# "Global economic collapse" by 2030? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2012, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054 "2012-05-06T08:24:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2015, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/61 "2015-06-05T05:41:00Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > Also, the book looks at the points that you gave, which is why it contains several runs: resources “unlimited,” that plus pollution controls, those plus birth control, etc. My understanding is that the book addressed my point by doing something like doubling the resource base. But that only postpones the day of reckoning. Yes. Yes that’s right. But the exercise misses. The. Point. Since Limits I was published, population has grown exponentially (albeit at a slowing rate). Per capita food consumption has also grown. Which implies that food has _also_ grown exponentially. Will that trend persist? Who knows? I’m just saying the Club of Rome team doesn’t shed any light on that issue. It’s unfortunate that they haven’t updated their modeling approach, which was misconceived from the start. Computerized general equilibrium models were constructed throughout the 1960s, so they really had little excuse. See refs here: [Kevin O'Rourke: CGE and Economic History](http://www.gams.com/solvers/mpsge/orourke.htm) ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/62 "2015-06-06T03:11:55Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > My understanding is that the book addressed my point by doing something like doubling the resource base. But that only postpones the day of reckoning. > > Yes. Yes that’s right. But the exercise misses. The. Point. The book uses multiple scenarios, so it didn’t conduct one exercise but several. Thus, there was no single point made but several. The Standard Run scenario follows what the world did the past four decades: no global concerted effort concerning the environment, resource use, or population control. Since that’s exactly what happened, then it should not be surprising that forecasts matched historical data. > [@](#): > > Since Limits I was published, population has grown exponentially (albeit at a slowing rate). Per capita food consumption has also grown. Which implies that food has _also_ grown exponentially. Will that trend persist? Who knows? I’m just saying the Club of Rome team doesn’t shed any light on that issue. Actually, they did. More details in the book. > [@](#): > > It’s unfortunate that they haven’t updated their modeling approach, which was misconceived from the start. Computerized general equilibrium models were constructed throughout the 1960s, so they really had little excuse. See refs here: [Kevin O'Rourke: CGE and Economic History](http://www.gams.com/solvers/mpsge/orourke.htm) I think they did in 1992 and 2002, but I’ve not read the other books. What I do know is that Turner looked back at the Standard Run model in the 1972 book and compared it with historical data. The article and study referring to the results are given above. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/63 "2015-06-06T21:14:56Z")
The Nordhaus paper addressed their 1992 effort. He was disappointed that their later efforts didn’t reflect substantial advances in computational modeling since then. ralfy. Let me take a different tack. The central story about Limits to Growth is that we would experience exponential population growth followed by hitting hard resource limits. Then population would peak then crash. Turner is patting them on the back by noting that, yes, population has continued growing exponentially (though also at a slowing rate). But we see no evidence of resource scarcity leading to catastrophe. Indeed, per person food consumption has grown faster than they predicted. The Chinese are better fed than they were in 1972. Famines that have occurred have not been due to global scarcity. There has been no sharp increase in resource prices. Hey, it could happen. We’ve already hit peak conventional oil for example: total oil production has grown only because of new technologies such as fracking. But if you blithely assume that technological advance can’t deliver, you are likely to get egg on your face. It’s better to face the data squarely. It’s better to attempt to measure the sorts of signals that could indicate such sudden resource glitches. Weirdly, I know of no empirical attempts to do that, though the theory has been ready and waiting for decades. Also, it appears that I was correct that Turner cherry-picked Limits I. Nordhaus’ 1992 Brooking piece has a comment by [Robert N. Stavins](http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/): [INDENT]If we check today to see how the Limits I predictions have turned out, we learn that (according to their estimates) gold, silver, mercury, zinc, and lead should be thoroughly exhausted, with natural gas running out within the next eight years. Of course, this has not happened. Reserves have increased, demand has changed, substitution has occurred, and recycling has been stimulated.[/INDENT] Jackass forecasts really don’t help convince swing voters. The efforts of the Club of Rome have been largely counterproductive. Anecdotally, I recall one poster here justifying families of 8 or more based upon an attack on Limits to Growth. The argument is idiotic of course, but I can’t really blame a citizen with a casual interest in these subjects to confuse a well publicized fringe view with mainstream scientific analysis. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/64 "2015-06-07T05:56:29Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The Nordhaus paper addressed their 1992 effort. He was disappointed that their later efforts didn’t reflect substantial advances in computational modeling since then. And yet the standard run scenario from the '72 model is fairly accurate. > [@](#): > > ralfy. Let me take a different tack. The central story about Limits to Growth is that we would experience exponential population growth followed by hitting hard resource limits. Then population would peak then crash. Turner is patting them on the back by noting that, yes, population has continued growing exponentially (though also at a slowing rate). But we see no evidence of resource scarcity leading to catastrophe. Indeed, per person food consumption has grown faster than they predicted. The Chinese are better fed than they were in 1972. Famines that have occurred have not been due to global scarcity. There has been no sharp increase in resource prices. Actually, there’s evidence of resource scarcity. Conventional oil production has barely gone up. The global economy “recovered” only by increasing credit levels, but that didn’t last, which is why commodity price indices dropped again. In any case, we are seeing diminishing returns for oil and other mined resources. Also, there has been evidence of sharp increases the past ten years. Oil prices rose by 500 pct, plummeted, then increased by 300 pct, plummeted, and are rising again. Meanwhile, several food indices doubled or better, went down, and may be rising once more. > [@](#): > > Hey, it could happen. We’ve already hit peak conventional oil for example: total oil production has grown only because of new technologies such as fracking. But if you blithely assume that technological advance can’t deliver, you are likely to get egg on your face. It’s better to face the data squarely. It’s better to attempt to measure the sorts of signals that could indicate such sudden resource glitches. Weirdly, I know of no empirical attempts to do that, though the theory has been ready and waiting for decades. They can’t deliver because we are using unconventional production, which has lower energy returns. In fact, we were able to use that only because prices went up. Now, the EIA reports that shale oil will peak soon and natural gas will have to be used. What makes matters worse is that when we look at global oil production per capita, that peaked back in 1979. > [@](#): > > Also, it appears that I was correct that Turner cherry-picked Limits I. Nordhaus’ 1992 Brooking piece has a comment by [Robert N. Stavins](http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/): [INDENT]If we check today to see how the Limits I predictions have turned out, we learn that (according to their estimates) gold, silver, mercury, zinc, and lead should be thoroughly exhausted, with natural gas running out within the next eight years. Of course, this has not happened. Reserves have increased, demand has changed, substitution has occurred, and recycling has been stimulated.[/INDENT] Jackass forecasts really don’t help convince swing voters. The efforts of the Club of Rome have been largely counterproductive. Anecdotally, I recall one poster here justifying families of 8 or more based upon an attack on Limits to Growth. The argument is idiotic of course, but I can’t really blame a citizen with a casual interest in these subjects to confuse a well publicized fringe view with mainstream scientific analysis. As explained to you earlier, the study uses the World Model Standard Run from the 1972 book, not from 1992. It would have been illogical to use the other scenarios as they involved global efforts to stabilize population, control resource use, etc., none of which happened. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/65 "2015-06-07T07:00:16Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > As explained to you earlier, the study uses the World Model Standard Run from the 1972 book, not from 1992. It would have been illogical to use the other scenarios as they involved global efforts to stabilize population, control resource use, etc., none of which happened. You really are not aware of Hans Rosling I take it. [http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dont-panic-truth-about-population/](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dont-panic-truth-about-population/) > [@](#): > > Many people think population growth is out of control, some even talk about the population bomb, but are they right? Most of the population growth in recent years has been in Asian countries, like in Bangladesh, where the population has tripled during Rosling’s lifetime from 50 to more than a 150 million. It’s now one of the most densely populated countries in the world. > > However people in Bangladesh, whether in the city or the countryside, are intensely concerned about the size of families. There is a cultural shift away from big families and there is actual success in reducing the fertility rate, which is the number of babies born per woman. In just 40 years Bangladesh has gone from 7 to 2.2 children per family. But is it only in Bangladesh? According to the Rosling’s stats the trend is worldwide. In 1963, the average number of babies born per woman in the world was 5… and today the average is 2.5. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/66 "2015-06-07T07:48:33Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > Actually, there’s evidence of resource scarcity. Conventional oil production has barely gone up. The global economy “recovered” only by increasing credit levels, but that didn’t last, which is why commodity price indices dropped again. In any case, we are seeing diminishing returns for oil and other mined resources. Turner doesn’t graph Limit I’s predictions on oil. He has a graph on -get this- “Resources”. But as I noted earlier, the 1972 predictions regarding gold, silver, mercury, zinc, lead and natural gas were pretty dire. Oddly, Turner (2008 and 2014) doesn’t appear to mention these. He also doesn’t compare the population projections to others made at the time, so it’s difficult to evaluate their forecast accuracy. Heck, it’s difficult to understand what units are being used: the y axis is entitled, “Normalized value”. Have these papers even gone through peer review? At any rate we can see that there’s no evidence of any near-term peak in any of the variables where Limits I suggested imminent disaster today. I am skeptical about whether this Turner’s analysis is a judicious one. Incidentally, the Stavins quote on gold et al referred to Limits I. Although I don’t know why we should trust a 1972 projection rather than a 1992 one anyway. I did manage to pull a description of Limits I, from Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren’s 1977’s textbook on Ecoscience. It’s a sympathetic treatment. But it presents a graph that suggests that we’re past the peak on per capita food consumption and industrial production due to underlying resource scarcity and population pressures. Of course nothing like that is happening now. Here’s a link to a scan: pencil scratchings are mine: [http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/86\_130b38\_c53875d2\_oJ.jpg.thumb](http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/86_130b38_c53875d2_oJ.jpg.thumb) I guess Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren (1977) disagree with Turner (2008, 2014), at least insofar as their understanding of the Limits I model is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/67 "2015-06-08T06:24:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You really are not aware of Hans Rosling I take it. > > [http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dont-panic-truth-about-population/](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dont-panic-truth-about-population/) Actually, I am, but one has to consider population momentum. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054/68 "2015-06-08T06:35:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Turner doesn’t graph Limit I’s predictions on oil. He has a graph on -get this- “Resources”. But as I noted earlier, the 1972 predictions regarding gold, silver, mercury, zinc, lead and natural gas were pretty dire. Oddly, Turner (2008 and 2014) doesn’t appear to mention these. He also doesn’t compare the population projections to others made at the time, so it’s difficult to evaluate their forecast accuracy. Heck, it’s difficult to understand what units are being used: the y axis is entitled, “Normalized value”. Have these papers even gone through peer review? “Resources” refers to combinations of material resources needed for the industrial output per capita, etc. There are more details in the book. For the review, you should probably ask. The link is given in my earlier post. > [@](#): > > At any rate we can see that there’s no evidence of any near-term peak in any of the variables where Limits I suggested imminent disaster today. I am skeptical about whether this Turner’s analysis is a judicious one. Actually, there is. I explained that in my previous message and in the thread on peak oil. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, the Stavins quote on gold et al referred to Limits I. Although I don’t know why we should trust a 1972 projection rather than a 1992 one anyway. I don’t know why a quote on gold is being used to evaluate the current study. > [@](#): > > I did manage to pull a description of Limits I, from Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren’s 1977’s textbook on Ecoscience. It’s a sympathetic treatment. But it presents a graph that suggests that we’re past the peak on per capita food consumption and industrial production due to underlying resource scarcity and population pressures. Of course nothing like that is happening now. Here’s a link to a scan: pencil scratchings are mine: [http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/86\_130b38\_c53875d2\_oJ.jpg.thumb](http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/86_130b38_c53875d2_oJ.jpg.thumb) The study is not about that textbook. > [@](#): > > I guess Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren (1977) disagree with Turner (2008, 2014), at least insofar as their understanding of the Limits I model is concerned. That’s possible. All I know is that according to the latest study, historical data matches the World Model Standard Run from '72. I don’t see anything about cherrypicking, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-economic-collapse-by-2030/621054.md?page=3)