Looking Back on the Limits of Growth, or: MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030 - Polidicks

I say we invest all in space travel.

I don't like people predicting this shit. It makes me depressed. So when i'm 36, end of the world, k sick, fuck you, spoiler much.

You don't have to be a scientist to see the end coming up. Yet you better be one to predict when it's about to happen. Fine with me, I'll have a beer on this.

Second law of thermodynamics

Chaos theory. They cannot predict weather right, but they are gonna predict end of the world? Yeah right.

[QUOTE=Clementine;35507490]Don't you pay attention to the huge influx in high mpg cars, great increase in priuses (which, contrary to your angsty belief, is more environmentally friendly, don't give me that battery shit I don't care, one battery won't cause as much damage so as to make the 30mpg increase from the average car negligible), electric cars, solar panels, wind power, nuclear power, and yeah.[/QUOTE] Just because you say one battery doesn't cause as much damage, doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because it's one battery doesn't mean it can't damage the environment, batteries are different sizes you know. The mining of the nickel for the Prius' battery does 50% more damage to the environment than a Hummer, and that's a fact.

Based on that trend it looks to be slightly beyond 2030, sometime around 2038 or so, the actual trend is a bit more optimistic than the predicted trends. Still, that's nothing, basically between 2030 and 2050 there's going to be a for-sure economic collapse. We can't prevent it, but I think that we can push it off by not depending on non-renewable resources. We should turn today's ghettos, like Detroit, Baltimore, etc. (I'll be honest, I am ignorant of other countries' poverty levels) into local farms. We wouldn't need so much natural resources to expedite shipments, since instead of 1000s of miles of travel, it would be less than 100. It's one small idea that won't put a dent in our dependence on non-renewable resources, but if I can come up with one small idea, 1000's of other people could too, and those ideas combined could push this 2030 date up significantly.

Well, we all knew capitalism was failing. But as long as the politicians pockets are getting filled we're all happy that's how it works? Right?

[QUOTE=CaptainEJSmith;35511036]I say we invest all in space travel.[/QUOTE] You should invest in slavery.

[QUOTE=LF9000;35507370][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y[/media] Due to law of Supply and Demand, resource depletion incentivizes the market to find substitutes, more deposits, and more efficient use. For example, take hybrids. More expensive than your typical gas guzzling car, but if you use it regularly, the opportunity costs of driving a cheaper gas guzzling car will exceed the fixed cost of paying for a hybrid. This calculator I found shows this principle very well. [url]http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-hybridcalculator-fl,0,2196084.flash[/url] Again this applies for many other limited resources, which the paper bases the majority of its argument on. It even addresses this weakness on page 10 of the study, saying that it acknowledges this effect, and simply assumes remaining amounts based on published literature, from over 40 years ago, and as you can see by the above video, will prove to be very unreliable.[/QUOTE] -You're citing LearnLiberty, which is libertarian political bunk pretending to be "classically liberal". It's also gibberish (copper's price is, at present, horrifically high, negating his first argument, and his second is outright bullshit, as it's quote mining to say "look scientists were wrong about this once so they must still be wrong, but I'm totally telling the truth"). This is as sound as religious propaganda. -Supply and demand do not apply to subsidized and incentivized businesses. No energy market on the planet is free, they're all given huge amounts of favoritism. This artificial support of unsustainable crap will keep it going until a point where it simply causes an economic breakdown or radical governmental change (which will then cause an economic breakdown). -Hybrids, being thus subsidized, are invalid to compare to anything when evaluating [I]real[/I] economic and resource concerns. [QUOTE=King Tiger;35502130]This whole study is based on the untrue fact that we will continue to use nonrenewable resources.[/QUOTE] Because we've totally taken the steps to move away from them and towards proven energy sources in the 40 years since, right? Oh, wait, that still hasn't happened.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35514235]-You're citing LearnLiberty, which is libertarian political bunk pretending to be "classically liberal". It's also gibberish (copper's price is, at present, horrifically high, negating his first argument, and his second is outright bullshit, as it's quote mining to say "look scientists were wrong about this once so they must still be wrong, but I'm totally telling the truth"). This is as sound as religious propaganda. -Supply and demand do not apply to subsidized and incentivized businesses. No energy market on the planet is free, they're all given huge amounts of favoritism. This artificial support of unsustainable crap will keep it going until a point where it simply causes an economic breakdown or radical governmental change (which will then cause an economic breakdown). -Hybrids, being thus subsidized, are invalid to compare to anything when evaluating [I]real[/I] economic and resource concerns. Because we've totally taken the steps to move away from them and towards proven energy sources in the 40 years since, right? Oh, wait, that still hasn't happened.[/QUOTE] His first argument regarding copper still holds. When there is incentive to exploit more costly deposits, it simply means that now less economically viable resources are now viable. Prices do not change. But what does change is the incentive to find cheaper substitutes. His 2nd argument regarding the unreliability of reserve estimates just says that, historically, estimates regarding deposits were very unreliable. To compared that to "religious propaganda" is just a false comparison. You also say that "look scientists were wrong about this once so they must still be wrong, but I'm totally telling the truth". Scientists were not wrong once, but 8 times, probably much more if you count estimates he didn't cite in the video. Supply and Demand apply to all markets. Subsidies just mean you shift the supply curve upwards, as you now make more for every unit of product you sell. This is why the government should stop subsidizing industries, as this shifts the equilibrium point to where less is produced at higher cost. Also this economic breakdown is just called the trough in a business cycle. Historically we've bounced back from every single recession/ depression. To say that this one will be different is just ignoring facts and history. [IMG]http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/Futurism-Got-Corn-graph-631-thumb.jpg[/IMG] Also the study incorrectly attributes the decline in birthrate to the supposed "economic breakdown", when in reality, it is an effect where in 1st world countries, the opportunity cost of having more children is simply too high to be worth having that extra child. For example in Singapore, the current birth rate is 1.16 children per children, below the replacement rate of around 2.1 . This would suggest that Singapore had gone through an "economic breakdown" as suggested by the supposed correlation between population and non renewable resources. But clearly this is the opposite of what Singapore is today, one of the four Asian tigers. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox[/url] This is a good link for a quick run through of this phenomenon. Distinction between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism have no real effect on reality, and has no place in this debate.

:(

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35458488]This is, unfortunately, the single stupidest goddamn attitude a person can have about this subject. Your attitudes reflect the "science is magic" belief. NONE CAN KNOW WHAT THE GRAND WIZARDS WILL GIVE US IN THE FUTURE, LOOK UPON THE MYSTERIES THEY HAVE ALREADY WROUGHT. MAYHAP YON FUSION AND MUDFOOD ARE JUST OVER THE HORIZON! What critical cognitive defect do you posses that allows for both faith in the continual progression of technology, and yet knee-jerk rejection of threat prediction, when both come from the same pool of people? This is the attitude that allows for anthropogenic climate change to be dismissed as bunk- "well [I]real[/I] science wouldn't tell us we need to [I]change something[/I], it would tell us how we can keep being grotesque slobs forever and present magical little devices to solve all our problems!" It's doublethink. An assumption progress is unpredictable when someone makes a prediction you do not like, because of predictions you do.[/QUOTE] Its funny that you should accuse me of following something so blindly considering this was a report commissioned by the Club of Rome, which is a group of the very wealthy and economics professors who support free trade and whatnot. It is not an independent study, its just something that was paid for. I'm not saying we should do whatever the fuck we want, but certainly we shouldn't start dropping off support of millions of people and leaving the third world to fall apart. We should preserve the environment and use our resources well, however, we shouldn't make idiotic assumptions that nothing will change by 2030. You're just being a hypocrite right now. It will also be very difficult for the third world to develop if we start telling them that they need to stop using resources and all that. Technology will allow us to synthesize resources (or carbon nanotubes) and use energy sources (solar power, thorium, fusion, hydrogen fuel cells) that are highly efficient and maybe even renewable. Not to mention that developed nations have low birth rates so as other nations slowly develop, the population of the world will begin to decline. I'm sorry if my skepticism alarms you, but we cannot simply make predictions like this that assume nothing will change. It is equally stupid to assume that science will fix everything as it is to assume that nothing will change. Malthus was wrong, just like this report is going to be.

The only thing that worries me is that we're not advancing fast enough on the renewable front, all these innovations have yet to be implemented. Oil is just going to keep getting more expensive, raising prices for everything and we're sitting on our hands. We need renewables [I]now[/I] to make a stable transition from a fossil fuel based economy. I don't want to get fucked later because some stupid politicians and corporations decide to hold back progress.

[QUOTE=LF9000;35519368]His first argument regarding copper still holds. When there is incentive to exploit more costly deposits, it simply means that now less economically viable resources are now viable. Prices do not change. But what does change is the incentive to find cheaper substitutes.[/QUOTE] Except copper proves substitutes don't always come and resources don't magically stay at the same cost to extract them, as copper is overpriced and effectively has no substitute in most industries (aluminum wire proved viable for certain situations only, and little else). [QUOTE=LF9000;35519368]His 2nd argument regarding the unreliability of reserve estimates just says that, historically, estimates regarding deposits were very unreliable. To compared that to "religious propaganda" is just a false comparison. You also say that "look scientists were wrong about this once so they must still be wrong, but I'm totally telling the truth". Scientists were not wrong once, but 8 times, probably much more if you count estimates he didn't cite in the video.[/QUOTE] The point is, defining a vague "those scientists" to point at and say "scientists are inaccurate" and then asserting a claim is what we in the industry refer to as "bullshit." It's logically garbage, you can't first lazily assert something is just difficult to know and then claim you understand it. That is how religious fundies work (you can't know there isn't a God, ergo there is one), the comparison's extremely apt. [QUOTE=LF9000;35519368]Supply and Demand apply to all markets. Subsidies just mean you shift the supply curve upwards, as you now make more for every unit of product you sell. This is why the government should stop subsidizing industries, as this shifts the equilibrium point to where less is produced at higher cost.[/QUOTE] This isn't even relevant to what you're talking about, though did whatever passed for an econ course where you went to school not explain how artificial scarcity works? [QUOTE=LF9000;35519368]Also this economic breakdown is just called the trough in a business cycle. Historically we've bounced back from every single recession/ depression. To say that this one will be different is just ignoring facts and history.[/QUOTE] "Each time I have been wounded, I have survived. Ergo, I cannot die." [QUOTE=LF9000;35519368]Also the study incorrectly attributes the decline in birthrate to the supposed "economic breakdown", when in reality, it is an effect where in 1st world countries, the opportunity cost of having more children is simply too high to be worth having that extra child. For example in Singapore, the current birth rate is 1.16 children per children, below the replacement rate of around 2.1 . This would suggest that Singapore had gone through an "economic breakdown" as suggested by the supposed correlation between population and non renewable resources. But clearly this is the opposite of what Singapore is today, one of the four Asian tigers. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox[/url] This is a good link for a quick run through of this phenomenon.[/QUOTE] So, what, because you know of a mechanism for population decline, that means any proposed mechanism for population decline that is not the one you know of is BS? [QUOTE=LF9000;35519368]Distinction between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism have no real effect on reality, and has no place in this debate.[/QUOTE] Okay, I needed to know I was talking to a brick wall, thanks for clearing that up! In all seriousness, you need to drop the ideological goofiness and ask an economist what these reports mean and how to read them. [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Earthen;35520751]Its funny that you should accuse me of following something so blindly considering this was a report commissioned by the Club of Rome, [B]which is a group of the very wealthy and economics professors who support free trade and whatnot.[/B] It is not an independent study, [B]its just something that was paid for.[/B] I'm not saying we should do whatever the fuck we want, but certainly[B] we shouldn't start dropping off support of millions of people and leaving the third world to fall apart.[/B] We should preserve the environment and use our resources well, however, we shouldn't make idiotic assumptions that nothing will change by 2030. You're just being a hypocrite right now. [B]It will also be very difficult for the third world to develop if we start telling them that they need to stop using resources and all that.[/B] [B]Technology will allow us to synthesize resources (or carbon nanotubes) and use energy sources (solar power, thorium, fusion, hydrogen fuel cells) that are highly efficient and maybe even renewable.[/B] Not to mention that developed nations have low birth rates so as other nations slowly develop, the population of the world will begin to decline. I'm sorry if my skepticism alarms you, but [B]we cannot simply make predictions like this that assume nothing will change.[/B] It is equally stupid to assume that science will fix everything as it is to assume that nothing will change. [B]Malthus was wrong[/B], just like this report is going to be.[/QUOTE] Everything I bolded is either wrong or ridiculously wrong. -I don't think you know what the Club or Rome is. You might want to visit their website, or a Wikipedia article about them, and look at their membership. -Commissioned research =/= biased research, and the models the first book was based off of existed prior to its funding by CoR. -Abandoning the [I]developing[/I] world is some ridiculous crap you made up, it has nothing to do with the Limits of Growth. -Nobody said resource consumption had to globally drop to zero, that's also some ridiculous crap you made up. -I say this as an engineer- you have no goddamn idea what energy solutions are on the horizon. If you honestly think you do, cite your shitty pop science sources, and I'll humor shooting them down with some actual academic publications. -We can make models that say X will happen if nothing changes before Y, and to date, nothing has changed. That's what this is. -This isn't Malthusian. Malthus believed "the power of population" is "superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man". That implies there exists a hard population/economic limit on the planet. Limits of Growth noted "unlimited economic growth was possible", but stated there were problems that could arise. That's about as Malthusian as the claim that for humanity to continue growing, it cannot commit mass suicide. Not all growth models which impose limits are Malthusian.

[QUOTE=LF9000;35519368] Also this economic breakdown is just called the trough in a business cycle. Historically we've bounced back from every single recession/ depression. To say that this one will be different is just ignoring facts and history.[/QUOTE] great. so all that will happen is that tons of people will lose their jobs. and their homes. with the inevitable displacement caused by that. and their childeren having to bear with the results of that. sounds good

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35458488]This is, unfortunately, the single stupidest goddamn attitude a person can have about this subject. Your attitudes reflect the "science is magic" belief. NONE CAN KNOW WHAT THE GRAND WIZARDS WILL GIVE US IN THE FUTURE, LOOK UPON THE MYSTERIES THEY HAVE ALREADY WROUGHT. MAYHAP YON FUSION AND MUDFOOD ARE JUST OVER THE HORIZON! What critical cognitive defect do you posses that allows for both faith in the continual progression of technology, and yet knee-jerk rejection of threat prediction, when both come from the same pool of people? This is the attitude that allows for anthropogenic climate change to be dismissed as bunk- "well [I]real[/I] science wouldn't tell us we need to [I]change something[/I], it would tell us how we can keep being grotesque slobs forever and present magical little devices to solve all our problems!" It's doublethink. An assumption progress is unpredictable when someone makes a prediction you do not like, because of predictions you do.[/QUOTE] What's the point? We're fucked either way. Just live your life, be happy and accept what you have no control over. ...Unless you happen to be a top scientist with a passion to save humanity. [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] though I couldn't imagine what a scientist could even do, i mean, condoms didn't seem to solve this issue :v:

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35514235]-You're citing LearnLiberty, which is libertarian political bunk pretending to be "classically liberal". It's also gibberish (copper's price is, at present, horrifically high, negating his first argument, and his second is outright bullshit, as it's quote mining to say "look scientists were wrong about this once so they must still be wrong, but I'm totally telling the truth"). This is as sound as religious propaganda. -Supply and demand do not apply to subsidized and incentivized businesses. No energy market on the planet is free, they're all given huge amounts of favoritism. This artificial support of unsustainable crap will keep it going until a point where it simply causes an economic breakdown or radical governmental change (which will then cause an economic breakdown). -Hybrids, being thus subsidized, are invalid to compare to anything when evaluating [I]real[/I] economic and resource concerns. Because we've totally taken the steps to move away from them and towards proven energy sources in the 40 years since, right? Oh, wait, that still hasn't happened.[/QUOTE] Except we aren't running out of resources. Especially not oil. Especially not Canada either so were set for the future oil wise.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35455069]Yeah so like I said: We don't have a better alternative, crude will be our crutch for a long long time yet, trust me I'm not happy about it and if we actually had something else then that would be amazing but we're decades away from being free of it. [editline]6th April 2012[/editline] Our resources are running out fast, why do you think a lot of people and governments had a massive drive to start recycling?[/QUOTE] While we're using resources quickly, we're actually find a lot of new resources all the time. Oil sites spring up all the time, and as technology advances, we'll be able to access those sites. When we can drill down into deeper oceans, or even scan faster, we'll find and retrieve more oil. There are literally thousands of oil wells in the middle of the ocean that are currently undiscovered and inaccessible. As the need arises, we're working on accessing those deposits. Think about how vast the oceans are and how little we have discovered! I reckon the oil will last until we've found a suitable replacement as a source of energy. It is a massive research sector, it's only a matter of time before someone discovers a new method. With more money being pumped into research on this exact problem every day, I think the solution will come sooner rather than later

[QUOTE=Folgergeist;35522827]What's the point? We're fucked either way.[/QUOTE] No, we're [I]not.[/I] Jesus, I'm sorry I posted this, the only response FP is capable of delivering is OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED FUCK AAAAAAAAUGH and THIS IS BULLSHIT OIL IS ETERNAL PRAISE MAMMON.

Does this account for the drop in population in first world countries due to the aging of the baby boomers and the echo generation?

[QUOTE=madmanmad;35502548]I guess i should start investing in some kind of dooms day plan? Like a bunker or somthing, fill it was dvds and video games and shit and some hot chicks and a chocolate fountain and solid gold chairs, a giant swimming pool and a built in mc donalds. I'll emerge from the bunker years after and teach the ravaged word how to properly take care of their money.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I think your meeting with the "ravaged world" is pretty much gonna go like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e3PXiV95kwA#t=129s]this[/url].

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35521897]Except copper proves substitutes don't always come and resources don't magically stay at the same cost to extract them, as copper is overpriced and effectively has no substitute in most industries (aluminum wire proved viable for certain situations only, and little else). The point is, defining a vague "those scientists" to point at and say "scientists are inaccurate" and then asserting a claim is what we in the industry refer to as "bullshit." It's logically garbage, you can't first lazily assert something is just difficult to know and then claim you understand it. That is how religious fundies work (you can't know there isn't a God, ergo there is one), the comparison's extremely apt. This isn't even relevant to what you're talking about, though did whatever passed for an econ course where you went to school not explain how artificial scarcity works? "Each time I have been wounded, I have survived. Ergo, I cannot die." So, what, because you know of a mechanism for population decline, that means any proposed mechanism for population decline that is not the one you know of is BS? Okay, I needed to know I was talking to a brick wall, thanks for clearing that up! In all seriousness, you need to drop the ideological goofiness and ask an economist what these reports mean and how to read them. [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] Everything I bolded is either wrong or ridiculously wrong. -I don't think you know what the Club or Rome is. You might want to visit their website, or a Wikipedia article about them, and look at their membership. -Commissioned research =/= biased research, and the models the first book was based off of existed prior to its funding by CoR. -Abandoning the [I]developing[/I] world is some ridiculous crap you made up, it has nothing to do with the Limits of Growth. -Nobody said resource consumption had to globally drop to zero, that's also some ridiculous crap you made up. -I say this as an engineer- you have no goddamn idea what energy solutions are on the horizon. If you honestly think you do, cite your shitty pop science sources, and I'll humor shooting them down with some actual academic publications. -We can make models that say X will happen if nothing changes before Y, and to date, nothing has changed. That's what this is. -This isn't Malthusian. Malthus believed "the power of population" is "superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man". That implies there exists a hard population/economic limit on the planet. Limits of Growth noted "unlimited economic growth was possible", but stated there were problems that could arise. That's about as Malthusian as the claim that for humanity to continue growing, it cannot commit mass suicide. Not all growth models which impose limits are Malthusian.[/QUOTE] I've gone to their website and read about them, and the wikipedia article is shit... it gives nothing. I'm not saying commissioned research is biased research, but there is a very high chance that it is, like pharmaceutical companies or that retarded anti-vaccine study. The best way for helping the developed world grow is through making sure they utilize all their resources, to say that they should have to limit the use of their resources means that development will take even fucking longer. We can't expect China to start being sustainable with its resource use when it needs to be using them as much as possible right now. Resource consumption doesn't have to drop to zero, but it doesn't have to be severely limited either. Stop being an arrogant prick, being an engineer does not make you an expert in emerging technologies. Technology is not the answer to all, but who knows how much will truly change in 20 years, sort of like moore's law. What I'm saying is that solar power is getting damn cheap, thorium reactors are finally being set up, synthetic resources are getting better and easier to make, and carbon nanotubules are developing quickly. Unfortunately I can't go around looking up research papers since I live in a third world country right now and my internet/computer can't handle that. Things have changed though, almost everything is getting better right now. Look at is this way, china and the us are leading fossil fuel and nonrenewable resource users, however as china develops and the us starts to invest in technologies and uses them more then we will slowly curb the use of said resources. Not to mention that developed countries always use less nonrenewable resources, look at Denmark. We cannot limit the growth of developing countries more than we already do. This has everything to do with malthus, we proved him wrong with the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution. Think about it this way, there was widespread famine through europe consistently until the advent of the potato. The discovery of the americas changed everything and these slow developments followed by revolutions is exactly how technology and science develop. We need to invest more into new technologies, preserve the environment and allow developing countries to take advantage of the world resources. We are throwing billions into poverty if we limit growth too much too soon.