50 years of "The limits to growth"

Humanitarian catastrophes (including resource wars and conflicts), natural, climate and industrial (except nuclear or oil forum fossil and nuclear energy). Pollution of the sea and oceans.
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1770
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 575

50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 13/01/22, 08:46

Happy Birthday ! : Mrgreen:

For those unfamiliar with the report published in 1972:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Limit ... nde%20fini)%20(,des%20r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences%20des%20d%C3%A9bats%20et

For the 30 years we have had the right to a comparison between the reality of the past 30 years and the scenarios
Graphic result where we see that we are following their BAU scenario (Business as usual)
Image
https://www.les-crises.fr/recommande-le ... am-turner/

For the 50th anniversary, we are going to have a book but in the meantime here is a video from Jorgen Randers, one of the authors of the 1972 report.
We often hear Dennis Meadows (other author) in the media but little Jorgen Randers and the story is noticeably different: a little more upbeat, even if nothing is rosy.

It's in English, I'm not bilingual but with the subtitles and a DIY level in English, we manage to follow.
We will see a new simulation from 1980 on a new model called Earth4 and no longer world3.
CO2 is integrated into this new model.
1 x

humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1770
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 575

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 28/01/22, 10:45

I just typed 1h12 of Arthur Keller which reports the ecological slump in which we are.
From this sequence, he declares: "if we stop there, we have understood nothing"
"Do you have any idea how we're doing?"
I'm not spoiling the sequel because I haven't watched it myself yet. : Mrgreen:
Until then, Arthur Keller's speech comes out very dark.
I would like later to make a comparative analysis between Arthur Keller's speech and the speech of Jorgen Randers (above) which seems to me more optimistic.
Impression or reality?
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1770
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 575

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 01/02/22, 08:01

Synthesis on these 2 videos about the prospective on the current century (collapse?) and the ways to live all this at best. The approaches of Arthur Keller and Jorgen Randers are similar, the conclusions are significantly different.


Arthur Keller notes that human civilization believes for its well-being and transforms nature into waste.
It cannot be eternal and we have already exceeded nature's capacity for renewability.
This fact can only lead to an ecological collapse in the broad sense and therefore to a collapse brutal of the world population during the 21st century. This is the conclusion of the "limits to growth" report, BAU scenario, of 1972.

Faced with this observation, he switches to an adaptation process to manage this as well as possible.
For problem solving, he insists on the need to get out of the usual modes of reasoning of experts, said "in silo", to switch to a broader vision, to a systemic vision.
These two approaches, "silo" expertise and systemic expertise are necessary and complementary.

He recommends identifying the cause of the problems to act at the level of the cause, rather than on the symptom as we often do today.
I don't hear him considering an overall positive exit for global society
From what I perceive from his speech, he proposes to enter into resistance in the face of what is taking shape: to act according to his deep convictions against the current system.
It is more oriented "individual action" but in connection, through resilient communities, having understood what is happening at the level of the earth system and acting intelligently.
At the end, he lists a lot of common sense recommendations revolving around resilience: redundancy, stock, risk culture, pooling, cooperation etc. and finally introduces low-tech.

Jorgen Randers was one of the editors of the original Limits to Growth report from 1972.
First observation, there has been no collapse considering the 50 years that have passed since the release of the 1972 report.
The question arises for the next 50 years.
With a team, he has just worked for 10 years on the development of a new computer model of the earth system, Earth4, which succeeds Worl3 of 1972.
This new model incorporates the CO2 parameter, and forecasts from 2020 instead of 1970 in the initial report.

Currently Carbon fossil fuels are finally less depleted than expected in World3, the world population is higher than expected, pollution (CO2) is higher than expected, the rest sticks quite well to the 1970 simulations.
With Earth4, a world population peak of 9 or 10 billion is reached around 2050, without a sudden collapse thereafter, contrary to the models in world3 in 1970.

This is possible through measures of progress leading to a reduction in births by women themselves: education, contraception, health care, and improved incomes.
On the other hand, in Earth4, the global well-being indicator only decreases over the next 50 years because if global income increases a little more, inequalities increase sharply.
Clearly, capital is doing better than workers.
In Earth 4, human well-being drops due to inequality and global warming. Global warming does not necessarily kill directly but greatly degrades the quality of life.

For human well-being not to collapse in the next 50 years, the rich must pay the bills now.
You have to accept investing in what is not profitable.
Instead of the current 500 billion/year for renewables, we have to go to 2000 or 3000 billion/year, which remains a small percentage of world GDP. (100 billion/year).
This effort is enough, it is not a disproportionate effort.
Individual actions and the unregulated free market will not sustain human well-being. A societal crisis is more to be feared than an ecological crisis.
Faced with the free market, you need a will, a strong state, supported by a democratic majority that wants this effort of transition and taxation of the richest.

In conclusion, although the findings of resource depletion in the broad sense are similar, the perspectives of the 2 authors are not.
Arthur Keller envisions an action on a human scale, in a small group. it does not show considering an exit through politics whereas for Jorgen Randers, the best (the only) perspective is the state and democratic level.

Each of the 2 authors undergoes his culture.
Arthur Keller is French, where the state has abandoned its prerogatives in favor of finance. People feel deprived of all power, left to themselves. Action on a national or supranational scale no longer seems possible. He does not say it clearly, I deduce it from the absence of this statement.

For Jorgen Randers who is Scandinavian, the notion of a powerful and protective state surely still has meaning.

At the level of French policies, we find this notion of taxing the rich to finance an ecological transition on the right scale, in Sandrine Rousseau and in substance in Jean-Luc Melenchon.

As Jorgen Randers says in his own way, letting the system live its life (BAU + individual actions) is not enough. We must stimulate a radical collective will. If this democratic and political impulse does not take place, it is a social collapse which is to be feared. (unemployment, riots, wars, misery, barbarism)
2 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10869
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1703

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Ahmed » 01/02/22, 18:45

Thank you for this summary!
A.Keller write:
Faced with the free market, you need a will, a strong state...

The state, contrary to what many claim, is not intended to oppose the market, but to complement it by ensuring the general tasks that it cannot fulfill: it would therefore be futile to expect the state saws the economic branch on which it is seated and which constitutes its only "policy", beyond the divisions and the pseudo-choices offered by the parties.
To say that the solution would consist in enlisting the rich to initiate an energy transition of any magnitude is doubly laughable. It is first of all to recognize the well-foundedness of the wealth and therefore of the approach of those whom we want to puncture, which is already contradictory; on the other hand, this energy transition being only the pretext for an economic transition (resulting from the reduction of fossil fuels and the growing role of subsidies-debts as opportunities) to strive to persevere in the current model by a simple "update" is helping to speed up what we want to avoid...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4563
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 380

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Exnihiloest » 01/02/22, 18:57

humus wrote:Happy Birthday ! : Mrgreen:

For those unfamiliar with the report published in 1972:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Limit ... nde%20fini)%20(,des%20r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences%20des%20d%C3%A9bats%20et

For the 30 years we have had the right to a comparison between the reality of the past 30 years and the scenarios
Graphic result where we see that we are following their BAU scenario (Business as usual)
...

It is very reassuring for the future.
Only a dictatorship can thwart the spontaneous tendency that peoples follow in their progress.

There is no limit to economic growth. This "growth" is transformation, and transformation is endless, the atoms do not disappear.
0 x

User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4563
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 380

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Exnihiloest » 01/02/22, 19:09

humus wrote:I just typed 1h12 of Arthur Keller which reports the ecological slump in which we are.
From this sequence, he declares: "if we stop there, we have understood nothing"
...

Another pedantic preacher who promises us hell, and derives his oats from his handling of risk and fear. But as long as he does not have inquisition tribunals under his belt, he will happily speak in a vacuum.
The gugus of environmentalism who make a few % of votes in the elections in France fortunately do not have the power, nor those who turn around them, people are not so stupid to follow them.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1770
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 575

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 01/02/22, 19:13

Ahmed wrote:A.Keller write:
Faced with the free market, you need a will, a strong state...
It's the other : Arrow: Jorgen Randers : Wink:

Ahmed wrote:The state, contrary to what many claim, is not intended to oppose the market, but to complement it by ensuring the general tasks that it cannot fulfill: it would therefore be futile to expect the state saws the economic branch on which it is seated and which constitutes its only "policy", beyond the divisions and the pseudo-choices offered by the parties.

What you are describing is precisely the point that needs to change.
As long as you understand that this point is unsurpassable, you make a beautiful rebel there! : Lol:
The economic dictatorship has a fair game with conformist "rebels", conditioned and resigned. : roll:
WOW my love. : roll:

Ahmed wrote:To say that the solution would consist in enlisting the rich to initiate an energy transition of any magnitude is doubly laughable. It is first of all to recognize the well-foundedness of the wealth and therefore of the approach of those whom we want to puncture, which is already contradictory

It's called composing with the existing even if we would have preferred a virtuous system.

Neither of them advocates questioning capitalism. probably too big a piece, probably so as not to become inaudible.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1770
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 575

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 01/02/22, 19:23

Exnihiloest wrote:There is no limit to economic growth. This "growth" is transformation, and transformation is endless, the atoms do not disappear.


There is no limit to stupidity either.
Go live on Venus, or Mercury, no atom has disappeared. : Mrgreen:
Living is the most evolved state of matter. H. Reeves
It is to forget that the conditions for life are fragile.
Now, if only the immortality of atoms interests you, all ignominy is possible. : Mrgreen:
Last edited by humus the 01 / 02 / 22, 19: 28, 1 edited once.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1770
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 575

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 01/02/22, 19:25

Exnihiloest wrote:The gugus of environmentalism who make a few % of votes in the elections in France fortunately do not have the power, nor those who turn around them, people are not so stupid to follow them.

The cicada and the ant, have you forgotten?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10869
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1703

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Ahmed » 01/02/22, 19:28

Humus, I am only describing the existing which must first be understood in order to be exceeded, but your two above-mentioned (sic!) are clearly resigned to it and probably advocate a capitalism "with lubricant": it is very trendy ... : Wink:
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 8 guests