
The Limits to Growth (1972) [pdf] - lainon
http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf
======
spodek
I remember the first time reading this book, or rather the 30 year update --
[https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/19...](https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/193149858X) \-- thinking, " _this_ is the approach to take to
understand how the economy, ecology, pollution, and so on interact."

Everything else was just looking at elements. Technology is important, for
example, but exists within a system. They looked at the system. They had to
simplify and assume a lot, which the media didn't understand (probably benign
ignorance) and critics blew out of proportion (probably maliciously), but I
found their approach the most meaningful.

Sadly, I know many people who care about the environment but don't understand
the (relatively simple) math in their approach, and many people who understand
the math but don't care about the environment, but almost no one who cares and
understands. So in about a decade since reading it, I haven't found anyone I
can talk to about it meaningfully.

A great companion by one of the authors is Thinking in Systems by Donella
Meadows -- [https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/1603580557).

Both changed my views more than almost any other books.

~~~
wjnc
With all respect to the authors, the thinking at that point in time and the
impact it made on the world and you: Much of their predictions haven't stood
the test of time.

-No exhaustible has been depleted yet and the price mechanism combined with technological progress seems pretty able to set incentives straight. Look at what the oil price bubble of the '00s did for electric cars and batteries in the now. -The world has seen massively more population growth than they modelled, but not the accompanying food shortages they predicted. I'd argue the shortages of the '80s and '90s are over, although local situations obviously have tragic effects (Syria, Venezuela). -Material goods production (plastics) is at an all time high. -Many more humans alive at lower poverty levels than ever before and ever imagined by the Club of Rome

They got the depletion of fish stocks right though. Although arguably, that
was the simplest prediction since the 'tragedy of the commons' is so profound
in international fishery.

The gloom of the club of Rome just didn't work out. I guess outside of way we
are treating our environment, humanity has a lot to be proud of. (I feel the
environment is going bonkers and we are a plastic-addicted throw away
society.)

~~~
spodek
You've mischaracterized their work.

They didn't predict what you said they did. They showed a range of possible
outcomes based on assumptions, among many. You seem to have picked one outcome
as their only one and called it their prediction.

They created a model based on a systems approach whose output depended on
assumptions on physical properties of the planet and future human choices.
Given the large uncertainties, they ran the model under many sets of
assumptions and presented the outcomes.

The point of the book is to illustrate and promote a systems perspective, not
just a linear, event-based approach, which you seem to prefer.

~~~
wjnc
Say I agree (at least I get your point ;) - I'm curious how does one test (in
the empirical science sense) a systems perspective with regards to predictions
/ scenario's? Because at least in popular opinion the Club of Rome is known
for a pretty grim worldview and political advocacy.

Perhaps I'm too much schooled in traditional economics but Robert Nobel wasn't
too kind [1] and even in my environmental economics classes we spent quite
some time deconstructing the Club of Rome.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome#Critics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome#Critics)

~~~
smallnamespace
At some point, there are limits to our ability to empirically test large-scale
predictions because we have no ability to run history more than once.

This certainly applies to macroeconomics -- how does one empirically 'test'
any prediction from a macroeconomic model based on real-life inputs, other
than to see what happens? But this shouldn't preclude us from asking the
really difficult questions that we care about, rather than restricting
ourselves to the realm of physics, where we can get 5 sigmas in classical
statistical tests.

With regards to Robert Nobel's criticism, the whole point of the Club of
Rome's approach is to model a simplified, 'low resolution' view of the world
economy in order to embed it in a larger network of information, goods, and
energy flows constrained by the environment -- because _the boundary
conditions matter a lot_ to how the macroeconomy functions.

Sometimes you can get away with a much simpler modeling approach if you
actually get all the inputs right. The biggest criticism the Club of Rome has
on most macroeconomic models is that it doesn't model the environmental inputs
in sufficient detail, and these things really matter a lot in the long run.

It is _not_ simply sufficient to take current 'wage levels' or 'capital stock'
or even 'level of technology' as a direct input to your DSGE RBC model -- our
macroeconomies perform a quasi-ecological function of converting flows of
matter and energy, largely taken from Nature and the environment, and
converting them further for human use. Understanding the Nature-human
interface, then explicitly modeling the stock quantities of the inputs into
the macroeconomy _must_ on some level be important, because they are key to
how our entire technological society functions.

I you're inclined to learn more about their modeling approach at a high level,
I highly recommend _Thinking in Systems_ [1]. Read it a week ago and it blew
my mind, as its intuitions match up with a lot of patterns that we see over
and over again in dealing with any complex network, but presented in a
systematic and convincing manner.

[1] [http://wtf.tw/ref/meadows.pdf](http://wtf.tw/ref/meadows.pdf)

------
shoo
Here's a paper from 2014 that compares historical data from the 40 years since
the limits to growth study was released:

[http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M...](http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-
ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf)

------
ultra-jeremyx
The point of system dynamics is not predicting the numbers--it's understanding
the system. If you look at historical data over time and see values
increasing, decreasing, and remaining steady, it would be nicer to have an
endogenous understanding of what causes those changes instead of extrapolating
based on the historical data. When you understand _how_ the system works, then
you can reason about where the leverage points are.

I always loved that the biggest leverage point in any system is to change the
system itself!

------
muxator
From a purely logic point of view, I have some problems accepting this:

> "When the facts change, I change my mind," I included because of its implied
> inverse: "When the facts don't change, I don't change my mind."

It is my understanding that "A implies B" does not imply "not A implies not
B".

Maybe I am just hairsplitting, but when I read/hear something I see these kind
of sentences as bad indicators.

~~~
zardo
The trouble with applying formal logic to natural language, is in the
translation.

You are interpreting "when" as indicating an implication, it could also be an
'if and only if'.

~~~
muxator
I know what you mean. It took me some effort to accept that, in natural
language, an "exponential growth" was not really meant to be exponential. One
has to live with it. :)

~~~
zardo
It sounds like you displeasure with incorrect use of 'exponential growth' may
declining exponentially with your exposure to it.

------
agumonkey
I'm still looking for a video or audio of that conference.

~~~
metallah
Same. Please let me know if you're able to find anything!

~~~
agumonkey
Just got a partial answer from a team member of donella meadows archives
saying I'll have to wait a week for the person who knows best about this to
come back.

In the mean time, here are the reading suggestions I got:

\- [http://donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/danas-
writi...](http://donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/danas-
writing/articles-donella-meadows/)

\- [http://donellameadows.org/archives/the-club-of-rome-and-
sust...](http://donellameadows.org/archives/the-club-of-rome-and-sustainable-
development/)

\- [http://donellameadows.org/archives/forty-years-later-the-
rec...](http://donellameadows.org/archives/forty-years-later-the-reception-of-
the-limits-to-growth-in-italy-1971-1974/)

I'll ping you when the news come

