Limits to Growth was right about collapse

Summary

I’m used to environmentalists and futurists writing about The Limits to Growth. I’m less used to seeing investment writers mention research that’s linked to The Limits of Growth. But that’s what Joachim Klement did in his daily newsletter recently. Of course, anyone who writes about Limits of Growth has to do all the usual disclaimers first. This is because the combination of the words “limits” and “growth” in the title produced a lot of critical responses, on a range from straight-up hatchet jobs which misrepresented the book, to people who didn’t appear to understand the systems dynamics model that sat behind it. (Photo: The Club of Rome) (I edited a special edition of the APF newsletter Compass that looked back at Limits to Growth. There’s an article in there by Ugo Bardi that goes into the detail of the history of the assault on Limits when it was published.) Standard run Klement puts it this way: Here is what the model actually predicted. The scientists at the MIT modelled three scenarios [actually 13, including these three–AC]: business as usual (what was then called ‘standard run’), a technologically enhanced world where technological progress eliminates most limits to growth, and a stabilised world where our economies shift to a sustainable (i.e. non-resource consuming) model by the turn of the century. The trouble with the ‘standard run’ is that its 50-60 year outcomes weren’t that good. They suggest that global industrial output will start to decline in the mid-2020s (checks calendar), and that global population will start to decline in the mid-2030s. In the 2010s, Graham Turner looked at the standard run against out-turn data, as Klement reminds us, and found it a good fit. Gaya Herrington updated this research in the early 202s—as per my Just Two Things piece linked here—and it was a still a good fit. Recalibrating the model Now another group of scientists have gone back to the original World3 model and recalibrated it against the best fit data, which is...