[Newfie]

Came across this document today by a Limits To Growth author.

Here he is in 2012 making a 40 year projection, out to 2052.

An interesting read, not sure I agree but that’s why I’m throwing this out there. For discussion

http://www.2052.info/wp-content/uploads ... d-CPSL.pdf

[asg70]

This phrase keeps coming up in his presentation:

inability of the US government to make forceful
decisions on any issue involving the redistribution
of income and wealth.

This is a loaded statement if ever there was one. Why is redistribution of income and wealth necessary other than to fulfill this person's outdated hippie vision of a communist utopia?

China’s population will peak in 2030 because
of the continuation of Deng’s wise one-child
policy

That prediction didn't age well.

The situation is a fast-moving target, especially where AGW impacts are concerned. Climate scientists are piss poor with their predictions which is why we keep reading "faster/worse than expected" headlines. As such I don't hold much credence in what is a relatively mild prediction. I would imagine this same individual would be more pessimistic if he rewrote it today.

[ralfy]

It looks like a best-case scenario given ideal conditions, e.g., countries following Cuba, with a per capita ecological footprint of around 2 and declining birth rates, the effects of climate change, arms production and deployment, and globalization quickly mitigated. This can also be seen in the four points given at the end of the paper. The difference is that the author argues that the points are needed to avoid experiencing such a "sad story." Mine is that they are needed to make it possible and avoid worse.

[JuanP]

Interesting, though I don't agree with most of it. It seems too optimistic, but I hope he's correct because that would mean that my wife and I could live the rest of our lives under not too disagreeable circumstances.

Asg70, the Chinese discontinued their population program because it wasn't necessary any more. Fertility levels in China did not increase after the program ended, as a matter of fact, they continued to decrease in the years that followed. The end of the population program didn't affect Chinese fertility or natality at all. The population of China is expected to peak around 2030 according to all the forecasts I've read, including CIA, UN, IMF, Chinese government, and others. I have been following Chinese demographic trends for over 4 decades since I was a young child, and I've never seen any forecasts that contradict the trends leading to that peak around 2030.

Also, I assume that Asg70 is referring to the IPCC reports when he says that scientists have been wrong about their Climate Change forecasts. IPCC reports are POLITICAL documents, not scientific ones. They will always be wrong for POLITICAL reasons, but the scientists know perfectly well what is happening. It's just that they do need to make a living. Do you think they would get any grants to finance their research if they couldn't be muzzled?

I do 100% agree with Asg70's conclusion, though, that this forecast would be less optimistic if the author was publishing it today.

[AdamB]

Came across this document today by a Limits To Growth author.

Here he is in 2012 making a 40 year projection, out to 2052.

An interesting read, not sure I agree but that’s why I’m throwing this out there. For discussion

http://www.2052.info/wp-content/uploads ... d-CPSL.pdf

Love models this general. Sneeze on your GDP growth assumptions, you win! Cough...you lose! Assume A instead of B in power generation, CO2 skyrockets! Or plunges. Done objectively, it allows you to scale in rough parameters that might surprise you, perhaps inform your narrative in a general way,etc etc. Done the ETP MAP way, you pick your faith based answer (Armageddon, Shorty, permadoomers in general), and then you input the numbers that generate that answer. As Shorty has shown us, when reality discredits you, you are SO glad that it was laughed out of the publication world, and you can erase your website containing the proof of your ignorance.

The author seems to have as reasonable a guess into a realm where there are no facts as anyone else.

[Newfie]

A couple of things strike me as off.

Written in 2012 he projected world population to level off after reaching 8.1 billion in 2040. This growth rate is important because he uses in in following arguments. If it’s wrong then the other projections are effected.

So here we are just 8 years latter and checking ourworldindata they are estimating today’s population at 7.8 billion. And 9 billion by 2037. IIRC the UN projections have increased in recent years. Half of that increase coming from Africa.

Based on this, the UN Population Division expects world population, currently (2020) at 7.8 billion, to level out at or soon after the end of the 21st Century at 10.9 billion (the median line),[4][5] assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015–2020 period to 1.9 in 2095–2100, accordingto the medium-variant projection.[6]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project ... ion_growth

The other thing is GDP. Is GDP a useful tool when such a large percentage of the population are doing no meaningful work? He makes the point that as an economy matures more and more folks turn away from primary production. But then bases GDP on population. Seems counter intuitive. Is it not possible to have a high population and a low GDP? Or visa versa? So I don’t know how valid these assumptions are.

Finally I don’t see much recognition of resource depletion. He says, more or less, we will eventually recognize how valuable it is and be more efficient and turn to desalinization. But by then the fossil water will be severely depleted and desalinization is very energy expensive.

But it is interesting seeing an original author of LTG changing his tune on the 40th anniversary. The 30 year report was quite bleak.

[asg70]

[snip]

[Ibon]

It is 44 years since I was in college majoring in Environmental Science. That is 45 years contemplating the projection of human ecological overshoot into the future. 45 years ago that window of time available to reverse course seemed plausible. 45 years later it is astonishing how many of the predictions back then were accurate, not in the exact time line or in the exact quantifiable number, but more in the broad stroke of predictions of environmental degradation regarding climate change, over population and biodiversity loss. Acid rain and the ozone hole were big topics back then that were controlled but otherwise the broad outline of where we were heading was already quite well understood 45 years ago. That should give pause..... that we actually understood the consequences of our inaction 45 years ago!

When you are cognizant for 45 years and see no significant course change then you fall back on the belief that it is only the consequences of our inaction that will provide any impetus towards adaptation to a more steady state regarding population and consumption.

One of the very few actions an individual or a small foundation of individuals can actually take is to try to preserve native habitat by buying wild lands or rehabilitate lands that are strategically improtant as corridors of wildlife. These small islands of remaining natural habitat are the refuges out of which natural ecosystems will start to recolonize former human landscapes once our species footprint starts to recede.

A great example in North AMerica is that during my lifetime eastern deciduous forests have returned to close to primary forest status. Yes, the American Chestnut is gone, the passenger pigeon, carolina parakeet, Bachman's Warbler and Ivory-billed Woodpecker, all extinct along with hundreds of other species. But remarkably, 98% of the biodiversity of these forests are still intact. And one day not more than a century or two into the future old growth forests in the Eastern US will once again be home to mountain lion, timber wolf and grizzly bears. Maybe jaguars instead of timber wolves if climate change extends the tropical climate to more northern latitudes, but whatever climate change brings the forests will adapt.

THese are the musings which provide me the most comfort as I gaze upon the future while looking out the window or our lodge and former pastures rapidly reforesting, as our game cameras still document the keystone species that are holding on, still present, and will one day spread once again down the valley a ways when the plague of invasive Kudzu Apes exit the scene or recede to a fraction of their former parasitic dominance.

In the great sweep of time the current imbalances are the blink of an eye...... we may sooner than we think join once again with the community of life on the planet coexisting in some form of balanced steady state instead of raping and plundering the remaining natural ecosystems. There may be only a billion of us, but that is more than enough.

It cannot happen soon enough........

[mousepad]

how many of the predictions back then were accurate,

Like what?

One of the very few actions an individual or a small foundation of individuals can actually take is to try to preserve native habitat

I have a feeling once the going gets real tough, every bit wood will be cut down and every deer shot.
Humans are like a swarm of locust. They won't leave anything standing. I think we haven't seen nutting yet.

I remember 2009 the great financial crisis. Poaching in european forrests went up an order of magnitude. I glimpse into the future.

[Ibon]

how many of the predictions back then were accurate,

Like what?

Biodiversity loss and climate change for starts. These were two topics that were identified as major threats already 45 years ago. Overpopulation as well. Peak Oil was not a major topic back then but top soil and fertility loss of agricultural lands was. Fresh water depletion of aquifers is another issue that was identified back then that also turned out to be true, we have depleted our non renewable fresh water aquifers in the past 45 years to alarming levels.

I did my senior thesis on Acid rain and worked in Tennesee doing field work testing acidity of snowfalls in the winter and acidity of streams during snow melt in the spring and the impact it had on a species of salamander. The field data collected all throughout the state enabled us to identify which coal fired electrical plants were actually contributing to the acidity. The huge reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide actually resolved that issue.. and of course, banning CFC's solved the ozone issue. So these successes avoided some of the dire predictions back then of dying forest and dangerous levels of UV light.

[Outcast_Searcher]

This phrase keeps coming up in his presentation:

inability of the US government to make forceful
decisions on any issue involving the redistribution
of income and wealth.

This is a loaded statement if ever there was one. Why is redistribution of income and wealth necessary other than to fulfill this person's outdated hippie vision of a communist utopia?

OTOH, this sure sounds like a huge proportion of NYT (mostly left wingers) commenters on any article/discussion re economic principles.

The tendency toward science denial and resulting ignorance is my biggest problem with the right wingers. The tendency toward wanting ever-more taxes and wealth redistribution, generally, is my biggest problem with the left wingers.

For both sides, especially at the extremes, I see little evidence that pushing both of those agendas, there would EVER be "enough". And THAT is a key reason I never see myself allying with either group.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

It’s ironic that the author predicts there will be no wild land outside state protected preserves.

But yes, my 168 acre parcel is my contribution.

[mousepad]

So these successes avoided some of the dire predictions back then of dying forest and dangerous levels of UV light.

Yes, that's the problem. You never know what kind of gimmicks keep the ball rolling.
Some say it's solar, or fusion or the ban of plastic, or EV or this and that or the other.
That leads to inaction. You simply don't know if something is going to bag you until you're in the sack.

[Ibon]

So these successes avoided some of the dire predictions back then of dying forest and dangerous levels of UV light.

Yes, that's the problem. You never know what kind of gimmicks keep the ball rolling.
Some say it's solar, or fusion or the ban of plastic, or EV or this and that or the other.
That leads to inaction. You simply don't know if something is going to bag you until you're in the sack.

What did you mean by the word "gimmicks" ?

[asg70]

Kudzu Apes exit the scene or recede to a fraction of their former parasitic dominance.
...
It cannot happen soon enough........

And you still don't classify yourself as a misanthrope.

[Newfie]

Is it misanthropic time hope for a world where humanity survives, if at reduced numbers, rather than becomes extinct?

[Ibon]

And you still don't classify yourself as a misanthrope.

I am very much a misanthrope toward the current cultural orientation of modern Kudzu Apes. Toward my species however and their capacity and potential to one day live in a balanced way with the community of life on our planet I am a humanist in the deepest sense. In fact I am probably less doomerish and more optimistic of our species long term prognosis of getting there than most.

Between here and there my capacity of compassion is constrained by the expediency of the correction and its invaluable service to moving us culturally away from invasive parastism toward our mother earth and toward a more balanced coexistence with our brethren flora and fauna.

[asg70]

I am very much a misanthrope toward the current cultural orientation

Decorate it with flowery prose all you like. What I observe is one day you're morning a friend in the COVID thread and the next you're looking forward to billions of humans dying. Forgive me for not patting you or others sharing such views on the back.