Final Warning Limits to Growth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2015
- Documentaries and Reports
In 1972, the study ‘Limits to Growth’ warned against the impact of capitalism. click for more
Did anyone act on it? It shows that Capitalism lies at the root of problems such as overpopulation and environmental pollution, yet few seem to be aware of the connection.
After its publication in 1972, the Club of Rome's study, "Limits to Growth," came to epitomize a historical turning point. The book calls into question the fundamental principle of the American economic ideology of capitalism, with its insatiable pursuit of growth. However, the work did not just pillory contemporary practices. It also warned of the extremely diverse and massive consequences for all of humanity. Although there is scarcely any doubt as to the validity of the study and its 1992 successor, "Beyond the Limits," governments worldwide have done very little to solve the major problems. Topics such as overpopulation, environmental pollution, depletion of resources, and consumption are now familiar to everyone, but few people are aware of the impact they can have in the context of exponential growth on Earth, and therefore on all of humanity. This documentary sheds light on the effect the work has had on public perceptions in the past four decades.
Date 25.11.2015 Duration 42:30 mins.
www.dw.com/en/final-warning-li...
There's nothing wrong with being a "Malthusian" the big "mistake" of Thomas Malthus was failing to predict the Industrial Revolution and thus failed to predict that we humans would live, as we do now, on 10 fossil fuel calories to produce each 1 food calorie we eat. That party is coming to an end.
He was right about people breeding like rabbits when the food supply (temporarily) expands.
Meadows and Malthus got more right than wrong.
@@TennesseeJed Meadows prediction is for 2040. We are tracking their predictions. You are probably just repeating talking points based on a lie.
These predictions are based on basic analysis at best..
Under a compromised financial system where a small % absorb the public wealth over an 80 - 100 year span his predictions have some merit..
Inflation Is the illusion of wealth whilst robbing us of our true wealth.
This creates much unnecessary suffering for the majority having t chase their tails to make ends meet.
In developing countries it creates distinct poverty conditions where people naturally have more children and therefore exacerbate the negative effects this creates on a global scale.
Poverty & struggle creates pressure on all our systems.
Fix the financial system so that we have real money without certain group interests having any influence/ benefit over it.. we see a whole new picture.
Money is energy - so the creation of fake money creates illusory wealth which distorts the natural balancing effects of the market.
We already have a solution with decentralised finance using proof of work protocols enabling our money to retain is value without risk of inflation ( money printing) stealing from that.
Inflation Is solved and those units of value now have trust under (self custody).
Efficient energy is tied to proof of work, driven by profit ( natural human greed)..
So how would this work in real economic/social systems?
Once our financial system is brought up to date we can have true free market capitalism without risk of monopoly influence and special interests.
Prices of goods and services naturally fall to the marginal costs of production..
Technology improvements support this process.
Standards of living increase across the board and the pressures over over population naturally decrease.
Poverty is our enemy as well as ignorance and lack of knowledge.
The seed vault they talk about in the end flooded because of melting permafrost.
2019 and we are still here. However, the end of the world is just around the corner.
Yeah, hows 2020 been for ya? Looking forward to Hurricane season now too?
Ok Greta
2021 here, ive got to say, its not much better than 2020.
@@skelitalmisfit12 I think 2021 is worse than 2020 even though there are countries that are doing relatively well with high vaccination rates. With the IPCC report, wildfires and floods in different parts of the world, and never-ending variants, I think it’s going to go downhill from here. Don’t forget the current situation at Afghanistan and Lebanon too. It’s depressing.
Typical reactions to growth vs. limits are like the frog in the pot of water analogy. Most people won't care until it's too late, then they'll scramble to blame governments and opposing parties. "So THIS is what those ecofreaks kept preaching about..."
38:15 regarding resilience: the system has been resilient in maintaining the status quo and power for the wealthy.
Simply put: Brace for impact!
The new economic growth theory is a joke....absolute faith in technology will be our demise.
Iván Y. Muñoz Torres it is not faith in technology we are witnessing, our whole being is technological. We put the earth to the rack, and insisted it reveals its secrets to us , and if it does not benefit us, we ignore it.
Indeed. Before it went out of business, OSH (Orchard Supply Hardware) which started as a co-op in the 1930s so farmers in the Grapes Of Wrath days could buy ladders and stuff, introduced what it called OSHbots. These were robots you could ask questions, mainly like "where is the paint?" and so on. I never saw an actual OSHbot though, as they were always malfunctioning, and I really wanted to. You know what would have been a much easier solution? *Have a damn map up on the wall where customers come in, of the layout of the store and where things are*
I notice this was posted to YT eight years ago. At around 33:00, that one guy talks about self-reinforcing climate change in the 2nd half of the 21st century. Hell, all those feedback are already occurring: Melting permafrost, mega-fires releasing more CO2 than from any human industrial sources, etc.
Well...fuck we missed our chance for a good future and it happened before I was born.
I am truly sorry that my generation capitulated and the foul cesspool you were born into as a result, that we blame you ungratel lazy spolit brats for.
You can change the situation now :
YES WE CAN 2016-2116
see my channel on RUclips
Like a friends reunited after 50 years lost.
Short-termism. People just aren't clever enough.
Excelentt doc they should make an updated one. Thanks
Thank you for upload sir.
The reason I am not blaming politicians is Limits of Growth suggests something like stabilizing the economy at a level which is equivalent to the leading industrial countries of the eastern block in the 80s in a top-down system that reminds me planned economy and socialism in many ways. Well, that is an experiment that was conducted at a large scale, and people were clearly against it. Those system were oppressive and crippled the individuals and so on. Think about today's Cuba, in theory, it is a green economy with happy people, in practice it's a rigid system with secret police and shortages and hundred thousands of their people are fleeing to US every year. To me it seems the opportunity existed, but practically nobody wanted to live a modest and ecologically sustainable life.
Think about a post oil world, let's say that is in a decade., easy oil anyway and that will be a post oil world for a lot of people in a country that is dependent on oil.
Unregulated consumption dependant on how much money you have has problems that do need control, and people might believe in the power of the dollar because as soon as you have it then it is a ticket to energy but how will that change when the energy is widely known to be depleting? The business of govt is business and stabilising the world to be at the same energy per capita of europe of the late 1800's is where we might not go, we do have coal for another 100 or so years, but how would any politician get voted in 30 years ago saying " you are all going to have less money"?
If you look at it another way, the politicians or the gummerment are the ones who control how much money enters the system, greed is good is a govt success for getting money into the economy as all money is gummerment owned, that we pay interest on, this system is just as oppressive and cripples people.
The other side is that people need to lose their narcissism and addiction to rampant consumerism. Humans don't have unlimited rights and freedoms. That is a complete delusion. We are and always have been entirely dependent on Earth for our every breath, every morsel, and for everything we have ever had. People forgot this and the wealthy and the politicians treated Earth like a toilet to be exploited for their own egoic gain. How wrong they are. They are all about to learn a very hard lesson with their very lives. I blame the politicians. They led us down this path. They were warned by Dr. Carl Sagan and Dr. James Hansen in 1987 that climate change posed an existential threat to all Life. They did nothing. They kicked the can down the road and misled people. Now we will all pay the ultimate price soon.
All roads lead to Rome.
the colapse of "Rome" that is.
Well 2020 just passed and turned out they were right. It's all downhill from here.
today population hit a net 0 meaning more people are dying then are being born.
@@alexkace6620 oh really?
@@gurjotsingh8934 yes
It's going exactly as they planned.
We are not getting a grip on CO-2 emissions or the cutting down of trees or the end of oil, etc. because the billionaires/trillionaires make their money that way.
And we consumers love our stuff.
I thought oil billionaires kick started the green movement
@@brodyhess5553 They act like they are working on green movements but behind the scenes they want oil to be the world's dominant fuel for as long as possible
@@brock5946 interesting. I love a good conspiracy
And they have a solution kill all of the poor people
Hello from 2020 👋
Hello from 2022! 👋
As Indonesian citizen, 34:29 I'm happy to see our previous vice president, Mr. Jusuf Kalla attending conference about climate change.
IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THIS CRAP
@@patriciaglass9779 That you had to write that all in capitals makes you the dumbo here
For sure, capitalism is the problem. Short-termism is advantageous to financial markets and the sociopathic 0.1% would maintain this along with a war here and there. Stability in financial markets without debt doesn't provide profit.
The only reason we have the ability to feed 10 billion people (we only have 8) is capitalism. Socialism could only feed 1 billion.
Fix the link in the description please.
is TBL and LCA available for the Sri Lanka civil industry??
Required reading for Economics majors at Harvard, 1973
using an infinite measure of value in a finite world...
i wish humans had more time....we are finally beginning to wake up....sad its 100 yrs too late..
Don’t worry soon humanity is going to be reduced to 1/8
They have been saying that its 100 years too late for over 100 years. Their apocalypses has yet to arrive.
@@cbracamonte I take it you are going to nuke the world? That's the only way to reduce it that far.
@@roberthicks1612 So... 1972 was 100 years ago ? Please, do something... like reading their book ?
@@LeTwerkerFou They have been saying that humanity was doomed since the early 1900's. In fact some of their warnings about the climate disasters date back to the 1800's.
game over man....game over
I see what you did there, Bill. And from beyond the grave...
📍30:52
17:35
Our parents cannot said they had no warning... same as we won't have that choice either, when our children' children ask us why if we knew, we did nothing... Good documentary DW, as usual (y)
You still don't get that your children's children will never exist do you. You see humans who die before they can reproduce won't be parents.
WHAT DID YOUR PARENTS NOT KNOW...THAT THIS IS A HUGE SCAM.
@@MrSvenovitch
The warning is in quantum physics which is not taught to the common people. I think like the first comment at the top.
Is there any political movement in the world out there that actually takes this seriously? Never heard of one...
ruclips.net/video/mQhjqCd7Eec/видео.html
Eugenics ----- the way most countries are run.
@@sophiastar9713 bill gates
In my opinion the one child per woman is the best, easiest and most effective solution to the problem because:
1. It reduces population to a sustainable level.
2. It improves the human genome by selecting very favorable genes through competition
3. It improves standards of living worldwide if adopted worldwide.
4. It is a peaceful solution that doesn't require wars.
5. It is a health improving solution that doesn't require people to be poisoned with food or water.
6. It leads to a united and peaceful world.
Agree, but why «one child per woman»? It would be better to say one child per every human being.
Only problem with the 1 child per woman option is that after one generation you'll have a whole bunch of old retirees with not enough young workers to take care of them all finically or physically.
Simply irrelevant: typical growth rates of Asian countries is 7% per annum: a doubling every 10 years or quintupling every generation.
Agreed. I see the problem that Jason brought up but the alternative (not limiting population growth) can't work as the ecosystem has limitations for supporting an exploding population. I don't know the answer to Jason's concern but that is actually the problem that needs to be tackled IMO.
Any solution has to be one acceptable to the typical citizen who wants to live in a comfortable manner for themselves and their children.
The problem is how to generate power to achieve this without damaging the global environment. The current electricity generation is roughly 22 trillion kilowatt hours per year. Each human being needed roughly 100,000 kilowatt hours per year to live comfortably, implying a global electricity generation per year of Quadrillion kilowatt hours per year.
(Once people live comfortably their fertility within 2 generations drops below replacement level.)
Fossil fuel power is simply too limited to achieve this. (Ignoring side effects such a climate change and carbon dioxide poisoning.)
The hope is the Chinese develop Molten Salt Nuclear reactors or a similar concept quickly. (They currently have over 900 people working full time on the problem.) The US developed the concepts up to the point of power generation but got cancelled by President Nixon.
The problems is how to ensure food security while also restoring large parts of the world to wilderness: the agriculture problem becomes soluble with sufficient power by hydroponic farming in a controlled greenhouse environment.
It seems to me that the planet is going to do what it always does. We will use up the oil, and that's that. If we die or the climate changes, well that will work itself out also.
It seems to me that there are so many other solutions that aren’t discussed or even on the table at all here. I’m not sure why the focus is on the individual who will inevitably think in the short term.. the scary idea that Meadows mentions “democracy” being his “preferred” form of government, but ultimately he seems to advocate for a government and system of control instead of support for different choices. That is a severe conclusion and I think we should all be very concerned about a humanity that isn’t democratic in its decision making process.
Have no fear for atomic energy 'cause none a dem can stop the time.
Thanks bob.
Yeah, 'dat what it be like!
@@Heaven-dy9lj LOL!
The scale of the missed opportunity is quite sad.
Free will does not exists. We where condemned since the beginning to end up in the present situation, we're animals like the rest and we are guided by evolutionary biology in the form of the pleasure principle. Reason only works in the most limited case and to solve the simple problems we encounter.
Did he say "Volkswagen foundation funding" in the beginning ?
@Angels View I don't think that's the position of most scientists who are concerned about increasing human population / consumption on a finite planet. I think it's more about the inevitability of collapse based on history if we don't get ahead of it via technology, urban planning, etc.
@Angels View a little too far for my liking, but anything is possible if faced with massive civil unrest
@Angels View Have you read the book Limits to Growth, and if so, just given this book, do you read that it is a nazi genocide manual?
I have read it, and it is talking about making a model to predicts the usable resources with population, pollution, food and how far we can go before collapse. They make some assumptions along the way and come up with a model eventually. And in their view, in 1972, it would seem best if the population wouldn't continue to grow but be stagnant, equilibrium.
They do not talk about killing off the majority of the population. So I wonder where you get that from given this book?
28:21 the cause is that the ice have become so massiv in the south pole that is breaks off and go into the sea 🤯
What the world needs now is love, sweet love.
The limits to growth pose a problem to capitalism. As explained here:
www.missingtheforest.com/capitalisms-problem-exponential-growth-in-a-finite-system/
ruclips.net/video/mQhjqCd7Eec/видео.html
All problems of growth are founded on the number of people. That's the MAINFACTOR. Many scientists do not name this clearly and fear to postulate WORLDWIDE OneChildFamilies. China 🇨🇳 already did practice a ONE CHILD Policy from 1975 to 2014, so we have 400. 000.000 less Chinese people. But China STOPPED OCP, because of the retirement system, which is payed by the young generation. Instead of changing this retirement system into a direct financing retirement, they did stop OCP. UNBELIEVABLE! Everybody can save the money for his retirement during his working years. Also the employees from the States and the Government. It's possible and we all need this SYSTEM CHANGE 👍🏾🇺🇸🇨🇳🌎😁
You cut the begging which was the most interesting !!!!!!
A canticle for Leibowitz.
What happens to the 450 nuclear power plants when economic/resource/climate collapse occurs? Meltdown!
the power generation units are scary - the cooling ponds are terrifying. when the fuel for the backup generators runs out - the time starts counting down.
nope, it stops
they can only melt down if the fuel is still active. it will most likely be spent by then.
Uranium finite as well
This video is good, and the book "The Limits to Growth" is excellent, but the description under this video completely ruins it, being a blatant socialist lie. Not only did the book NOT warn against "the impact of capitalism," and not only does it NOT show that "capitalism lies at the root of problems such as overpopulation and environmental pollution," but IT NEVER EVEN MENTIONS CAPITALISM. Instead, as explained in this video, it warns against the impact of continuing exponential growth of population and consumption on a finite planet, REGARDLESS of the economic system in which this growth occurs, and it shows that the root of problems such as overpopulation and environmental pollution is the preference of all societies, REGARDLESS of how they are organized, to focus on immediate needs ("short-termism") and to consume resources as if they are effectively infinite.
The description does not mention socialism. At 36:00 the AUTHOR OF THE BOOK Rander says poorly regulated capitalism (like that in the USA with respect to the EPA, regulation of pandemics, etc. and many other parts of the world) supports enterprise that is focused on short term gains (profits). He says regulation is needed to make socially responsible enterprise profitable. This hasn't happened under democracy and can't happen due to peoples short term outlooks he says. He is suggesting an alternative to current capitalism is required (not necessarily socialism). The great issues of our time are not about absolutes (socialists against capitalists), and shutting the conversation down to this is what has hindered any sort of meaningful shift towards a sustainable world. By the way I am not a socialist, but there are many great policies and regulations that would fit well into our capitalist society that are never implemented because people say those that support those policy are socialists.
Rilly Willy the hegemony of capitalism leads to those who are victims of it, hysterically defending it, due to its favourable dominance within all aspects of certain cultures. Its obvious injustices, when they affect most individuals in a capitalist culture, are accepted in the same manner that one would accept being negatively impacted by natural catastrophe.
@@rillywilly5634 The description clearly asserts that the book blames our environmental problems on capitalism. That is a lie, as anyone who has read the book knows. These days the vast majority of those opposed to capitalism favor some form of socialism and blame our environmental problems on capitalism, so the most likely explanation for this lie is that the description's author is pushing some form of socialism. I suppose the author could be a fascist or syndicalist, but that's very unlikely. Randers is NOT "the author of the book." He is one of four co-authors. Meadows, who speaks in the video right before Randers, is also a co-author, and he does not blame capitalism, whether "poorly regulated" or not. In any case, both Meadows and Randers are giving their personal opinions on the issue 40 years after the book. By the way, I am not a dogmatic capitalist, and I favor strong government regulations, such as a carbon cap and trade system, which I am well aware do not imply socialism.
@@notanumber6 both systems, Capitalism as well as Socialism have a similar negative impact on the biosphere. We had in Germany both systems and for the environment the socialist system of East- Germany was even worse in pollution and damage of rivers as there were no regulations for the impacts on the biosphere. The main problem for our biosphere on earth is the exponentially growing WORLDPOPULATION : 1870 ONE BILLION PEOPLE, 1920 TWO BILLION PEOPLE, 1970 FOUR BILLION PEOPLE and 2020 EIGHT BILLION PEOPLE. WE need worldwide OneChildFamilies for the coming 50 years.
Thanks for this informative documentary. I've read all of their reports. However, they avoid addressing the central problem: HUMAN OVERPOPULATION.
This is our Masterplan to STOP OVERPOPULATION NOW : ruclips.net/video/i48bb22fPdI/видео.html
... and please give a thumb UP :-) on the Masterplan- Video ....
The world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN...
This is not important...please have a nap and do not worry... just rember that we love you
Why it is not important ??
Sponsored by the Club of Rome with Volkswagon foundation funding by an international team of 17 scientists." Always 17.
Nothing you just said makes sense. It wasn't only scientists.
Some times it's 23
The cicadas know something!
Another good reason to hate Ronald Reagan, as if I needed another reason.
Another good reason to hate George H.W. Bush, as if I needed another reason.
Doomed.
c27 May 1996, interview with Charlie Rose, USA
SAGAN: My feeling, Charlie, is that it's not that pseudoscience and superstition and New Age so-called "beliefs" and fundamentalist zealotry are something new. They've been with us for as long as we've been human. But we live in an age based on science and technology, with formidable technological powers.
ROSE: Science and technology are propelling us forward at accelerating rates.
SAGAN: That's right. And if we don't understand it, and by "we" I mean "the general public," if it's something that, "Oh, I'm not good at that, I don't know anything about it," then who is making all the decisions about science and technology that are going to determine what kind of future our children live in? Just some members of Congress? But there's no more than a handful of members of Congress with any background in science at all. And the Republican Congress has just abolished its own Office of Technology Assessment-the organization that gave them bipartisan, competent advice on science and technology. They say, "We don't want to know. Don't tell us about science and technology."
ROSE: Surprising. What's the danger of all this? I mean, this is not the thing that...
SAGAN: There's two kinds of dangers. One is what I just talked about. That we've arranged a society based on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don't know anything about it? And the second reason that I'm worried about this is that science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along. It's a thing that Jefferson laid great stress on. It wasn't enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. The people had to be educated, and they had to practice their skepticism and their education. Oherwise we don't run the government-the government runs us.
@@jamesmorton7881 Governments are almost entirely financial beasts, the real ideology (and you should know this) is the secret societies and think tanks that plot collapse. If you want to live in some fucked up technocracy where human rights are exchanged for flying cars and legalized drugs...that's your error sir.
@@wessidestory9Your error is a serious reading comprehension problem. He didn't say any of that.
I think you mean *hearing error, is that what you are trying to communicate? @@everythingmatters6308
Too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution. Questions?
We need this MASTERPLAN : ruclips.net/video/i48bb22fPdI/видео.html
.... and please give a thumb UP :-) on the Masterplan- Video ...
Start with big corporate government
All models are wrong and (only) some are useful G BOX
God said to man, be fruitful and multiply, no limit, man always try to put themselves up as God, will never happen.
50 years ago, they said the limit to growth was going to be reached in 20 years.
30 years ago, they said the limit to growth was going to be reached in 20 years.
10 years ago, they said the limit to growth was going to be reached in 20 years.
Now, they are saying the limit to growth was going to be reached in 20 years.
Why should we believe them now when all of their predictions have been totally wrong.
Their predictions were right. Maybe you're thinking the limit to growth is some sort of apocalyptic day in which the world comes to an end but that's not the case. The limit to growth is a momentum at which we go from a sustainable situation that nature can carry into an unsustainable one. We can all see we have already passed the limit to growth. Our production, consumption, population and food intake has gone far beyond what's needed for us to live a happy life and far beyond what our planet earth can maintain. As Jorgen Randers told us very clearly (from minute 14:56) we have two choices now: either organize and manage a decline to go back to a sustainable situation or we let nature force us to go down. The latter has already been shown to us for the last couple of years.
@@ambervermaete14 How could they be real. According to the theory, we were going to hit 10 billion by 2000. 20 years after that date, we are still only 8 billion. Our farmers have to lay out land to keep the prices above the cost of production. YET we have enough food to feed 8.5 billion people. The growth in population has decreased from 2% per year in 1970 to 1% in 2020. IF the decrease continues we will hit 9.5 billion and become stable in 2070.
The real reason they want to decrease the population is so they can control it easier. The more people there are, the harder it is to control the population. They know that socialism can not feed 10 billion people and they do not want to allow capitalism to survive because it means they do not have the ability to dictate to people how they will live their lives.
@@roberthicks1612 No they didn't, you lying fool: I'm looking at the pdf of the book right here, and it has the UN population projections right there on page 33, at 6 billion in the year 2000 - which was pretty much exactly dead-on. On page 183, they project a population of 5.8 billion if everyone on earth reached only replacement-level family sizes - which was optimistic, but pretty accurate - leveling off to 8.2 billion as everyone ages. And on page 149 they speculate that there could be 4-7 billion by 2000 - again, pretty reasonable. And they discuss what will make population level-off with economic development, which is exactly what has been seen.
Why do people like you lie so often? You haven't even read the book. And socialists actually hate Limits to Growth, because it says their utopian vision is an idiotic pipe-dream.
Malthus was right. Te interval of time is uncetrain but the rest is right.
@@ionadrian1024 What is the evidence he is right this time? They have been claiming it for decades and yet there is no sign of it yet.
One thing is certain is that we do not no anything but God knows all things. Stop listening to what man is saying and start listening to what God is saying through his book the Bible.
Which God? There are many!
ok i will ask Allah
@@hel6714 I prefer asking Gia.
@@potita24 There is and can be only one creator. The war against him is very real, isrehell just banned Jesus teachings. Possible jail time for speaking about Jesus. All other gods are manufactured to make people think the 1611 KJV of the bible is a fairytale, when it can be scientifically proven as fact.
@@roberthicks1612 Gija is what the satanists worship, as they are athiests. Alice bailey and the like are very open about this subject, to worship earth is to deny the exitance of the one true God.
Stop trying to play god!
I always get this book mixed up with "The Population Bomb" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb which is another good one.
This has been shown to be demonstrably false. Our resources are effectively infinite, because: 1/ we continually learn how to do more with less. 2/ Consumption becomes more and more virtual. 3/ New materials are continually invented. 4/ New deposits are continually found, some huge ones we have hardly touched e.g. under the sea or out in space.
YES YES YES
Ever heard of peak oil? If you're going to spread your opinions do some research, for example the people who wrote this book have spent their entire life researching this topic.
I’m not even gonna argue with your uneducated ass
Read the book under the section about "comprehensive technology"
@Rilly - They have been talking about running out of oil for the last 60 years, like climate disaster it is always 10 years away. @Anna - You ARE arguing with me, so that shows were your logic is at. @Kallista - Like I'm going to help finance that nonsence!
The Club of Rome keep scaremongering, which started in the 1980s; they were absolutely wrong then with their dire predictions, and they are wrong again now, simply because they do not account for the power of human ingenuity , i.e. Necessity is the mother of invention.
I have read the book (it's free on the internet) and you can't say they were wrong because their chart shows the bad stuff happening in the second half of their 100 year forecast period, so between 2020 and 2070.
and what bad stuff specifically is going to happen, moron. market forces are already a built-in organic way to signal need, and therefore need for innovation; otherwise precious resources are wasted on unimportant problems - this what you don't want to understand.
Your ignorance is equal in proportion to your misguided neoliberal optimism... A market system requiring infinite growth (Our Global Capital Economy) can not be supported indefinitely within a larger system of finite resources (Planet Earth). Innovation and ingenuity can not correct for depleted tangibles. Scientist my ass! Experimental scholars don’t claim to be a “scientest” they would indentinfy their field of study eg. chemist... But you DO seem smart and your absolutely right about how market forces only address practical problems... I was hardly hanging on till they started putting sleeves on does colorful blankets #Snuggie4thewin!
You seem to be quite naive about human and market abilities. If these were our salvation, why did so many "civilizations" of the past collapsed? And those were much smaller, less complex and much more easily to understand environments. The complexity of our global "civilization" is much more difficult to comprehend, navigate and coordinate, especially when the right incentives are not in place.
Hey it's 2020 and Um... Quick question what the fuck
All four authors are suspiciously ignorant about climate change. Climate change is a non-problem and a scam. I agree with them about resource management, though.
Good old wishful thinking, i think it’s right therefore it is right, who needs evidence when a good old conspiracy theory will do.
Patrick Monaghan might be worth having a listen to these.
@@Mtmonaghan Only an ignorant believes in the Climate Change lie. Unfortunately, most people are naive and ignorant when it comes to believing in their government.
M. Nielsen it’s funny you say people should be skeptical of their government but our government doesn’t believe in climate change. Does that make it real to you? Or are you just entrenched in your brainwashed idea?
Denying climate change is akin to an obese individual blaming the spoon for their weight gain. The fact that you bring ignorance into your assertion to try and indicate that you somehow have knowledge or some sort of inherently greater understanding of how the worlds climate works than others, (to me) indicates incredibly clearly that YOU are in fact ignorant. You absolutely cannot deny the MEASURED colossal increase in CO2 in our worlds atmosphere in the past 100 years compared to our very thorough record of global CO2 levels dating back to around 800,000 years. Never before have we seen levels this high on our planet. And if you ever actually do put in the time to study the data sets on CO2 levels and its correlation to global temperature. You can undeniably see that the levels of CO2 increase just slightly before the global temperatures follow suit. We are in fact nailing/have nailed our own (Run-away greenhouse effect) coffin shut. To dispute this under the guise of government misdirection or misinformation is concluding that the thousands of studies made that were not funded by any government are in fact null. With such incredible assertions such as yours, incredible evidence has to be produced.
That guy is such a liar. I have NO respect for people who flagrantly misrepresent other people's positions so they can tear down a straw man. Literally *no* *one* says, "I don't believe in climate change." He's just slandering people who disagree with him and who have principled and well informed scientific reasons for doing so.
you're still wrong , face it. It's not a question of belief moron, it's to what extent the said climate change is manmade; I'm smart enough to see bias when I see it. and I am a scientist, so go fuck yourself.
The President of the United States said exactly that a matter of days ago. He is by no means alone and his ignorance could possibly accelerate our demise.
moron
ruclips.net/video/mQhjqCd7Eec/видео.html
scam
Consider yourself duly warned. We are in the collapse right now.
#ChickCoin 🐣🐥🪙™️
How is your chickcoin doing?
@@JohnnyBelgium Excellent! Thanks! I now denote #ChickCoin as 🐣🐥🐓🥚🪙