the broad highway to destruction so to speak. Nothing wrong with feeling confident about knowing the ultimate truth, as long as you have hedged your bets. Confidence is inherent in all people's choices I think, just some are very bad choices and when they are revealed as such it's a shitshow for those folk. Avoiding TV and other major external influences, and not allowing other people to do your thinking for you, is the key I recon. A good bell-weather for me has always been "Do most people disagree with me?" That's a good sign, because the Herd are typically always wrong in the long run hey.

There were countless forks in the road to my journey pops, I could have ended up in Tasmania, a freezing inbred island state of Australia. Concern over rapid global warming prompted me to consider that move, and the cheap housing there, but as I researched it I realized the doom was over-hyped. I could have ended up on the beach too, beautiful down there, but prone to cyclones and now populated by druggies and yuppies. No, much better to be out in boring old rural Oz where the people are real and care for their neighbors and where crime and the police are rarely seen.

Being a doomer by nature is quite a pleasant way to live actually. The non-doomer perceives us as being negative people, missing out on life's pleasures as we stress away over the dangers inherent in our complex societies. The opposite is actually the truth. We enjoy nearly all the pleasures they do and rather than stressing we feel empowered and have a growing contentment as all of our bases get covered. There is no easy route to security though, for a nation or an individual. You have to work for it. Our nation's stay safe and secure because we have armies of people watching for threats and being prepared to act in defense of what we love, our modern lifestyles. The danger comes when as individuals we assume these actions translate to us personally, they do not! The tens of millions of wallets with EBT cards prove that lol.

No I learnt a lot from history, how the idyllic lives we have now are super precarious, that nations rise and fall, that economies collapse into depressions with no regard for the working man and his aspirations of a happy retirement. Best to spend a decade or so securing against these things yourself and then kicking back and relaxing. As you know it wasn't an arduous journey either, quite a lot of fun and very mentally stimulating. I recall many moments of awakening too, like the day I first went into a coin shop and handed across $1000 for an ounce and a half of Gold a little silver bar. I watched all that cash leave my wallet and walked out with a couple of little coins, I wondered if I had done the right thing, such is the power of the state's propaganda to instill in us that 'their' money is the be all end all. But I had a clear understanding of monetary inflation by then, knew how all the world's currencies had been debased since the 1970's suspension of the Gold standard and had 20 years experience of that debasement. A central bank crime really but something the average person accepted and took for granted, "prices always go up"

Some hours later, studying the coins, feeling their weight, considering the cost to find that metal and mint it, the realization dawned on me that what I had was an everlasting non-depreciating savings account, a form of money people had relied on since the dawn of civilization. Today those first coins are worth nearly 5x what I paid back then, and not because of some bubble or hype, but simply because Gold keeps pace with inflation and always has. I have had many such turning points in my journey and relish them all, even opening a steel cabinet and smelling some 25kg sacks of kidney beans gives me a smile. I love chilli pops

[ralfy]

From 2014:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

Around 70 pct of human beings live on less than $10 daily. For them, doom is a way of life.

They don't want that, so they've been earning more, leading to industrialization and spending:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

The remaining 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own incomes and returns on investment rely on increasing sales of goods and services.

Finally, because of diminishing returns and the effects of climate change, more militarization and conflict have been taking place worldwide.

[theluckycountry]

I remember the talk years ago about prosperity lifting all boats, but that was when we still had oil priced below $20 and no end in sight. If 1/4 of Indian's get a middle-class lifestyle the flow on effect would be more money and 'stuff' in the pockets of the poorer classes (castes) serving their needs. Sort of like the expansion of the home services sector in the West. But it doesn't seem to be panning out as expected. More lies from the economists and demographers.

[Pops]

.
From Ralfy's link

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.

There is no indication that calories per capita is falling, actually it is steadily rising everywhere but Africa. This chart is of calories available at the end of the supply chain so likely indicates food aid along with consumer product.

Contrary to LTG position that resources and pollution would be the limits, I believe the biggest threat today is political, socio-economic. The same globalisation and immigration that brought up the very lowest rung of poverty also brought down the previous working class. A large increase in wealth of the very top and a compression of everyone else.

26 individuals posses as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity.

Globalism and wealth inequality explains the current rise in authoritarian ethno-nationalism quite well:
middle class loses jobs to foreign competition—listens to Murdock media— and blames foreign immigrants rather than the ownership that exported their jobs.

And in the US they elect a billionaire president whose signature line was "You're Fired!"
Whoda thunkit?

I was a firm believer in ecological limits. I had a ZPG t-shirt. I only had one kid. I thought BushCo proved that the collapse would start with resource wars — but we haven't even reached decline and look where we're at...

[mousepad]

.
Globalism and wealth inequality explains the current rise in authoritarian ethno-nationalism quite well.

Actually no, it does not. Did you ever consider other motives of why, e.g. a growing number of Europeans are sick of importing culturally incompatible hordes? Or does your imagination only run along democrat propaganda pamphlets?

[ralfy]

From the same article,

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 next three paragraphs refer to resource constraints, especially peak oil.

Finally, the study referred to in the article addresses four decades of both right and left arguing that LtG is not true by plotting real-world data with the trend lines produced by the computer model.

[theluckycountry]

There are indeed more calories available today, cheap carbs in cardboard boxes, making half the nations Obese. Healthy calories though, natural foods, they are on the decline and becoming very expensive. Wheat, Corn, Sugars, survival foods traditionally, stored up to get you through a Winter, not to live on day to day.

[Pops]

There are indeed more calories available today, cheap carbs in cardboard boxes, making half the nations Obese. Healthy calories though, natural foods, they are on the decline ..

You can't have it both ways, either there are too many carbs and everyone is fat or there is too few and everyone is starving.

Fact is, carbs are super cheap, the box is extremely expensive. In a $5 box of cereal the farmer sees about 5-10¢.And again, almost half the grains we grow go to feed meat and dairy, historic luxuries.

As for what food is produced, you can bet farmers only grow what people buy, it isn't their job to force a healthy diet.

[theluckycountry]

As for what food is produced, you can bet farmers only grow what people buy, it isn't their job to force a healthy diet.

It's not what the farmer's grow pops, it's what happens to it after it leaves the gate. Down here, after all the rains the livestock have bred like crazy. Corporations buy lambs at the gate for $15, that's more expensive than any regular cut of lamb/kg.

Profit maximization: Strip out the 'germ' from grains to prolong shelf life, add sugar and pound it into a form fat people can swallow without too much chewing. They'll eat a lot more, increasing your profits. The cost of the box and plastic bag are negligible compared to the cost of transport and wages at every layer of the process from farm to supermarket. Junk Food is all it is. People would be much healthier eating oats for breakfast but fat lazy people don't want to take the time to cook them on the stove.