This is regarding MIT's (in-)famous Limits to Growth study and follow-up (best-selling) book. Every 5-10 years, someone does another follow-up review of it, generally concluding the original study...
This is regarding MIT's (in-)famous Limits to Growth study and follow-up (best-selling) book. Every 5-10 years, someone does another follow-up review of it, generally concluding the original study still seems to be accurate, and that humanity is still on track for a collapse around the middle of this century.
... and someone just published another such follow-up, saying that yep, 50 years on, the original study's still accurate, and we're still headed for a cliff, right around 2040-ish.
The article says there are two likely scenarios and only one of them leads to a collapse. It's also kind of iffy to say the original study is accurate because we follow the growth model they...
The article says there are two likely scenarios and only one of them leads to a collapse. It's also kind of iffy to say the original study is accurate because we follow the growth model they predicted when the big controversial part of that model was the rapid and dramatic decline, which hasn't happened yet. After all, the bit they got right so far is the bit that far more optimistic future projections also got right.
This is regarding MIT's (in-)famous Limits to Growth study and follow-up (best-selling) book. Every 5-10 years, someone does another follow-up review of it, generally concluding the original study still seems to be accurate, and that humanity is still on track for a collapse around the middle of this century.
... and someone just published another such follow-up, saying that yep, 50 years on, the original study's still accurate, and we're still headed for a cliff, right around 2040-ish.
The article says there are two likely scenarios and only one of them leads to a collapse. It's also kind of iffy to say the original study is accurate because we follow the growth model they predicted when the big controversial part of that model was the rapid and dramatic decline, which hasn't happened yet. After all, the bit they got right so far is the bit that far more optimistic future projections also got right.
Was anyone involved with the initial research named Hari Seldon?