Hi there, Ramblinactivist. I am a member of the Club of Rome which sponsored the study in 1972. Thank you for this clip, very well done, entertaining and informative. I passed the link to the other members and I had several positive reactions from them. Good!
Thank you for all your wonderful work, which I have followed (and used in my lecture/writing/science communication work) with interest for many years. :-)
I'm reading the 1972 first edition (online). Thinking people should read it. Everything that we are seeing in the West was already discussed in the book. "It confirms the tension which will continue to grow between the rich countries and the poor countries, between the North and the South, while the injustice and humiliation it breeds is found especially and increasingly unbearable by the Arab-Muslim countries," introduction. This book gives an explanation and rationalization for Global growths emergence and curtailing as human progress precedes its ability to sustain itself. The problem and the solution. Dr. Patrick Graichen speaking at the Club of Rome Salon held in Berlin on 21 November 2022 said, "there is a shift in the next generation, in the sense, that material growth is not their road to happiness...and that's a good sign." Material neutrality seems to be a path that will be explored more so as this centuries plays out. Watch and see.
I read it years ago ..and ‘The End of Nature’..for a long time I’ve chewed on the Native American quote ‘We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors,we are borrowing it from our children’ ..well,look what ‘we’ have done,come to ..
It was and remains a brilliant, ground-breaking, and prescient book. Everyone should read the original. Then read the book Overshoot. Thanks for posting this video.
This book was curriculum reading for a bachelor's in environmental science when i got mine. Along side the bruntland report it completely revolutionized how i thought about global economies and politics.
If only this book had been taken seriously and had been acted upon when it first appeared almost 50 years ago, then we would be in a very different position today and the climate crisis could probably have been averted.
The climate "crisis" is one of several strategies utilized by the world's "elite" to bring about their "The Fourth Industrial Revolution". The Build Back Better crowd proclaimed covid to be "a useful tragedy", which should be used to accelerate their dystopian agenda. These people believe in directed evolution. They believe technologies, such as artificial intelligence, genome editing, augmented reality, robotics, and 3-D printing, will change the way humans create, exchange, and distribute value. They are building a "human centered economy". That may sound nice, but what it really means is that human beings will become the primary commodity in this new system. Compliant individuals will be seen as the most valuable commodity. However, non compliant individuals will be considered "non-essential". They are the carbon they plan to eliminate. They are beta testing these theories as I type this. They do not care about the climate. They do not care about all people. They care about controlling people.
@@oc2108 And this book ‘The Limits to Growth’ was commissioned by The Club of Rome, which used to be the think tank of the scientific and monied elite. The model for Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum was the Club of Rome. The WEF just replaced the Club of Rome. All the junk science, and sinister control freak proposals remained though. But where the Club of Rome failed in implementing their policies, the WEF seems to be succeeding
Jensen: Will society (societies) make a voluntary transition to a sane and sustainable way of living? No one ever answers yes. So what do we actually do about that?
Get on and do it ourselves ignoring whatever indifference/obstruction is applied from above... starting with food, because food is the basis of society: ruclips.net/video/nA7yZ4lfghc/видео.html
@@ramblinactivist Got an engineer mate who is mostly off grid. Bought an old stable (53.722763, -2.846716) added another floor, dug his own well, bought a poly tunnel and small turbine (short term bank loan) Went all out guns blazing for self sufficiency. Apart from the 13 years of hell with the local council planning on change of use, adding another story, having no incoming services (they really don't like that!) he said he was on the cusp of finally cracking it however... he pretty much did 7-11 every single day to maintain it all. That's the thing with sustainability, you have to sustain it. He gave up in end saying that he was just really really tired. Appallingly he got a maintenance job with Pepsico in Skem. That said I'm still jealous of his 2KwH / day self imposed / limited electricity consumption. I remember in Borrowdale reading about life expectancy a few hundred years ago and how people had lives that where much more in tune with the seasons, nature and having a much deeper connection with the earth. What do you have to give up to get there? I don't know how you keep going Paul, with all your knowledge, critical thinking and handle of the facts - how you don't get well and truly depressed? Same with Mark Boyle although he seems to have created a nice little escape for himself out in the sticks. As an aside I met you at anti Fracking Rally in Manchester, Camp Frack Mere Brow and when giving evidence in Court for Frack Off when they climbed the rig at Beconsall. The judge berated you for wearing a 'jazzy' shirt in court lol! Those where the days! Keep up the good work - best from West Lancs!
If we're talking about the popular science biologist Neil Ferguson, he was four years old when this model was created. I don't think his maths skills would have been up to it then! I think perhaps you should look into the whole (social) 'science' of behavioural economics -- because really annoyingly, when treated as a group humans are boringly predictable. Yet when you try and find an individual who corresponds to those models, they don't truly exist. In the same way, 'Limits to Growth' works over time precisely because it's a 'big average'; it's an indicator of how the human system as a whole is progressing, not the individuals within it. Be as sceptical as you wish. The fact is, over time, the observed data year-on-year confirms the accuracy of the 1972 model. If people don't like that, then I suggest it;s because of their unwillingness to face the reality of where that process ends.
@@ramblinactivist @ramblinactivist Tell me what has become true from those model's in that book? I can make a square peg fit into a round hole if I hit it hard enough. Is there possibly a biased scientific method of calculating the year on year data, maybe even for financial reward...hmmm ? Please also tell me, where does that "reality" end?
@@heyitsalanhere You haven't watched the film then? Two recent studies (2008 & 2020 -- both published in peer reviewed academic journals) that I mention in the film found that the 'standard run' projection still fits the observed data today. The 2020 study is here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.13084
To my knowledge the study was revisited in 2012 this time by the University of Melbourne. The new more up to date data able to take into account things they couldnt predict in 1970 like the fall of communism rise of China still said the decline would begin around 2020 but where in 1972 it was expected to take in the region of 50 to 70 years the new data suggested it would be more like 20 to 30 years the point being the closer we got to 2020 the faster and faster it was getting. Im in little doubt Governments are probably secretly using embassies to collate data to feed it all into their own computers to monitor and plan for this for I can assure you politicians and senior civil servants will plan to see they in the name of Government survive for they plan to survive whatever can be survived for the good of the people you understand? It may account for things you hear like agenda 2030. Indeed in the UK I keep hearing a target date of 2030. By 2030 they want to ban all non electric cars. 2030 is also the year they want to ban cigarettes... 2030 this, 2030 that though they will bring stuff forward or delay it as needs arise. My view is that the vast majority of Governments but especially western ones are preparing for SOMETHING and something that requires microscopic control and compliance. Look at them forcing stuff on people. Its done one step at a time. They know how its done. Videos about it some by Yuri Berezov or something. A KGB trained 'journalist' taught not how to report but manipulate and control. Dont think politicians will ignore this. They wont. It doesnt have to prove to be true, they only need to believe it might be right to plan for it even if disguised as green and carbon neutral!!
'Carbon neutral' is a cloak for 'business as usual'. It's a fantasy if you look at the evidence, both of the efficacy of what they propose, as well as current resource trends. Climate is but one of a dozen or so limiting factors -- from phosphate rock availability to PFAS pollution -- which are as bad for our "civilisation" as climate change.
Oh, forgot to say... Club of Rome did update the study in 2022, but they changed its name just to confuse people: 'Earth for All - A Survival Guide for Humanity' www.clubofrome.org/publication/earth4all-book/
@@depop21 Yes. They have set it as a goal yes, and the date is 2030. Most dates are 2030, few 2035. Ban the sale of combustion cars, 2030. EU I think its 2035.
Ok except you got it 100% backwards. This book was a threat that’s been fulfilled - NOT a baseless prediction. We are under attack. Look up in the sky. Every day. I wish I was kidding. Wake up.
3:05 He shows one of the book's forecasts (the standard run) that in the middle of the 21st century human activity would reach a peak and then decline. This is also what Adam Smith predicted (without a timeline). I don't understand how you think he got it 100% backwards?
What's the point of exclusively mentioning rightwing criticism, when there is a bunch of leftwing criticism against it? This makes me mistrust your summary quite a lot as you seem to be more interested in doing political propaganda instead of spreading truth.
I'm saving the 'left' criticism -- e.g. figures like Aaron Bastani & his 'luxury automated communism' -- for another day; primarily because they're promoting a "left-materialist" perspective that's paradoxically 'bourgeois' (which technically they should be against due to, within their own philosophy, its tendency to deflect from class-centric criticism). That takes a lot of complicated unpacking that is all about social critiques of "-isms", not the physical/ecological issues at the heart of this book. It is, after all, a five minute review! Both from the initial criticism and later demonisation as an abstract 'other' to the technological/progress platform, 95% of the criticism has come from right/liberal perspective (the left just don't engage with such technical detail!) E.g. Garret Hardin's 'tragedy' perspective deserves some unpacking in this context, which I wish I'd had time for -- yet he makes those observations as someone with connections to conservative/hard-right ideas. Personally (if you hadn't appreciated) I'm into data; the more statistically rigorous the better. Most '-isms' don't do that. In referencing the liberal/right opposition to the idea of 'limits' I do so because that is based upon belief in the continuation of past trends, not statistical reality based within physical processes.
Hi there, Ramblinactivist. I am a member of the Club of Rome which sponsored the study in 1972. Thank you for this clip, very well done, entertaining and informative. I passed the link to the other members and I had several positive reactions from them. Good!
Ah... and I see that my book "The Limits to Growth Revisited" also briefly appears in the clip! Thanks.
Thank you for all your wonderful work, which I have followed (and used in my lecture/writing/science communication work) with interest for many years. :-)
@@UgoBardi limits to growth is a lie
@@JulioGarcia-wp2um What a well-reasoned and amply-evidenced rebuttal.
Hitchens would like a word with you about his razor.
I'm reading the 1972 first edition (online). Thinking people should read it. Everything that we are seeing in the West was already discussed in the book. "It confirms the tension which will continue to grow between the rich countries and the poor countries, between the North and the South, while the injustice and humiliation it breeds is found especially
and increasingly unbearable by the Arab-Muslim countries," introduction. This book gives an explanation and rationalization for Global growths emergence and curtailing as human progress precedes its ability to sustain itself. The problem and the solution. Dr. Patrick Graichen speaking at the Club of Rome Salon held in Berlin on 21 November 2022 said, "there is a shift in the next generation, in the sense, that material growth is not their road to happiness...and that's a good sign." Material neutrality seems to be a path that will be explored more so as this centuries plays out. Watch and see.
I read it years ago ..and ‘The End of Nature’..for a long time I’ve chewed on the Native American quote ‘We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors,we are borrowing it from our children’ ..well,look what ‘we’ have done,come to ..
The podcast Breaking Down: Collapse discusses this book for some episodes. Highly recommend checking it out.
This is one of the most important books you should read
You're doing great work RamblingActivist. MANY THANKS
This is incredible. Thank you.
It was and remains a brilliant, ground-breaking, and prescient book. Everyone should read the original. Then read the book Overshoot. Thanks for posting this video.
'Overshoot' is also on my shelf. Perhaps one day ;-)
You’ve done a great job presenting this book in a brief manner. I just hope more people will start paying attention to it.
wow, thank you for your take and making it available to more people that way
Have you done ‘The End of Nature’?
This book was curriculum reading for a bachelor's in environmental science when i got mine. Along side the bruntland report it completely revolutionized how i thought about global economies and politics.
Oh wow, I wonder how the world keeps becoming shittier when all these sages, with whom most rulers seem to agree with, predicted all this decades ago.
If only this book had been taken seriously and had been acted upon when it first appeared almost 50 years ago, then we would be in a very different position today and the climate crisis could probably have been averted.
What climate crisis?
The climate crisis is a total ruse
Don't see any climate crisis, just Earth reorganising herself.
The climate "crisis" is one of several strategies utilized by the world's "elite" to bring about their "The Fourth Industrial Revolution". The Build Back Better crowd proclaimed covid to be "a useful tragedy", which should be used to accelerate their dystopian agenda. These people believe in directed evolution. They believe technologies, such as artificial intelligence, genome editing, augmented reality, robotics, and 3-D printing, will change the way humans create, exchange, and distribute value. They are building a "human centered economy". That may sound nice, but what it really means is that human beings will become the primary commodity in this new system. Compliant individuals will be seen as the most valuable commodity. However, non compliant individuals will be considered "non-essential". They are the carbon they plan to eliminate. They are beta testing these theories as I type this. They do not care about the climate. They do not care about all people. They care about controlling people.
@@oc2108 And this book ‘The Limits to Growth’ was commissioned by The Club of Rome, which used to be the think tank of the scientific and monied elite. The model for Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum was the Club of Rome. The WEF just replaced the Club of Rome. All the junk science, and sinister control freak proposals remained though. But where the Club of Rome failed in implementing their policies, the WEF seems to be succeeding
Jensen: Will society (societies) make a voluntary transition to a sane and sustainable way of living?
No one ever answers yes. So what do we actually do about that?
Get on and do it ourselves ignoring whatever indifference/obstruction is applied from above... starting with food, because food is the basis of society:
ruclips.net/video/nA7yZ4lfghc/видео.html
@@ramblinactivist Got an engineer mate who is mostly off grid. Bought an old stable (53.722763, -2.846716) added another floor, dug his own well, bought a poly tunnel and small turbine (short term bank loan) Went all out guns blazing for self sufficiency. Apart from the 13 years of hell with the local council planning on change of use, adding another story, having no incoming services (they really don't like that!) he said he was on the cusp of finally cracking it however... he pretty much did 7-11 every single day to maintain it all. That's the thing with sustainability, you have to sustain it. He gave up in end saying that he was just really really tired. Appallingly he got a maintenance job with Pepsico in Skem. That said I'm still jealous of his 2KwH / day self imposed / limited electricity consumption.
I remember in Borrowdale reading about life expectancy a few hundred years ago and how people had lives that where much more in tune with the seasons, nature and having a much deeper connection with the earth. What do you have to give up to get there?
I don't know how you keep going Paul, with all your knowledge, critical thinking and handle of the facts - how you don't get well and truly depressed? Same with Mark Boyle although he seems to have created a nice little escape for himself out in the sticks.
As an aside I met you at anti Fracking Rally in Manchester, Camp Frack Mere Brow and when giving evidence in Court for Frack Off when they climbed the rig at Beconsall. The judge berated you for wearing a 'jazzy' shirt in court lol! Those where the days!
Keep up the good work - best from West Lancs!
Well this is sad. I like books with happy endings. If I was any other species, it would be.
love that intro
Thanks! It was my first. I've refined it a little more since then 🙂
A lot of computer models used ...like the the model's calculated/made up by neil ferguson...🤔
If we're talking about the popular science biologist Neil Ferguson, he was four years old when this model was created. I don't think his maths skills would have been up to it then!
I think perhaps you should look into the whole (social) 'science' of behavioural economics -- because really annoyingly, when treated as a group humans are boringly predictable. Yet when you try and find an individual who corresponds to those models, they don't truly exist.
In the same way, 'Limits to Growth' works over time precisely because it's a 'big average'; it's an indicator of how the human system as a whole is progressing, not the individuals within it.
Be as sceptical as you wish. The fact is, over time, the observed data year-on-year confirms the accuracy of the 1972 model. If people don't like that, then I suggest it;s because of their unwillingness to face the reality of where that process ends.
@@ramblinactivist
@ramblinactivist
Tell me what has become true from those model's in that book? I can make a square peg fit into a round hole if I hit it hard enough.
Is there possibly a biased scientific method of calculating the year on year data, maybe even for financial reward...hmmm ?
Please also tell me, where does that "reality" end?
@@heyitsalanhere You haven't watched the film then? Two recent studies (2008 & 2020 -- both published in peer reviewed academic journals) that I mention in the film found that the 'standard run' projection still fits the observed data today.
The 2020 study is here:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.13084
@@ramblinactivist
Here's where some of that "observed data" comes from!
ruclips.net/video/v4HwbNddYH0/видео.html
omg opening shot theres E P Thompson !
Carbon!
To my knowledge the study was revisited in 2012 this time by the University of Melbourne. The new more up to date data able to take into account things they couldnt predict in 1970 like the fall of communism rise of China still said the decline would begin around 2020 but where in 1972 it was expected to take in the region of 50 to 70 years the new data suggested it would be more like 20 to 30 years the point being the closer we got to 2020 the faster and faster it was getting. Im in little doubt Governments are probably secretly using embassies to collate data to feed it all into their own computers to monitor and plan for this for I can assure you politicians and senior civil servants will plan to see they in the name of Government survive for they plan to survive whatever can be survived for the good of the people you understand? It may account for things you hear like agenda 2030. Indeed in the UK I keep hearing a target date of 2030. By 2030 they want to ban all non electric cars. 2030 is also the year they want to ban cigarettes... 2030 this, 2030 that though they will bring stuff forward or delay it as needs arise. My view is that the vast majority of Governments but especially western ones are preparing for SOMETHING and something that requires microscopic control and compliance. Look at them forcing stuff on people. Its done one step at a time. They know how its done. Videos about it some by Yuri Berezov or something. A KGB trained 'journalist' taught not how to report but manipulate and control. Dont think politicians will ignore this. They wont. It doesnt have to prove to be true, they only need to believe it might be right to plan for it even if disguised as green and carbon neutral!!
'Carbon neutral' is a cloak for 'business as usual'. It's a fantasy if you look at the evidence, both of the efficacy of what they propose, as well as current resource trends. Climate is but one of a dozen or so limiting factors -- from phosphate rock availability to PFAS pollution -- which are as bad for our "civilisation" as climate change.
Oh, forgot to say... Club of Rome did update the study in 2022, but they changed its name just to confuse people:
'Earth for All - A Survival Guide for Humanity'
www.clubofrome.org/publication/earth4all-book/
Did you say "Ban Cigarettes"?? 😱
👍 lol
@@ramblinactivist thanks mate 👍
@@depop21 Yes. They have set it as a goal yes, and the date is 2030. Most dates are 2030, few 2035. Ban the sale of combustion cars, 2030. EU I think its 2035.
Ok except you got it 100% backwards. This book was a threat that’s been fulfilled - NOT a baseless prediction. We are under attack. Look up in the sky. Every day. I wish I was kidding. Wake up.
What can a normal individual do?
@@seppa1671 Nothing. It doesn't change the fact we're fkd lol
3:05 He shows one of the book's forecasts (the standard run) that in the middle of the 21st century human activity would reach a peak and then decline. This is also what Adam Smith predicted (without a timeline). I don't understand how you think he got it 100% backwards?
Learn to grow your own food@@seppa1671
What's the point of exclusively mentioning rightwing criticism, when there is a bunch of leftwing criticism against it? This makes me mistrust your summary quite a lot as you seem to be more interested in doing political propaganda instead of spreading truth.
I'm saving the 'left' criticism -- e.g. figures like Aaron Bastani & his 'luxury automated communism' -- for another day; primarily because they're promoting a "left-materialist" perspective that's paradoxically 'bourgeois' (which technically they should be against due to, within their own philosophy, its tendency to deflect from class-centric criticism). That takes a lot of complicated unpacking that is all about social critiques of "-isms", not the physical/ecological issues at the heart of this book.
It is, after all, a five minute review!
Both from the initial criticism and later demonisation as an abstract 'other' to the technological/progress platform, 95% of the criticism has come from right/liberal perspective (the left just don't engage with such technical detail!) E.g. Garret Hardin's 'tragedy' perspective deserves some unpacking in this context, which I wish I'd had time for -- yet he makes those observations as someone with connections to conservative/hard-right ideas.
Personally (if you hadn't appreciated) I'm into data; the more statistically rigorous the better. Most '-isms' don't do that. In referencing the liberal/right opposition to the idea of 'limits' I do so because that is based upon belief in the continuation of past trends, not statistical reality based within physical processes.