Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when computers and simulations were becoming a thing at universities, scientists at MIT modelled our society and found that most scenarios would lead to collapse. Essentially, exponential growth on a finite planet is not sustainable forever. The results of the detailed study and scenarios examined were published in a famous, albeit controversial and ground-shaking book called “Limits to Growth” in 1972 by the Club of Rome (COR). Hard to believe that was over 50 years ago. The Club of Rome still exists around the world, and I attend weekly Zoom talks hosted by CACOR (Canadian COR); most talks are on some aspect of climate change. A new, peer-reviewed scientific paper was just published providing a recalibration of the modelling based on the most recent, up to date, empirical data. The updated results are that we are very close to reaching limits to our growth. How close? Within the next decade. Link to new paper: www.researchgate.net/journal/Journal-of-Industrial-Ecology-1530-9290/publication/375610074_Recalibration_of_limits_to_growth_An_update_of_the_World3_model/links/65531b773fa26f66f4fe04aa/Recalibration-of-limits-to-growth-An-update-of-the-World3-model.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQifX0 Link to free pdf copy of the original book “Limits to Growth” published in 1972 by the Club of Rome: www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf Please donate at paulbeckwith.net to support my research and videos as I join the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.
So this book is based on the fact that limitless growth on finite planet is impossible. It is not predicting this collapse because of climate. The problem I see here is that if we got 100% committed to solving our climate issues there is no way we will be able to complete the project. There just is not enough resources. I guess this is why the metal asteroid is so important🤔. Very Interesting. Of course if we scrapped the War Machine we would have a lot more resources available, just saying. I know, we kill to keep US Free.🙄🇺🇲 I am definitely kneeling🇺🇲😥 That has not seemed to be the results I have seen in my lifetime. It seems pointless to have wars at this point, there is so little time left. Thankfully according to most predictions our ability to wage conventional wars is rapidly coming to close. So we die from nukes cause it is all that is possible...sad. On the bright side, I live next door to vital Military Base, I get to go with the first Salvo, WooHoo! Oh my the future looks down right exciting! Turns out, The Amish were right.🙀 And the indigenous peoples of the world. If only we could have peacefully coexisted with the native Americans, how different our World would be😢
The thing that drives 'exponential growth' is our flawed currencies. *Say we have an economy with a GDP in base year 0 of 100 units. And this economy manages to add 100 units in year 1 to the GDP, the growth rate will have been 50%. We manage to add 100 units again in year 2, but now the growth rate has fallen to 33%. .. we keep doing this and around year 50 the growth rate will have FALLEN to 2%, although the economy added 100 units of GDP each year and is now at 5000 GDP units per year!* Now imagine ANY surplus currency holder (shareholder/investors) accepting 2% Return on Investment or even less and I have a bridge to sell to you. No one will accept this, because our currency has got a Zero Lower Bound Interest Problem that it copied from metal commodity currency, but which would turn into a Negative Lower Bound Interest "feature" is we accounted properly (#) upon creating our fiat currencies.. unfortunately not even Modern Monetary Theory is there yet. Please note that 2% is the inflation rate that our central banks aim for - to counter the effect of the Zero Lower Bound - just one problem - to have inflation it requires additional money to be created with debtors that are willing to create more debt - in an economic environment whose growth rate is trending towards ZERO! Keynes thought this would be possible, although he already knew about Gesell and his proposal of a fiat currency that loses value if being kept from circulation by surplus holders. This is why our economies need to grow all the time - to satisfy the money surplus holders and their demand for positive ROI - so their piles of money can grow with more than 2% each year.. But this requires an economy that can grow exponentially - which is impossible. We either start to use NLB fiat or our societies fall apart - because *the only other way to satisfy the few surplus money holders is to hand them ever greater parts of the economy.. until they own everything!* #) I can explain, just ask.
@@joansparky4439 The economy and systems grew exponentially under silver and gold reserve currencies as well. The only difference with Keynseian thinking is that recessions are not allowed, the growth must always happen constantly every quarter. Remember the most important thing, when asked about "what about in the long run?" Keynes says "Who cares? In the long run, we're all dead!"
@@ObsceneSuperMatt The problem with metal commodity currency is that it can't adjust it's amount to economic activity.. when the economic activity raises and the amount of metal can't keep up there will be deflation (downward spiral), which cools down the expansion right away and hands any economic growth to the money holders - concentrating 'capital' and creating rich & poor. See the ancient world and the term 'Usury' which is a concept known to all major religions who tried to counter this effect even back then already. Fiat is able to break this start-up problem by being based on promises by debtors, which can adjust easily to economic expansion (all it requires is a legal framework that enforces promises). The thing is that those debtors can't keep their promise FOREVER though, so individual fiat currency units actually have a limited time-span during which they are valuable.. this creates a negative lower bound interest rate and FORCES any money surplus holders to accept ROI down to that rate.. which means economic activity could just saturate (0% growth) or even shrink and the money surplus holders would still circulate their money keeping everything chucking along nicely. Gesell's hypothesis back then was based on metal commodity currency needing to rust (to be on par with the products decay) - not on the Debt Theory of Money that Fiat is actually based on. He was ahead of his time and the impracticality of Scrap Money for example was what lead Keynes&Co to try to "simulate" this decay via a permanent rate of inflation of 2%. But this has the problem of: 1) affecting not just the currency units, but any denomination 2) failing once economic growth falls below the inflation rate - which is inevitable.. at which point government can try to keep increasing it's debt to grow the money piles for a bit longer, but there is a hard ceiling there. Our existing fiat currencies ignore to communicate the validity time-span of the promise, itself being based on the debtors ability to keep his promise for at best 2-3 decades.. after that a fiat money currency unit (which is based on a promise) IS worthless. This is the pure reality of the situation. Money based on metal is valuable "forever", which is why our fiat copied this "feature" of it when the gold standard was abolished.. this is why our fiat currency malfunctions and why our central banks try to cope with GDP tea leaf reading and mingle with the interest rate in a futile attempt to keep things running for a while longer. Ultimately futile.
Living in southern Saskatchewan surrounded by industrial agriculture. Several years of drought here and a grasshopper population explosion which was met by broadscale application of insecticides including by plane. It just seems like everything has died. Birds, insects. Frogs gone, toads gone, snakes nearly gone (only 1 all summer....a dead one that someone had killed). Not one bumblebee from May to the end of July when a few appeared. Deer disappeared mid summer. Waterfowl a fraction of the past. Fruit bearing shrubs (bird food) non- productive. Its like the world around me is dying. I'm not making this up. I can't drink my water anymore as it is too salty. Yet governments introduce policies to make things worse. Subsidizing food purchases for cattle when we desperately need a herd reduction. If someone would invent a vacuum to pick the last remnants of biomass to feed cows it would be a market place success. The biofuels mandates do next to nothing to reduce GHG emission yet they encourage industrial ag to spread into every possible acre. There is almost no protection for wetlands or water sources. It is an agricultural free for all that taxpayers and people are forced to subsidize.
The last few years I've had the same observations here in central Oklahoma... fewer and fewer critters of all kinds. I noticed all this before I educated myself on what's going on in the world. We hardly get snow in the winter now. I see fewer and fewer birds. Migrating geese are a rare sight. I keep telling myself I'm imagining the past differently than it was.... it's almost too unimaginable to believe.
@walkerdb84 Western Oregon & Washington rainforests are stressed. I had a farm in Chehalis for 35 years I saw this coming. Less and less snowfall on Rainer, Adam's, and Mt Baker yoy. Rain every year till the 4th of July was standard in the 1960s & until 1987 or so...then something changed.
This f'ing time gap cost my sleep.Thank you Paul! It's worth it. Following seems like personal - it is not: I read the book in 1983. I was 21 years old at the time. You can't read the book at all - boring tables. The final word blew me away. "Technical solutions alone will not be enough. It takes a lot of courage and imagination..." (something like that..) At the time I had a natural food store _...the organically farmed area in Germany was around 7% in the early 80s_ I then spent 4 years looking at what economics ministers were doing: They always smiled when the growth was 'good' and looked worried when it wasn't. If I said back then, "There's something wrong with capitalism" = "Are you a communist, ha ha?" was the usual answer. blah "How are you supposed to save the world with such prunes on your team?" This was a serious question of mine and my answer was+is: "not at all" "Maybe they'll run out of oil before then" - that's what one could *hope for* in 1990. Then I started loving my life, cheating on taxes and getting serious about removing the mental shit that comes with a society like this. The FK's start fracking soon... *...hope was gone* The cultivated area today is 11%. 4% progress in almost 40 years. Snails are faster.... good night
Our capacity to engineer our way out of this is indeed limited. Regarding capitalism though, both the capitalist and the communist countries contributed significantly to the pollution of our planet. The irony is that we had the technology to avoid it all - nuclear - and if we had just had leaders who had had the foresight to introduce a global one or two child policy as well as investments in nuclear and other sustainable sources of energy, we wouldn’t be nearly in the situation that we are in now. There would still be problems of course, but they would be manageable.
I agree with the collapse of everything being imminent. I disagree with assuming a long, drawn out decline. The decline will precipitous, because of climate catastrophe, global over-heating, ecological catastrophe, climate collapse, agriculture collapse, civilization collapse and the collapse of everything else. The club of Rome is not figuring in the climate collapse and ecological collapse, because its politically incorrect to talk about it.
Given the very high level of interdependence of our global economy I can't see how a slow decline is possible any more especially given our high level of environmental overshoot. If you stop or even significantly reduce the flow of fossil fuels to any nation then that nation will collapse in a matter of weeks. There is no alternatives to diesel and petrol for transport and when you take that away food stops arriving in stores and people starve in very short order. Developed nations can't devolve to simpler systems the way that less developed nations *may* be able to. And take away a developed nation from the global economy and the effect will cascade globally. It won't be pretty.
Agreed, you only had to witness the scrum down over a shortage of toilet roll to understand that collapse will be fast and very violent once the first food shortages hit.
(Mental collapse) - > Economic collapse is damn fast. Like tomorrow or so... Watch Germoney - we are a pretty good candidate to be first. We too have had Covid-Costs plus and suddenly high energy prices trough out the Ukraine War. Germany is the third (4..?) largest economy in the world. Imagine the EU after we fall... Domino Effect US is a madhouse - *min a year long* ha ha ha We can bet who will be first - the payout will be difficult. You are sadly not my neighbor.
I read the book when it was first published and discussed it with one of my tutors, who dismissed its findings on the assumption that humans always find solutions to problems by, for example, substituting new materials and technology. I thought he was wrong because it seemed obvious to me that infinite growth, as required by capitalism, was not possible. It was not much later before I started reading about global warming, and that added an extra dimension to all the other problems. Now, I am glad to be the age I am, but I fear for our children and grandchildren because it is unlikely to end well.
I must say that it has always been a matter of simple common sense to me. We live on a small planet with limited resources. We can't go on exploiting them and breeding even more people forever. But the capitalist system has sucked in so many people that the thought of doing without all its pleasures and playthings is almost unthinkable.
@@joansparky4439 If the world was infinite and there were no natural limits on resources, capitalism would be able to carry on working. But this is a finite world and now we know that our past behaviour has perhaps fatally damaged our climate to boot, so any kind of growth, never mind infinite, is going to be very difficult.
Thank you Paul for doing such a good job communicating this information to us. I was a plant scientist. When asked at parties to describe what I did for a living, I said my job was to document the end of the world.
A 60 min Limits to growth Film from the early 70's was also uploaded in video format on youtube a couple years ago, which covers most of what is in the book but with images and B roll as well as interviews with some of the contributors for a quicker summary.
I think of it like this: Drop a ping pong ball into a river, and you can easily predict how (generally) far down the river it will be in 1 hour. If you dropped 100 balls, all of them will be within a small general area by the 1 hour mark (not counting getting caught on sticks or rocks) But trying to predict exactly where a specific ball will be is almost impossible. This is why its hard to predict WHEN exactly climate change, political upheaval, and other problems will reach a collapsing point... but we can tell that we are moving towards it all rapidly
Yep! We are clearly seeing the stress of early collapse now. If not nuclear war, we will see so many Gazas and other small resource and religious wars, and also mass migrations, that the effects upon populations and organized, civil society will be similar.
The surviving original author considered once contraction took hold, qualitative change was inevitable. I would consider total war is a possible route : there is a chance leaders will recognize suicide for most of them is not a good idea.
Great work Paul. The 1970s was fecund with science of this high calibre. James Lovelock and the Gaia Hypothesis, Rachel Carson and Silent Spring, the start of Greenpeace, The brilliant Club of Rome Limits to Growth, Herman Daly and Sustainable Economics while he was still at the UN (nb the UN couldn't handle it, they instead coined the oxymoronic phrase Sustainable-Growth). Thanks again for highlighting this recalibration of the original Limits to Growth.
In Derbyshire, in the English midlands of the UK. They have had flooding regularly as the floodplains have of course been built over by suburbs and light industrial. Also rainfall patterns have completely changed, as the climate warms and the atmosphere holds more water. To date two major roads have been closed to landslides. One road took more than 2 years to fix, and the other is still bding redone.
We are literally living don't look up they got UFOs and are going to flee unlike the movie I think they will succeed in restarting elsewhere. Humanity on earth is definitely finished as well as all life.
@@andrewshotathompson5116 Regan was really rude and mean to me. I left supportive comments and donated $10 bucks for a total of $50. First, he doesn't even say thank you. Second, I then discover I've been shadowbanned! I spend a dollar to ask him why since he must have made some kind of mistake. He responds poorly, saying I said something about vaccines, but it turned out it was because I posted a poem from some random redditor from their collapse sub. But it wasn't a random person, it was someone Regan doesn't like for some reason, but don't know why as she isn't a denialist, but actually has a doomer blog. Here is what I posted-- plus, shadowbanning is such a cowardly thing. From Jessica Wildfire: This world always had to end. It was never going to last more than a generation. It couldn't. All the facts made that very clear from the start. The rich and the corrupt simply chose to ignore that. They lied. That's not the worst part. It's not the collapse. It's not the death of our hopes and dreams. It's the fact that we're not allowed to grieve it and move on. Imagine trying to grieve the loss of a friend or a parent when half of everyone you know won't even admit they're dead. Imagine you're stuck in a real-life version of Weekend at Bernie's. That's what we're doing. It's the norms that force us to engage in acts of cultural necrophilia. It's having to pretend for our bosses, our coworkers, our friends, and our relatives. It's watching everyone we know screw a corpse. Recently, I was catching up with a friend who lives in a big city. She's one of those people who's been trying to act normal. Toward the end of our conversation, she finally broke down. She admitted things weren't the same. People act different. They look different. They sound different. I think it's because we all know, even if we won't admit it. The world isn't ending. It has ended.
I read the book as part of my foundation OU technology course (T101) in 1981, along with Fred Hoyle's Energy of Extinction. I found both very interesting. I've supported nuclear power ever since, but happy about alternative energy sources. Since then I've seen underfunded nationalised industries sold to private companies, who underfund them, increase debt, extract profits and yet still require State handouts. Governents continue to feed more growth, whilst doing little to mitigate the many foreseeable problems.
without growth there is no profit for the shareholders / investors.. and they hold (AS SURPLUS) the very money that the rest of the economy requires to exchange resources with on a-day-to-day-basis.. growth or no-growth. Question now: Why does our money require positive return on investment to be kept circulating in the economy at all times? Ever heard the term 'Zero Lower Bound Interest Problem'? It's easy to realize why Governments chose to increase debt to spend in the economy (Keynes) and favor growth against all rationality to keep things going.. We need a different money, a money that keeps working even when GDP growth falls below the inflation rate. And this money comes to be when we account properly upon creating fiat. We don't do that right now for historic reasons as our ZLB fiat is based on gold baked currency, which had the ZLB flaw even worse.
Paul - If your goal is to communicate to the general public, I suggest that you present a summarized overview of this complicated report rather than skimming through the entire document, most of which the viewer cannot read and which is not necessary to make the major point, which is that the revised report is not much different than the original and that we can expect precipitous and severe impacts on food production, population, and industrial output beginning in just the next few years.
The Stressed Depressed Lying 'I'm so helpless' Human Behavior - worst source of bad vibes ...with exponential growth. Just compare to '5 years ago' - Feels like 'Abrupt *_Climate_* Change' so to say. The sadness that comes with 'nature in decline' feels very different to me
One of the major drivers of collapse in the original book is "pollution" and if we see CO2 as a major pollutant greenhouse gas, then it is in the calculations but not explicitly stated as leading to climate change.
@@waltmorton1190 The modelers regret not including the effect of CO2, and the heating effect associated. At the time the model was close to practical implementation limits.
Plants, animals and people have evolved in a lower CO2 environment, less dense cropping and stocking and microplastic free world. They, we have not had time to evolve to adapt to the changes we've made. It may be stressing our genetic systems of adaptation. A TED talk recently showed photosynthesis was less efficient than it should be. They identified a part of the chain were levels of a protein while good for the old levels of CO2 weren't adapted to the current levels, by gene editing to increase the availability of that protein a 20% increase in yield resulted. Closer study showed a variety of different CO2 levels favoured different protein levels. CO2 concentration regulates many of our processes too. Evolution took place in a world that didn't have high density monoculture and pollution. The humidity and temperatures, the intensity of rain and drought that are now taking place. This is a bigger problem than we realize as seen when heat denatured plant protein in India and species migration to different latitudes (night and day cycled) than they evolved in to adapt to changing heat and humidity. Ocean CO2 levels etc. Will evolutionary tipping points be reached where there are too many changes to adapt to in to short a time. Remembering individual species adaptations will be taking place in an adapting ecosystem of species. Adaptations will have down stream impacts on other systems.
Desert species in US deserts which collect CO2 at night to save water are dying : the increased CO2 levels are making the nights hotter, causing too great a lost of moisture for them to survive.
I have followed the Club of Roma since the late 60s. The models they use are very basic but good for early warnings. Above all they have been persistent.
What is happening can be described as an accelerated business as usual scenario compared to the original book. Collapse then was predicted to start occurring around 2040-2045, with population decline lagging, to begin in 2050, as fertility was predicted to increase in response and initially offset the increase in deaths. The two major updates have pushed forward progressively the start of collapse by about 15 years, with irreversible world population decline by the early 2030s. What struck me about the first book was its initial acceptance, followed by widespread 'debunking' in the media. The book was almost never discussed, and always described if it was as the debunked Limits To Growth. Several things were wrong in the model regarding prices and the market, and somehow that was supposed to mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. So, no real policy changes were made. I thought the real crux of the model was the accuracy of the estimates of world resources. Energy resources could be increased by locating and exploiting ever more remote, hard to get at and dilute fossil fuels and uranium, and therefore more costly. The same applied to the world metal supply. The market was flexible, and the world as a whole never responded by becoming more green or reducing the use of fossil fuels, as was predicted. The original book did mention carbon dioxide as a pollutant in passing. Pollution in India and China are obvious problems and were in the model, but climate change in reducing agricultural and industrial productivity was not, and nuclear pollution remains under estimated. Best estimates of world resources were such that, even if productivity increased by a foreseeable factor, total resources would decline even more, as would resource quality and dilution of resources, so that cost would increase along with energy and material use to use those resources. Markets can be subsidized so that cost is less reflective of scarcity, and resource substitution is possible. But there are limits to that as well. There is only so much farmland, for instance, and abrupt climate change will take out a lot of that even as collapse is occurring. I think the slow population decline in the model is not slow at all. It will take twenty years or more to wipe out 90% to 99% of the population. Some areas will go more quickly than others. What will be stunning is the rapid decline in living standards.
See the work of Simon Michaux, available on YT, for understanding of the current state of play. The truly alarming thing about his work is, it is based on the published values of each country around the world. It shows the planners were basing their work on numbers plucked out of thin air, with everyone assuming someone else had solved all the problems.
Thank you Sir. Seems like the vast majority only understand the limits of growth when their fish bowl turns into a skanky mess and they don't have access to fresh water.
There's certain metrics of decline evident over the past decades observable from 1965-2023, such as many more homeless, hotter nighttime temperatures especially in Summer, far fewer insects - particularly flying insects including moths, fewer birds, fewer animals, higher cost of living not covered by higher wages for most, more street drug usage due to depression from high stress lives, much higher cost of higher education. It's becoming a society of have's and have not's because unless you make a more than a certain threshold of income you're falling behind or just not getting ahead. People spinning their wheels to try and stay up with bills while others are wildly wealthy is a bad sign for society as the wealth divide widens. But worse that any of that is the world is still emitting record amounts of GHG's each year. Jan-Oct 2023 was 1.54C/2.772F above pre-industrial and this is just the beginning of an El Nino. 2024 will be higher, yet the mainstream media claims we're 1.1C or 1.2C above pre-industrial, so the news along with Michael Mann can't even admit the truth of how bad it is because we're supposed to believe we haven't passed 1.5C. It's laughable or cryable as Paul says. It's as if society/civilization is so set in their ways it can't move along to something new even if they know they have to, because its easier to remain in a shady form of denial, as if to say oh its not really all that bad. But people can read a graph, they know what a deluge is, they know super hot weather when they read about it in the news, they know deep down we're in big trouble, but still the $'s coming in, food's in the grocery stores, people are coming to visit, so let's not rock the boat is what's being agreed upon. Ok, we'll just keep acting like the Titanic can't sink. If everybody else can do it, so can I until panic sets in, then they'll look for someone to blame. Someone always has to be blamed, because it's too hard to take responsibility for how things will turn out. They'll say, I wasn't complicit, so and so blew it!
A big part of the reason average people are losing ground is the increase in cost of housing. It makes a lot of sense in places where cities are built out to reasonable limits. But it's true even in smaller cities even in the middle of the US, where I live. That's because costs to build are so high that the free market cannot build housing that average people can afford, not even apartments. As for houses - new houses are only being built in the $500K plus range. They put a shipping container on a lot for 300K, I guess, but NOBODY would want that, so they higher range. But the powers that be keep letting in more people, so the demand for lower and moderate cost housing keeps increasing, and the supply barely increases (if there is some subsidized housing built), or maybe decreases (if some units are torn down).
I don't see how the food supply could drop off fast and the total human population drops off much more slowly. I would expect the human population to drop off faster or at least as fast as the food supply. Once there is not enough for everyone to eat unrest will set in (think Arab spring) and wars and mass migration will set in. Also assume the food production is dropping off due to climate and ecological collapse to which there is probably no recovery. It is going to get ugly and deteriorate rapidly.
a) A large portion of the western population can get by with far fewer calories than they do today. b) today's food supply depends heavily on fossil fuels (fertilizer, machinery, transport, etc).
The tragedy of the commons has long been the entrenched mindset of human nature and the driving force behind civilization for the last 6,000+ years, and the same mindset which brought us to this point in history. In other words, realizing growth is finite will not persuade society to cooperate on constructively adjusting our course to sustainability while there may still be time, but instead only accelerate the process. Of course if Donald Trump gets back in the White House it's game over.
When I read LTG as a 25 year old back in 1972 it was obvious that the adults would never allow it to happen. And now here we all are staring into the Abyss.
It was the adults who made it happen. Remember how Reagan ripped the Solar panels off the White House ? How Reagan expressed his contempt for the Limits to Growth. It was a matter of the US population choosing Reagan, a man who threw the mentally ill on to the street for a quick buck, over Carter, a man of solid achievements, and in the process of initiating the energy transition needed for future generations.
The root causes stem from our social system. Too few are interested in interrogating root causes, so we are doomed to meet the brutal dictator, also known as circumstances. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Check it out.
Well, we’re a species that makes mistakes, sometimes a few times, and then we learn we should do things differently. Some people have the foresight to prevent disasters and sometimes that prevents problems from occurring but very often it doesn’t work like that.
Very sobering! I read limits to growth, then over the years ignored it, then gradually come to realize that much of modern economics is a sham because it doesn't take the finite nature of our planet and our total dependence on the earth's biosphere into account. I still resist the idea that our future is determined. I've come to the conclusion that we first need to get our political house in order if we are to ever survive this collapse. If we let the Fascists take over it will just accelerate our collapse. We are who we are because we can cooperate on larger scales than any other animal. It would be a mistake to react by withdrawing from our political and economic systems and for each to try to survive independently. Some of us did that in the sixties and seventies and it went nowhere. We need to clean up our human mess and prepare for this together rather than going to war.
"If we let the Fascists take over it will just accelerate our collapse" - Unfortunately, the Fascists have been in power a long time. It's just that most of us have bought into the lie that they're not in power.
The models work and are powerful analogs of reality. Personal decisions to try to survive are relevant to NOW. Do grandparents act to help grandchildren by stripping their assets and using them for offspring possible survival? Unprecedented times. We going to have to think about what we’re going to do to aid offspring survival.
I was riding my motorcycle thru the woods near me today. August 24th 2024 in Iowa, (Summer). Didnt kill a single bug on my windshield. Thats absolutely insane. Something is SERIOUSLY wrong! There should be bugs and insects flying around. Where did they go?
My problem with this model is Food production peaking before 2025. If we look at all the unused or inefficiently used space or land around us this just cannot possibly be correct. Unless this model shows the trajectory “they” want it to be, expected goal trajectory and “they” are doing anything in their power to reach this goal. Otherwise, look at all the farmer protests around the world right now. Why would they want to destroy farmers and buy up all the farmland? Therefore, in this model I see expected goal trajectories and not doomsday trajectories.
I got interested in about all this about 30 years ago... then got on with my life and kind of left it in the back burner....now that we've come to a critical point, suddenly I'm alarmed over again!....things apparently won't get done until things look bleak!
The scenarios are not predictions and the reviews have shown empirical data matching BAU1 in 2008, between BAU2 and CT in 2021, now again BAU1, with most scenarios showing overshoot and collapse but all reviews pushing the peak further to the future. No doubt big trouble is ahead but the game is on. We can make the landing to a stabilized world softer, less painful. We can do better.
Anyone having children in at least the past 40 years is complicit in the continued degradation of the ecosphere. Your friend Guy McPherson did the noble thing and refused to bring life into this world. I suggest teaching the importance of opting out of parenthood for the sake of any life that manages to survive the upcoming collapse.
Only those with common sense act on the logical decisions; the remainder who choose differently seem to adamantly live the life they dreamed of when growing up.
People who didn’t realize what the impact of their decision would be can’t be hold to account. There is also a social dillemma here, cause if a minority of people would have stopped having children and the rest would have still had children it wouldn’t have made a difference. The real problem lies with the politicians and the policy makers in my opinion and with the media that were supposed to keep them in check.
I have a feeling Paul wouldn't appreciate seeing the narcissistic GM, who for years insisted we'd be actually extinct by now, referred to as his friend.
@@A.BC-That could well be, but I've never understood how GM fans can ignore his fantastical human extinction predictions that are always for just a few years in the future. The predicted dates pass, and they still claim he was somehow "right". I share Paul's realism. The facts point towards collapse and a die-off, but there are too many factors to set dates, let alone tell gullible people there'll be no one alive by the Christmas after next, or whatever he's claiming now.
If the predictions are wrong, we come back in a few years with updated models and new predictions with "improved" estimates and "new metrics"? It'll pass this time.
Even as we face our own extinction, we can't help ourselves. We continue to seek every pleasure, every reward, every extra dollar of wealth and advantage over our fellow humans.
@@PaulHBeckwith Technically, this is because the recalibration used several historical data sets as recalibration measures. Getting closer to population would have meant diverging more in some other area, such as industrial production, human welfare index, food per capita, pollution. The intention is to get as close as possible to historical trends for all available data sets. Since they are interdependent, it is not possible to maximize the accuracy of one without losing the accuracy of another. In a more general perspective, this shows that the world is of course much more complex than what a simple model with a more or less static relationship between variables can reproduce. In the end, as Huntigton noted in 1982, we model for insights, not for numbers, so overall behavior is more important than getting one value right. Happy to dicuss that, just reach out if you want to.
@@PaulHBeckwith Remember factors such as 1. fracking could not considered in the original report, as they didn't exist. 2. Most of the population increase has occurred in low GDP parts of the world : limits relate to the maintainable global GDP. 3. Improvements in energy technology, such as Molten Salt Reactors, also could not be modelled : they didn't yet exist. 4. See the work of Simon Michaux for the current limits on metal production. The % level of copper in ore has dropped by a factor of 10 in a single generation, with an exponential increase, the HOOKIE relationship, in the energy needed to extract it. (Already the price of metals is unstable)
Well as we can see our own core is cooling as well as the sun time is finite, so mankind's time is limited on earth regardless of any attempt to live holistically within earth's bounds. Humanity's only option for infinity belongs in space.
you are talking about step 532, we are on like step 5 having a civilization that can flourish here on earth, is a far greater and more present priority - one we have failed. we blew our chances to get off this rock, well over 100 years ago
Climate change is here. Those are the 10 hottest days in the history of my city in Brazil (which usually has pretty mild temperatures for a place in the tropics). It's scary to see how those hottest days are clustered in the last nine years: 1. 25/09/2023: 38,6°C 2. 07/10/2020: 38,4°C 3. 03/10/2020: 37,8°C 4. 22/10/2015: 37,7°C 5. 16/10/2015: 37,4°C 6. 28/09/2020: 37,3°C 7. 13/11/2023: 37,3°C 8. 17/10/2015: 37,2°C 9. 24/09/2023: 37,1°C 10. 06/10/2020: 37°C
Given Brazil is mostly rain forest, with most cities on the coast, all of those temperatures represent a danger to life and limb. (Wet Bulb temperature equivalents)
We in a cycle of warming up bc of the sun dumb dumb. We’ve only been keeping weather temps since the late 1800’s. Ice core samples only go back so far & it’s a drop in the bucket compared to how old the Earth is. You are being deceived…
Thanks for your work , as it says the requirements are change belief systems, mindset and organisation so therefore on the decline we could do with clarifying these in order to progress to the favourable outcome. Maybe it's not the world that needs peace maybe when people are at peace within the world will be in peace , is this a useful change of mindset?
Due to the unavailability of the minerals and metals needed to transition to low emissions energy and the limits of useing that energy compared to liquid fuels: Fossil fuels will be used to economic depletion, when the cost of supply of commodities is more than the ability to pay. This will happen with in a few decades. Those commodities include food. Global warming will accelerate due to increasing consumption of fossil fuels.
It would be nice to have had some information about exactly how they see such sudden collapse occurring. I'm particularly suspicious of the food production collapse, which appears to happen very abruptly in both the old and new graphs. Obviously with starving people everywhere, farmers aren't going to just quit en masse, so why is this scheduled to happen? Without some explanation, the conclusions are useless.
The Investors are the people that have been steering the boat of global industrial growth. They are addicted to an exponential growth of their wealth so they need an exponential growth of the industrial economy to achieve that goal. That's why the Business As Usual run is the one that has been the most closely fit to the data for the ast 50 years. Must as well face it we're addicted to growth.
This implies capitalism is the problem, while the communist countries were (and a couple still are) significant polluters. The problem in my opinion lies not in people trying to get rich but in politicians and policy makers making the wrong decisions for everyone and in oil being very addictive.
I wld think that until renewable energy can create renewable energy then yes......right now it takes fossil fuels to make electricity everywhere there isnt a waterfall. So driving an elctrically cha4ged car doesnt reduce gas use by much over all. The baytery in the car requires nat. Gas and lithium to create it and recharging the vehicle requires nat. Gas to create the electricity to charge it. The solar panel creation is the same...requiring more electricity than what it can produce in 5 years time only in southern areas. Ugh.
Figure 3 is highly questionable as it presents some apparent incoherence at least for 3 parameters namely, food production, industrial output and persistent pollution when comparing the BAU curve to Recal23. If there is any interest i am happy to elaborate.
Yes . Limits to Growth- The 30 yr Update. Original publication 2004 and mine was revised with commentary in 2020. I got mine at Coles by order. About $27 as I recall. Reprinted by Chelsea Green from Vermont. There was also a 20 yr update edition.
Paul, if James Hansen is right about 1.71 degrees in the 2030s (of course he is) what about war-gaming out some likely effects to society with a panel of knowledgeable people?
I would like to object to the term collapse. This would mean falls of a cliff. These curves are smooth. The correct technical term is to settle. The curves often look like a roller coaster.
I've been talking the Limits to Growth" study since 1980 and human overshoot since 1970 after reading "The Population Bomb." No one really listened. They were too busy breeding and consuming.
Paul, ARE YOU SURE YOU HAVEN’T INTERCHANGED THE INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT AND POPULATION CURVES? I HAVEN’T YET WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO BUT SO MAYBE YOU ‘CORRECTED’ something you said at around the three minute mark that I think either you misinterpreted or has somehow been misrepresented in the curves of those graphs. Here’s why: When I started to watch the video, I paused it when that graph came up to study it carefully. I found it confusing, trying to match it with the five definitions to the left. AT FIRST - I CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION YOU DID BUT I THOUGHT THERE ‘MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG’. Why? BECAUSE THE CURRENT POPULATION - RIGHT NOW - AS WE SPEAK - OF THE PLANET - IS OVER 8,000,000,000 PEOPLE. Still, I thought, maybe ‘they’ were ‘using old data’. But, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT SOME MORE and concluded that that curve which peaks highest on the graph - MUST BE ‘POPULATION’. MUST BE!!! Why? Because, back around 1950, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, THE POPULATION OF THE PLANET AROUND THAT TIME WAS ALREADY SOMEWHERE AROUND 2,500,000,000 AND FOR THE WAY - IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY - DESCRIBE THEM AT THAT POINT IN TIME IN YOUR VIDEO - THE GRAPH WOULD’VE PUT THE POPULATION SOMEWHERE DOWN AROUND 1,200,000,000 - I WOULD ESTIMATE - AND, THERE IS NO WAY ‘José’ - that that could be true because it was already around 1,800,000,000 in the late 19 ‘teens’ around the time of the Swine Flu Epidemic. I apologize if I misunderstood/misheard and/or perhaps you ‘corrected yourself’? (If necessary, later on in the video) BUT - because I thought the matter was potentially so significant, I would post this comment. (Your?) Response/Comment/Thoughts?
Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when computers and simulations were becoming a thing at universities, scientists at MIT modelled our society and found that most scenarios would lead to collapse.
Essentially, exponential growth on a finite planet is not sustainable forever. The results of the detailed study and scenarios examined were published in a famous, albeit controversial and ground-shaking book called “Limits to Growth” in 1972 by the Club of Rome (COR).
Hard to believe that was over 50 years ago.
The Club of Rome still exists around the world, and I attend weekly Zoom talks hosted by CACOR (Canadian COR); most talks are on some aspect of climate change.
A new, peer-reviewed scientific paper was just published providing a recalibration of the modelling based on the most recent, up to date, empirical data. The updated results are that we are very close to reaching limits to our growth.
How close? Within the next decade.
Link to new paper:
www.researchgate.net/journal/Journal-of-Industrial-Ecology-1530-9290/publication/375610074_Recalibration_of_limits_to_growth_An_update_of_the_World3_model/links/65531b773fa26f66f4fe04aa/Recalibration-of-limits-to-growth-An-update-of-the-World3-model.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQifX0
Link to free pdf copy of the original book “Limits to Growth” published in 1972 by the Club of Rome:
www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf
Please donate at paulbeckwith.net to support my research and videos as I join the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.
Paul Beckwith is on 🔥!
So this book is based on the fact that limitless growth on finite planet is impossible. It is not predicting this collapse because of climate. The problem I see here is that if we got 100% committed to solving our climate issues there is no way we will be able to complete the project. There just is not enough
resources. I guess this is why the metal asteroid is so important🤔. Very Interesting.
Of course if we scrapped the War Machine we would have a lot more resources available, just saying. I know, we kill to keep US Free.🙄🇺🇲 I am definitely kneeling🇺🇲😥 That has not seemed to be the results I have seen in my lifetime. It seems pointless to have wars at this point, there is so little time left. Thankfully according to most predictions our ability to wage conventional wars is rapidly coming to close. So we die from nukes cause it is all that is possible...sad. On the bright side, I live next door to vital Military Base, I get to go with the first Salvo, WooHoo!
Oh my the future looks down right exciting! Turns out,
The Amish were right.🙀
And the indigenous peoples of the world. If only we could have peacefully coexisted with the native Americans, how different our World would be😢
The thing that drives 'exponential growth' is our flawed currencies. *Say we have an economy with a GDP in base year 0 of 100 units. And this economy manages to add 100 units in year 1 to the GDP, the growth rate will have been 50%. We manage to add 100 units again in year 2, but now the growth rate has fallen to 33%. .. we keep doing this and around year 50 the growth rate will have FALLEN to 2%, although the economy added 100 units of GDP each year and is now at 5000 GDP units per year!*
Now imagine ANY surplus currency holder (shareholder/investors) accepting 2% Return on Investment or even less and I have a bridge to sell to you. No one will accept this, because our currency has got a Zero Lower Bound Interest Problem that it copied from metal commodity currency, but which would turn into a Negative Lower Bound Interest "feature" is we accounted properly (#) upon creating our fiat currencies.. unfortunately not even Modern Monetary Theory is there yet.
Please note that 2% is the inflation rate that our central banks aim for - to counter the effect of the Zero Lower Bound - just one problem - to have inflation it requires additional money to be created with debtors that are willing to create more debt - in an economic environment whose growth rate is trending towards ZERO! Keynes thought this would be possible, although he already knew about Gesell and his proposal of a fiat currency that loses value if being kept from circulation by surplus holders. This is why our economies need to grow all the time - to satisfy the money surplus holders and their demand for positive ROI - so their piles of money can grow with more than 2% each year..
But this requires an economy that can grow exponentially - which is impossible. We either start to use NLB fiat or our societies fall apart - because *the only other way to satisfy the few surplus money holders is to hand them ever greater parts of the economy.. until they own everything!*
#) I can explain, just ask.
@@joansparky4439 The economy and systems grew exponentially under silver and gold reserve currencies as well. The only difference with Keynseian thinking is that recessions are not allowed, the growth must always happen constantly every quarter. Remember the most important thing, when asked about "what about in the long run?" Keynes says "Who cares? In the long run, we're all dead!"
@@ObsceneSuperMatt
The problem with metal commodity currency is that it can't adjust it's amount to economic activity.. when the economic activity raises and the amount of metal can't keep up there will be deflation (downward spiral), which cools down the expansion right away and hands any economic growth to the money holders - concentrating 'capital' and creating rich & poor.
See the ancient world and the term 'Usury' which is a concept known to all major religions who tried to counter this effect even back then already.
Fiat is able to break this start-up problem by being based on promises by debtors, which can adjust easily to economic expansion (all it requires is a legal framework that enforces promises). The thing is that those debtors can't keep their promise FOREVER though, so individual fiat currency units actually have a limited time-span during which they are valuable.. this creates a negative lower bound interest rate and FORCES any money surplus holders to accept ROI down to that rate.. which means economic activity could just saturate (0% growth) or even shrink and the money surplus holders would still circulate their money keeping everything chucking along nicely.
Gesell's hypothesis back then was based on metal commodity currency needing to rust (to be on par with the products decay) - not on the Debt Theory of Money that Fiat is actually based on. He was ahead of his time and the impracticality of Scrap Money for example was what lead Keynes&Co to try to "simulate" this decay via a permanent rate of inflation of 2%. But this has the problem of:
1) affecting not just the currency units, but any denomination
2) failing once economic growth falls below the inflation rate - which is inevitable.. at which point government can try to keep increasing it's debt to grow the money piles for a bit longer, but there is a hard ceiling there.
Our existing fiat currencies ignore to communicate the validity time-span of the promise, itself being based on the debtors ability to keep his promise for at best 2-3 decades.. after that a fiat money currency unit (which is based on a promise) IS worthless. This is the pure reality of the situation.
Money based on metal is valuable "forever", which is why our fiat copied this "feature" of it when the gold standard was abolished.. this is why our fiat currency malfunctions and why our central banks try to cope with GDP tea leaf reading and mingle with the interest rate in a futile attempt to keep things running for a while longer. Ultimately futile.
Living in southern Saskatchewan surrounded by industrial agriculture. Several years of drought here and a grasshopper population explosion which was met by broadscale application of insecticides including by plane.
It just seems like everything has died. Birds, insects. Frogs gone, toads gone, snakes nearly gone (only 1 all summer....a dead one that someone had killed). Not one bumblebee from May to the end of July when a few appeared. Deer disappeared mid summer. Waterfowl a fraction of the past. Fruit bearing shrubs (bird food) non- productive.
Its like the world around me is dying. I'm not making this up. I can't drink my water anymore as it is too salty. Yet governments introduce policies to make things worse. Subsidizing food purchases for cattle when we desperately need a herd reduction. If someone would invent a vacuum to pick the last remnants of biomass to feed cows it would be a market place success. The biofuels mandates do next to nothing to reduce GHG emission yet they encourage industrial ag to spread into every possible acre. There is almost no protection for wetlands or water sources. It is an agricultural free for all that taxpayers and people are forced to subsidize.
The incentives of the economic system are perverse.
Man. Thank you for reporting. Tears in my eyes.
I see what you see.
The last few years I've had the same observations here in central Oklahoma... fewer and fewer critters of all kinds. I noticed all this before I educated myself on what's going on in the world. We hardly get snow in the winter now. I see fewer and fewer birds. Migrating geese are a rare sight. I keep telling myself I'm imagining the past differently than it was.... it's almost too unimaginable to believe.
@walkerdb84
Western Oregon & Washington rainforests are stressed. I had a farm in Chehalis for 35 years I saw this coming. Less and less snowfall on Rainer, Adam's, and Mt Baker yoy. Rain every year till the 4th of July was standard in the 1960s & until 1987 or so...then something changed.
This f'ing time gap cost my sleep.Thank you Paul! It's worth it.
Following seems like personal - it is not:
I read the book in 1983. I was 21 years old at the time. You can't read the book at all - boring tables.
The final word blew me away. "Technical solutions alone will not be enough. It takes a lot of courage and imagination..." (something like that..)
At the time I had a natural food store _...the organically farmed area in Germany was around 7% in the early 80s_
I then spent 4 years looking at what economics ministers were doing:
They always smiled when the growth was 'good' and looked worried when it wasn't.
If I said back then, "There's something wrong with capitalism" = "Are you a communist, ha ha?" was the usual answer. blah
"How are you supposed to save the world with such prunes on your team?"
This was a serious question of mine and my answer was+is: "not at all"
"Maybe they'll run out of oil before then" - that's what one could *hope for* in 1990.
Then I started loving my life, cheating on taxes and getting serious about removing the mental shit that comes with a society like this.
The FK's start fracking soon... *...hope was gone*
The cultivated area today is 11%.
4% progress in almost 40 years. Snails are faster....
good night
Our capacity to engineer our way out of this is indeed limited.
Regarding capitalism though, both the capitalist and the communist countries contributed significantly to the pollution of our planet. The irony is that we had the technology to avoid it all - nuclear - and if we had just had leaders who had had the foresight to introduce a global one or two child policy as well as investments in nuclear and other sustainable sources of energy, we wouldn’t be nearly in the situation that we are in now. There would still be problems of course, but they would be manageable.
I agree with the collapse of everything being imminent. I disagree with assuming a long, drawn out decline. The decline will precipitous, because of climate catastrophe, global over-heating, ecological catastrophe, climate collapse, agriculture collapse, civilization collapse and the collapse of everything else. The club of Rome is not figuring in the climate collapse and ecological collapse, because its politically incorrect to talk about it.
Agreed. It doesn’t seem it’ll be slow decline. The waterfall is building
Given the very high level of interdependence of our global economy I can't see how a slow decline is possible any more especially given our high level of environmental overshoot. If you stop or even significantly reduce the flow of fossil fuels to any nation then that nation will collapse in a matter of weeks. There is no alternatives to diesel and petrol for transport and when you take that away food stops arriving in stores and people starve in very short order.
Developed nations can't devolve to simpler systems the way that less developed nations *may* be able to. And take away a developed nation from the global economy and the effect will cascade globally. It won't be pretty.
Agreed, you only had to witness the scrum down over a shortage of toilet roll to understand that collapse will be fast and very violent once the first food shortages hit.
(Mental collapse) - > Economic collapse is damn fast. Like tomorrow or so...
Watch Germoney - we are a pretty good candidate to be first.
We too have had Covid-Costs plus and suddenly high energy prices trough out the Ukraine War.
Germany is the third (4..?) largest economy in the world. Imagine the EU after we fall... Domino Effect
US is a madhouse - *min a year long* ha ha ha
We can bet who will be first - the payout will be difficult. You are sadly not my neighbor.
We are collapsing by polluting the system more and more. The bang will happen, but we are collapsing under weight of our hubris and stupidity.
I read the book when it was first published and discussed it with one of my tutors, who dismissed its findings on the assumption that humans always find solutions to problems by, for example, substituting new materials and technology. I thought he was wrong because it seemed obvious to me that infinite growth, as required by capitalism, was not possible. It was not much later before I started reading about global warming, and that added an extra dimension to all the other problems. Now, I am glad to be the age I am, but I fear for our children and grandchildren because it is unlikely to end well.
After The Limits to Growth came William Nordhaus and doomed us all. And he got the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for doing it! 🙄
Anyone who’s studied the collapse of previous civilizations knows that people do not always manage to find solutions to their problems.
I must say that it has always been a matter of simple common sense to me. We live on a small planet with limited resources. We can't go on exploiting them and breeding even more people forever. But the capitalist system has sucked in so many people that the thought of doing without all its pleasures and playthings is almost unthinkable.
_"because it seemed obvious to me that infinite growth, as required by capitalism"_
What is a rational argument for this hypothesis please?
@@joansparky4439 If the world was infinite and there were no natural limits on resources, capitalism would be able to carry on working. But this is a finite world and now we know that our past behaviour has perhaps fatally damaged our climate to boot, so any kind of growth, never mind infinite, is going to be very difficult.
Thank you Paul for doing such a good job communicating this information to us. I was a plant scientist. When asked at parties to describe what I did for a living, I said my job was to document the end of the world.
A 60 min Limits to growth Film from the early 70's was also uploaded in video format on youtube a couple years ago, which covers most of what is in the book but with images and B roll as well as interviews with some of the contributors for a quicker summary.
Amazingly accurate 50 years later. Solid engineering systems simulations in action.
I think of it like this: Drop a ping pong ball into a river, and you can easily predict how (generally) far down the river it will be in 1 hour. If you dropped 100 balls, all of them will be within a small general area by the 1 hour mark (not counting getting caught on sticks or rocks)
But trying to predict exactly where a specific ball will be is almost impossible.
This is why its hard to predict WHEN exactly climate change, political upheaval, and other problems will reach a collapsing point... but we can tell that we are moving towards it all rapidly
@@Vid_Master Systems Simulations are cut and dried tools that define many aspects of our technology. King Kong balls not so useful.
Greetings from Sweden! 🇸🇪 good job as always Paul, but don’t forget to show us your little four-legged helpers. They are a part of your show!
Biggest oversight of COR and LTG is that the stress of the early collapse will almost certainly lead to total thermonuclear war.
Yep! We are clearly seeing the stress of early collapse now. If not nuclear war, we will see so many Gazas and other small resource and religious wars, and also mass migrations, that the effects upon populations and organized, civil society will be similar.
The surviving original author considered once contraction took hold, qualitative change was inevitable. I would consider total war is a possible route : there is a chance leaders will recognize suicide for most of them is not a good idea.
What's on the verge of collapse is that shelving unit in the background at 0:25
Thanks for your work Paul. It's disturbing how closely we are tracking the original LTG.
Great work Paul. The 1970s was fecund with science of this high calibre. James Lovelock and the Gaia Hypothesis, Rachel Carson and Silent Spring, the start of Greenpeace, The brilliant Club of Rome Limits to Growth, Herman Daly and Sustainable Economics while he was still at the UN (nb the UN couldn't handle it, they instead coined the oxymoronic phrase Sustainable-Growth). Thanks again for highlighting this recalibration of the original Limits to Growth.
So, basically, we've arrived 😢
In Derbyshire, in the English midlands of the UK. They have had flooding regularly as the floodplains have of course been built over by suburbs and light industrial. Also rainfall patterns have completely changed, as the climate warms and the atmosphere holds more water. To date two major roads have been closed to landslides. One road took more than 2 years to fix, and the other is still bding redone.
In summary, this is our last stable decade on Planet Earth.
Too bad you're going out treating people who were supportive and generous to you awfully.
We are literally living don't look up they got UFOs and are going to flee unlike the movie I think they will succeed in restarting elsewhere. Humanity on earth is definitely finished as well as all life.
Wait what did Regan do? I hate this guy so I'm very curious
I banish the trolls like these two! You don't not make a few enemies when you make it to the top!
@@andrewshotathompson5116 Regan was really rude and mean to me. I left supportive comments and donated $10 bucks for a total of $50. First, he doesn't even say thank you. Second, I then discover I've been shadowbanned! I spend a dollar to ask him why since he must have made some kind of mistake. He responds poorly, saying I said something about vaccines, but it turned out it was because I posted a poem from some random redditor from their collapse sub.
But it wasn't a random person, it was someone Regan doesn't like for some reason, but don't know why as she isn't a denialist, but actually has a doomer blog. Here is what I posted-- plus, shadowbanning is such a cowardly thing.
From Jessica Wildfire: This world always had to end. It was never going to last more than a generation. It couldn't. All the facts made that very clear from the start. The rich and the corrupt simply chose to ignore that. They lied.
That's not the worst part.
It's not the collapse.
It's not the death of our hopes and dreams. It's the fact that we're not allowed to grieve it and move on. Imagine trying to grieve the loss of a friend or a parent when half of everyone you know won't even admit they're dead. Imagine you're stuck in a real-life version of Weekend at Bernie's.
That's what we're doing.
It's the norms that force us to engage in acts of cultural necrophilia. It's having to pretend for our bosses, our coworkers, our friends, and our relatives. It's watching everyone we know screw a corpse.
Recently, I was catching up with a friend who lives in a big city. She's one of those people who's been trying to act normal. Toward the end of our conversation, she finally broke down. She admitted things weren't the same. People act different. They look different. They sound different.
I think it's because we all know, even if we won't admit it.
The world isn't ending.
It has ended.
The book was a hot topic at University. The knowledge base will disappear swiftly.
I read the book as part of my foundation OU technology course (T101) in 1981, along with Fred Hoyle's Energy of Extinction. I found both very interesting. I've supported nuclear power ever since, but happy about alternative energy sources. Since then I've seen underfunded nationalised industries sold to private companies, who underfund them, increase debt, extract profits and yet still require State handouts. Governents continue to feed more growth, whilst doing little to mitigate the many foreseeable problems.
without growth there is no profit for the shareholders / investors.. and they hold (AS SURPLUS) the very money that the rest of the economy requires to exchange resources with on a-day-to-day-basis.. growth or no-growth. Question now: Why does our money require positive return on investment to be kept circulating in the economy at all times? Ever heard the term 'Zero Lower Bound Interest Problem'? It's easy to realize why Governments chose to increase debt to spend in the economy (Keynes) and favor growth against all rationality to keep things going..
We need a different money, a money that keeps working even when GDP growth falls below the inflation rate. And this money comes to be when we account properly upon creating fiat. We don't do that right now for historic reasons as our ZLB fiat is based on gold baked currency, which had the ZLB flaw even worse.
@@joansparky4439excellent point
Paul - If your goal is to communicate to the general public, I suggest that you present a summarized overview of this complicated report rather than skimming through the entire document, most of which the viewer cannot read and which is not necessary to make the major point, which is that the revised report is not much different than the original and that we can expect precipitous and severe impacts on food production, population, and industrial output beginning in just the next few years.
That is not what his channel is about. If you want something like that go watch a channel like just have a think
I can feel it, smell it and I'm living it. Like animals that sense danger, I sense the coming storm. "Something wicked this way comes."
*hides under Julie's bed*
@@MrAgmoore
No. 2 inches between the floor and my bed.
@@juliebarks3195I got squished. My head hurts.
@@MrAgmoore
Any unwanted bugs or vermin under my bed get squished.
🕷🐛🦋🦗🐊🐭🐁🙀
The Stressed Depressed Lying 'I'm so helpless' Human Behavior - worst source of bad vibes ...with exponential growth.
Just compare to '5 years ago' - Feels like 'Abrupt *_Climate_* Change' so to say.
The sadness that comes with 'nature in decline' feels very different to me
The climate crisis was not directly factored into either set of calculations, correct? If not, it just makes it all the worse.
One of the major drivers of collapse in the original book is "pollution" and if we see CO2 as a major pollutant greenhouse gas, then it is in the calculations but not explicitly stated as leading to climate change.
@@waltmorton1190
The modelers regret not including the effect of CO2, and the heating effect associated. At the time the model was close to practical implementation limits.
Plants, animals and people have evolved in a lower CO2 environment, less dense cropping and stocking and microplastic free world. They, we have not had time to evolve to adapt to the changes we've made. It may be stressing our genetic systems of adaptation.
A TED talk recently showed photosynthesis was less efficient than it should be. They identified a part of the chain were levels of a protein while good for the old levels of CO2 weren't adapted to the current levels, by gene editing to increase the availability of that protein a 20% increase in yield resulted. Closer study showed a variety of different CO2 levels favoured different protein levels.
CO2 concentration regulates many of our processes too.
Evolution took place in a world that didn't have high density monoculture and pollution. The humidity and temperatures, the intensity of rain and drought that are now taking place.
This is a bigger problem than we realize as seen when heat denatured plant protein in India and species migration to different latitudes (night and day cycled) than they evolved in to adapt to changing heat and humidity.
Ocean CO2 levels etc.
Will evolutionary tipping points be reached where there are too many changes to adapt to in to short a time. Remembering individual species adaptations will be taking place in an adapting ecosystem of species. Adaptations will have down stream impacts on other systems.
Desert species in US deserts which collect CO2 at night to save water are dying : the increased CO2 levels are making the nights hotter, causing too great a lost of moisture for them to survive.
I have followed the Club of Roma since the late 60s. The models they use are very basic but good for early warnings. Above all they have been persistent.
This book was a significant factor in my career and life choices.
this book, even the original version (great source of discussion), should be a study subject in high school.
Instead they are studying... "Everyone is trying to rape you." Human politics has reached its end point.
At this point there’s no point to in doing that anymore. It’s like getting someone to stop smoking when they already have lung cancer.
The Limits to Growth, 2nd edition, was a textbook for Biology course I took at the University of Waterloo in 1977. We knew.
Thank you for another informative video Mr. Beckwith
mr beckwith, as long as youre producing, I'll be watching.
What is happening can be described as an accelerated business as usual scenario compared to the original book. Collapse then was predicted to start occurring around 2040-2045, with population decline lagging, to begin in 2050, as fertility was predicted to increase in response and initially offset the increase in deaths. The two major updates have pushed forward progressively the start of collapse by about 15 years, with irreversible world population decline by the early 2030s. What struck me about the first book was its initial acceptance, followed by widespread 'debunking' in the media. The book was almost never discussed, and always described if it was as the debunked Limits To Growth. Several things were wrong in the model regarding prices and the market, and somehow that was supposed to mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. So, no real policy changes were made. I thought the real crux of the model was the accuracy of the estimates of world resources. Energy resources could be increased by locating and exploiting ever more remote, hard to get at and dilute fossil fuels and uranium, and therefore more costly. The same applied to the world metal supply. The market was flexible, and the world as a whole never responded by becoming more green or reducing the use of fossil fuels, as was predicted. The original book did mention carbon dioxide as a pollutant in passing. Pollution in India and China are obvious problems and were in the model, but climate change in reducing agricultural and industrial productivity was not, and nuclear pollution remains under estimated. Best estimates of world resources were such that, even if productivity increased by a foreseeable factor, total resources would decline even more, as would resource quality and dilution of resources, so that cost would increase along with energy and material use to use those resources. Markets can be subsidized so that cost is less reflective of scarcity, and resource substitution is possible. But there are limits to that as well. There is only so much farmland, for instance, and abrupt climate change will take out a lot of that even as collapse is occurring. I think the slow population decline in the model is not slow at all. It will take twenty years or more to wipe out 90% to 99% of the population. Some areas will go more quickly than others. What will be stunning is the rapid decline in living standards.
That sounds pretty accurate. With most lost in first 2 yrs post collapse.
See the work of Simon Michaux, available on YT, for understanding of the current state of play.
The truly alarming thing about his work is, it is based on the published values of each country around the world. It shows the planners were basing their work on numbers plucked out of thin air, with everyone assuming someone else had solved all the problems.
Thank you Sir. Seems like the vast majority only understand the limits of growth when their fish bowl turns into a skanky mess and they don't have access to fresh water.
There's certain metrics of decline evident over the past decades observable from 1965-2023, such as many more homeless, hotter nighttime temperatures especially in Summer, far fewer insects - particularly flying insects including moths, fewer birds, fewer animals, higher cost of living not covered by higher wages for most, more street drug usage due to depression from high stress lives, much higher cost of higher education. It's becoming a society of have's and have not's because unless you make a more than a certain threshold of income you're falling behind or just not getting ahead. People spinning their wheels to try and stay up with bills while others are wildly wealthy is a bad sign for society as the wealth divide widens. But worse that any of that is the world is still emitting record amounts of GHG's each year. Jan-Oct 2023 was 1.54C/2.772F above pre-industrial and this is just the beginning of an El Nino. 2024 will be higher, yet the mainstream media claims we're 1.1C or 1.2C above pre-industrial, so the news along with Michael Mann can't even admit the truth of how bad it is because we're supposed to believe we haven't passed 1.5C. It's laughable or cryable as Paul says. It's as if society/civilization is so set in their ways it can't move along to something new even if they know they have to, because its easier to remain in a shady form of denial, as if to say oh its not really all that bad. But people can read a graph, they know what a deluge is, they know super hot weather when they read about it in the news, they know deep down we're in big trouble, but still the $'s coming in, food's in the grocery stores, people are coming to visit, so let's not rock the boat is what's being agreed upon. Ok, we'll just keep acting like the Titanic can't sink. If everybody else can do it, so can I until panic sets in, then they'll look for someone to blame. Someone always has to be blamed, because it's too hard to take responsibility for how things will turn out. They'll say, I wasn't complicit, so and so blew it!
I also use the analogy with the Titanic
A big part of the reason average people are losing ground is the increase in cost of housing. It makes a lot of sense in places where cities are built out to reasonable limits. But it's true even in smaller cities even in the middle of the US, where I live. That's because costs to build are so high that the free market cannot build housing that average people can afford, not even apartments. As for houses - new houses are only being built in the $500K plus range. They put a shipping container on a lot for 300K, I guess, but NOBODY would want that, so they higher range. But the powers that be keep letting in more people, so the demand for lower and moderate cost housing keeps increasing, and the supply barely increases (if there is some subsidized housing built), or maybe decreases (if some units are torn down).
When I’m feeling low and blue I can count on Paul to see me through.
I don't see how the food supply could drop off fast and the total human population drops off much more slowly. I would expect the human population to drop off faster or at least as fast as the food supply. Once there is not enough for everyone to eat unrest will set in (think Arab spring) and wars and mass migration will set in. Also assume the food production is dropping off due to climate and ecological collapse to which there is probably no recovery. It is going to get ugly and deteriorate rapidly.
Good observation.
Tomorrow , we will be carefull with wastefood. Before, we don't care. Things like that, I guess.
a) A large portion of the western population can get by with far fewer calories than they do today.
b) today's food supply depends heavily on fossil fuels (fertilizer, machinery, transport, etc).
The changes is climate are extremely obvious and it’s only been a short period of time, honestly only a blip, compared to historical climate changes
Limits to growth was modelled on a global scale, it would be interesting to do the same on a regional or country level
The tragedy of the commons has long been the entrenched mindset of human nature and the driving force behind civilization for the last 6,000+ years, and the same mindset which brought us to this point in history. In other words, realizing growth is finite will not persuade society to cooperate on constructively adjusting our course to sustainability while there may still be time, but instead only accelerate the process. Of course if Donald Trump gets back in the White House it's game over.
You could have Mahatma Gandhi as the next president and you would still be f
Please support this man.
When I read LTG as a 25 year old back in 1972 it was obvious that the adults would never allow it to happen. And now here we all are staring into the Abyss.
It was the adults who made it happen. Remember how Reagan ripped the Solar panels off the White House ? How Reagan expressed his contempt for the Limits to Growth.
It was a matter of the US population choosing Reagan, a man who threw the mentally ill on to the street for a quick buck, over Carter, a man of solid achievements, and in the process of initiating the energy transition needed for future generations.
The root causes stem from our social system. Too few are interested in interrogating root causes, so we are doomed to meet the brutal dictator, also known as circumstances. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Check it out.
Very good Paul.
Curious to see how this compares with Gaya Herrington's analysis a couple of years ago--she found BAU2 and Comprehensive Technology were best fits
Nearly 30k subscribers.
#ExponentialGrowth
Population population population..go forth and multiple....has to be the most dum thing ever written..
Well, we’re a species that makes mistakes, sometimes a few times, and then we learn we should do things differently. Some people have the foresight to prevent disasters and sometimes that prevents problems from occurring but very often it doesn’t work like that.
Yep.
Very sobering! I read limits to growth, then over the years ignored it, then gradually come to realize that much of modern economics is a sham because it doesn't take the finite nature of our planet and our total dependence on the earth's biosphere into account. I still resist the idea that our future is determined. I've come to the conclusion that we first need to get our political house in order if we are to ever survive this collapse. If we let the Fascists take over it will just accelerate our collapse. We are who we are because we can cooperate on larger scales than any other animal. It would be a mistake to react by withdrawing from our political and economic systems and for each to try to survive independently. Some of us did that in the sixties and seventies and it went nowhere. We need to clean up our human mess and prepare for this together rather than going to war.
"If we let the Fascists take over it will just accelerate our collapse" - Unfortunately, the Fascists have been in power a long time. It's just that most of us have bought into the lie that they're not in power.
Thank you
Thank you for your work.
I think Australia did the same in the 70s. The population curve is laughable if you look at the food curve.
The models work and are powerful analogs of reality. Personal decisions to try to survive are relevant to NOW. Do grandparents act to help grandchildren by stripping their assets and using them for offspring possible survival? Unprecedented times. We going to have to think about what we’re going to do to aid offspring survival.
I was riding my motorcycle thru the woods near me today. August 24th 2024 in Iowa, (Summer). Didnt kill a single bug on my windshield. Thats absolutely insane. Something is SERIOUSLY wrong! There should be bugs and insects flying around. Where did they go?
My problem with this model is Food production peaking before 2025. If we look at all the unused or inefficiently used space or land around us this just cannot possibly be correct. Unless this model shows the trajectory “they” want it to be, expected goal trajectory and “they” are doing anything in their power to reach this goal. Otherwise, look at all the farmer protests around the world right now. Why would they want to destroy farmers and buy up all the farmland?
Therefore, in this model I see expected goal trajectories and not doomsday trajectories.
I got interested in about all this about 30 years ago... then got on with my life and kind of left it in the back burner....now that we've come to a critical point, suddenly I'm alarmed over again!....things apparently won't get done until things look bleak!
The scenarios are not predictions and the reviews have shown empirical data matching BAU1 in 2008, between BAU2 and CT in 2021, now again BAU1, with most scenarios showing overshoot and collapse but all reviews pushing the peak further to the future. No doubt big trouble is ahead but the game is on. We can make the landing to a stabilized world softer, less painful. We can do better.
looking at nullschool there's a massive Low pressure near Antarctica
Send Trump to investigate- wearing pink Lycra with no coat nor boat.
On the ufo issue they were saying we were pressed for time but didn't elaborate connect the dots..
We will see the accuracy of the recalibrated BAU model next year... I am a bit worried.
Even though it says that the Limits to Growth isn't a prediction and that things can be changed it's still damn scary information.
Anyone having children in at least the past 40 years is complicit in the continued degradation of the ecosphere. Your friend Guy McPherson did the noble thing and refused to bring life into this world. I suggest teaching the importance of opting out of parenthood for the sake of any life that manages to survive the upcoming collapse.
Only those with common sense act on the logical decisions; the remainder who choose differently seem to adamantly live the life they dreamed of when growing up.
People who didn’t realize what the impact of their decision would be can’t be hold to account. There is also a social dillemma here, cause if a minority of people would have stopped having children and the rest would have still had children it wouldn’t have made a difference. The real problem lies with the politicians and the policy makers in my opinion and with the media that were supposed to keep them in check.
I have a feeling Paul wouldn't appreciate seeing the narcissistic GM, who for years insisted we'd be actually extinct by now, referred to as his friend.
@@klondike444 Denial is where you are. See you NOT in 2025/2026-ish. 😆
@@A.BC-That could well be, but I've never understood how GM fans can ignore his fantastical human extinction predictions that are always for just a few years in the future. The predicted dates pass, and they still claim he was somehow "right". I share Paul's realism. The facts point towards collapse and a die-off, but there are too many factors to set dates, let alone tell gullible people there'll be no one alive by the Christmas after next, or whatever he's claiming now.
If the predictions are wrong, we come back in a few years with updated models and new predictions with "improved" estimates and "new metrics"? It'll pass this time.
Even as we face our own extinction, we can't help ourselves. We continue to seek every pleasure, every reward, every extra dollar of wealth and advantage over our fellow humans.
comment for the algorithm xx collapse is coming 🙂
With a smile lol 😆
I am a little bit confused... in the modell the population seems to drop at about 7.7 G(?) But we habe already over 8 G today, don't we?
same here
@@PaulHBeckwith Technically, this is because the recalibration used several historical data sets as recalibration measures. Getting closer to population would have meant diverging more in some other area, such as industrial production, human welfare index, food per capita, pollution. The intention is to get as close as possible to historical trends for all available data sets. Since they are interdependent, it is not possible to maximize the accuracy of one without losing the accuracy of another.
In a more general perspective, this shows that the world is of course much more complex than what a simple model with a more or less static relationship between variables can reproduce.
In the end, as Huntigton noted in 1982, we model for insights, not for numbers, so overall behavior is more important than getting one value right. Happy to dicuss that, just reach out if you want to.
@@PaulHBeckwith
Remember factors such as
1. fracking could not considered in the original report, as they didn't exist.
2. Most of the population increase has occurred in low GDP parts of the world : limits relate to the maintainable global GDP.
3. Improvements in energy technology, such as Molten Salt Reactors, also could not be modelled : they didn't yet exist.
4. See the work of Simon Michaux for the current limits on metal production. The % level of copper in ore has dropped by a factor of 10 in a single generation, with an exponential increase, the HOOKIE relationship, in the energy needed to extract it.
(Already the price of metals is unstable)
Well as we can see our own core is cooling as well as the sun time is finite, so mankind's time is limited on earth regardless of any attempt to live holistically within earth's bounds. Humanity's only option for infinity belongs in space.
you are talking about step 532, we are on like step 5
having a civilization that can flourish here on earth, is a far greater and more present priority - one we have failed.
we blew our chances to get off this rock, well over 100 years ago
Climate change is here. Those are the 10 hottest days in the history of my city in Brazil (which usually has pretty mild temperatures for a place in the tropics). It's scary to see how those hottest days are clustered in the last nine years:
1. 25/09/2023: 38,6°C
2. 07/10/2020: 38,4°C
3. 03/10/2020: 37,8°C
4. 22/10/2015: 37,7°C
5. 16/10/2015: 37,4°C
6. 28/09/2020: 37,3°C
7. 13/11/2023: 37,3°C
8. 17/10/2015: 37,2°C
9. 24/09/2023: 37,1°C
10. 06/10/2020: 37°C
Given Brazil is mostly rain forest, with most cities on the coast, all of those temperatures represent a danger to life and limb. (Wet Bulb temperature equivalents)
We in a cycle of warming up bc of the sun dumb dumb.
We’ve only been keeping weather temps since the late 1800’s. Ice core samples only go back so far & it’s a drop in the bucket compared to how old the Earth is.
You are being deceived…
Nice job
Thanks for your work , as it says the requirements are change belief systems, mindset and organisation so therefore on the decline we could do with clarifying these in order to progress to the favourable outcome. Maybe it's not the world that needs peace maybe when people are at peace within the world will be in peace , is this a useful change of mindset?
Due to the unavailability of the minerals and metals needed to transition to low emissions energy and the limits of useing that energy compared to liquid fuels: Fossil fuels will be used to economic depletion, when the cost of supply of commodities is more than the ability to pay. This will happen with in a few decades. Those commodities include food. Global warming will accelerate due to increasing consumption of fossil fuels.
It would be nice to have had some information about exactly how they see such sudden collapse occurring. I'm particularly suspicious of the food production collapse, which appears to happen very abruptly in both the old and new graphs. Obviously with starving people everywhere, farmers aren't going to just quit en masse, so why is this scheduled to happen? Without some explanation, the conclusions are useless.
The Investors are the people that have been steering the boat of global industrial growth. They are addicted to an exponential growth of their wealth so they need an exponential growth of the industrial economy to achieve that goal. That's why the Business As Usual run is the one that has been the most closely fit to the data for the ast 50 years.
Must as well face it we're addicted to growth.
This implies capitalism is the problem, while the communist countries were (and a couple still are) significant polluters. The problem in my opinion lies not in people trying to get rich but in politicians and policy makers making the wrong decisions for everyone and in oil being very addictive.
On the bright side, I can die without FOMO now
Oh, great news, we'll get the decline of use of fossil fuels, like it or not!
We'll also die en masse due to starvation and other factors. :(
I didn't quite get it. What resources would be lacking in 2025?
Fresh water to start with
thats a lovely jumper
SI NO TIENEN ALGO MEJOR QUE HACER. ESTE LIBRO ES PARA APRENDÉRSELO DE MEMORIA.
Do these calculations factor in renewable energy?
I wld think that until renewable energy can create renewable energy then yes......right now it takes fossil fuels to make electricity everywhere there isnt a waterfall. So driving an elctrically cha4ged car doesnt reduce gas use by much over all. The baytery in the car requires nat. Gas and lithium to create it and recharging the vehicle requires nat. Gas to create the electricity to charge it. The solar panel creation is the same...requiring more electricity than what it can produce in 5 years time only in southern areas. Ugh.
@@Days_Sword even with coal power electric is more ecological because of motor efficiency
Figure 3 is highly questionable as it presents some apparent incoherence at least for 3 parameters namely, food production, industrial output and persistent pollution when comparing the BAU curve to Recal23. If there is any interest i am happy to elaborate.
Is there is decent updated edition to the book?
Yes . Limits to Growth- The 30 yr Update. Original publication 2004 and mine was revised with commentary in 2020. I got mine at Coles by order. About $27 as I recall. Reprinted by Chelsea Green from Vermont. There was also a 20 yr update edition.
Alan Toffler Future Shock.
You must have some shave today. You look great.
One more step and we're all over the cliff.
The question is; Did Limits to Growth consider that the global elite could manage a massive population decline of 90%+ by way of WW3?
ALREADY COLLAPSED
Paul, if James Hansen is right about 1.71 degrees in the 2030s (of course he is) what about war-gaming out some likely effects to society with a panel of knowledgeable people?
It's been done. Read 'Climate Wars' by Gwynne Dyer, published in the 1990's.
I would like to object to the term collapse. This would mean falls of a cliff. These curves are smooth. The correct technical term is to settle. The curves often look like a roller coaster.
The final settlement?
I've been talking the Limits to Growth" study since 1980 and human overshoot since 1970 after reading "The Population Bomb." No one really listened. They were too busy breeding and consuming.
What kind of drugs do you take?
A.I. plus Alien Energy tech will save us.
Paul, ARE YOU SURE YOU HAVEN’T INTERCHANGED THE INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT AND POPULATION CURVES?
I HAVEN’T YET WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO BUT SO MAYBE YOU ‘CORRECTED’ something you said at around the three minute mark that I think either you misinterpreted or has somehow been misrepresented in the curves of those graphs. Here’s why:
When I started to watch the video, I paused it when that graph came up to study it carefully. I found it confusing, trying to match it with the five definitions to the left. AT FIRST - I CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION YOU DID BUT I THOUGHT THERE ‘MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG’. Why? BECAUSE THE CURRENT POPULATION - RIGHT NOW - AS WE SPEAK - OF THE PLANET - IS OVER 8,000,000,000 PEOPLE. Still, I thought, maybe ‘they’ were ‘using old data’.
But, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT SOME MORE and concluded that that curve which peaks highest on the graph - MUST BE ‘POPULATION’. MUST BE!!!
Why? Because, back around 1950, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, THE POPULATION OF THE PLANET AROUND THAT TIME WAS ALREADY SOMEWHERE AROUND 2,500,000,000 AND FOR THE WAY - IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY - DESCRIBE THEM AT THAT POINT IN TIME IN YOUR VIDEO - THE GRAPH WOULD’VE PUT THE POPULATION SOMEWHERE DOWN AROUND 1,200,000,000 - I WOULD ESTIMATE - AND, THERE IS NO WAY ‘José’ - that that could be true because it was already around 1,800,000,000 in the late 19 ‘teens’ around the time of the Swine Flu Epidemic.
I apologize if I misunderstood/misheard and/or perhaps you ‘corrected yourself’? (If necessary, later on in the video) BUT - because I thought the matter was potentially so significant, I would post this comment.
(Your?) Response/Comment/Thoughts?
“Limits to Growth” was the basis of greenwash. The damage done by that book to the grassroots sustainability movement is immeasurable.
Paul Beckwith: Houseplant Killer, out in bookstores soon.
Polar heat waves arrive in March. March every year is the catalyst for abrupt change.Therefore, 2024 could be the beginning, not 2025.