More like various economies crashing, unemployment rising, and food prices hit by combinations of high oil prices and droughts.
The linked article claims that the study correctly predicts steady population growth until 2030 - and by steady I assume they mean the exponential growth seen in 1970,
[Here is the real story.](world population growth chart).
Populations are still growing, but not as fast as before and without calamities.
With a few exceptions, like the trees on Easter Island, we don’t wait until something is all gone to realize that there is a problem. When metal prices get high enough, it becomes economically feasible to do asteroid mining. As ralfy notes, the same has happened for oil.
That’s why carbon taxes are useful. If carbon emissions get expensive enough, you start spending money to reduce them.
Link doesn’t go anywhere, has the collapse already started?
This is true…but there are some limitations.
-
Humans are pretty damn foolish, and we tend to wait until the collapse of the industry in question is right on the goddamn doorstep before we take reasonable action. (California has been in a critical drought for years…and my neighbors are still watering their lawn.) So, like Easter Island, we might just keep pushing it off – “It’ll be okay tomorrow” – until it’s too late.
-
The core? The core of the planet? I mean, c’mon, seriously? This is really bad sci-fi, not a reasonable solution to metals shortages! (I’m not blaming you for this idea, but Habeed.)
-
Linked systems collapse: it might be that the resources needed to move to that next step of exploitation depend too much on some other resource that is in short supply. Fracking for oil takes up a lot of water, and water is also in short supply. (Except right now in Texas…) Our industries are remarkably complex, and tightly interwoven. And an economic collapse brings down all industries. A serious enough depression might make the oil fracking industry non-sustainable.
Earth is for all practical purposes, a closed system. Metal is not “used up” - it’s all still here somewhere, except for the negligible portion we have sent into space. (and the helium gas we have released - it’s literally the only truly nonrenewable resource, and we waste it on party balloons and inefficient superconducting magnets that don’t recycle their boiloff)
So yeah, we’ll just go get it from the scrap pile or garbage dumps if it ever came to that. You can separate the waste by heating it to plasma and using magnets if nothing else. (that’s probably the least effective way there is, but it will work no matter what, while other more complex methods will miss collecting resources if they are chemically bonded an inconvenient way)
Oh, extraction of resources takes energy? Well, we can either use nuclear breeder reactors for de facto infinite reactor fuel (you can breed both U-238 and thorium to fissionable materials with straightforward, many decades old tech) or solar.
In the 1970s, no country had entered the fifth stage of the population growth model (a drop in birth rates, increase in life expectancy, leading to equilibrium or even negative population growth and aging population.) It was purely theoretical, if it existed at all. By the beginning of the 90s, Japan, Italy and a few others were already there. Now most of the Western industrial democracies are.
Someone somewhere is always predicting collapse of one thing or another. Has not happened yet, and even if it does life moves on. People adjust and live their lives.
Economic collapse is a consistent theme. The Global Warming charlatans I believe are a fad with some more time to run on that before they change the scope of the imminent problem.
That is what these folks do. They all either make money off it, or like the attention.
Hmm.
Try this one.
I was talking about getting resources. I’m very nervous about people who think big engineering projects can solve climate change, on the other hand. They all seem to be politicians and economists, not engineers. They seem to get their engineering knowledge from the movies, where the brilliant scientist saves the day before the last reel. Real engineers know you seldom get it right the first time.
An industry will do things if there is money. Print some (good during an economic collapse) and see them do the job. I’m not too worried about fracking during a recession - recessions reduce oil demand, and thus the need for fracking.
Starting today Californians who water their lawn too much can get hit with $500 a day fines. So that problem is going to mostly go away.
How timely*; Paleofuture, one of the sites in the Kinja.com ring, has an article today about Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb: What Happened to Those Apocalyptic Predictions About Overpopulation?
*or does someone at Paleofuture read The Straight Dope? 
Helium is constantly produced from radioactive decay and trapped in pockets underground, actually. We’re certainly using it up much faster than it’s produced, but it’s not exactly non-renewable.
to save their jobs, Congress will inflate the to complete worthlessness. Somewhere, somebody is going to stop taking worthless for their products. Probably oil, actually. We KNOW that more and more SS and Medicare recipients are being created, with fewer and fewer workers paying into the system. so it HAS to collapse. the only quetions are “when”, “how fast”, and “how bad”.?
The helium in the core of the sun will ignite … bye bye Earth
The cost, though, is significant in terms of resource use. For example, the U.S. has less than 5 pct of the world’s population but must consume something like a fifth or a quarter of oil and other resources worldwide to maintain middle class standards. Similar might be seen in other industrialized countries.
If much of the world follows the same (and a global capitalist system assumes that) then the world population will need at least one more earth.
From what I know, concerns began only recently, and not surprisingly, after oil prices went haywire, the global financial crisis took place, and more reports of feedback loops due to global warming were being detected.
As for making money, from what I know, a lot more can be done through the opposite.
There’s also population momentum.
The catch is not so much money (as part of credit, the world can create that easily, as much of it consists of numbers in hard drives) as low energy returns, coupled with diminishing returns, environmental damage, etc.
The world has actually been in overshoot for some time:
That is, ave. ecological footprint exceeding biocapacity per capita.
The first has to keep rising to sustain growth as part of global capitalism, and the latter will drop due to population momentum coupled with environmental damage.
Other factors to consider and the effects are discussed in the two studies that are the topic of this thread.
There’s also unfunded liabilities, a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars, issues concerning the petrodollar, etc.