[Outcast_Searcher]

As a moderate who often finds himself on the left wing side of social issues and the right wing side of fiscal issues, I am BAFFLED by this.

If this were in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, then it would be just another stupid right wing "support BAU at all cost because it helps short term profits" denialist opinion. (This is the main reason I quit subscribing to the WSJ. I just couldn't stand the editorials anymore when the issue wasn't strictly financial).

As it is, in a supposedly "enlightened" left wing paper, I find myself confused. Democrats, wouldn't the NYT be calling this "stupid right wing stuff" if it were in a right wing paper like the WSJ?

Managing to feed everyone today while AGW runs amok, pollution gets worse, and resource shortages become ever more obvious is FAR different than "everything's great - no problem with the population growing as much as people want it to. BAU forever!"

When the WSJ journal trumpets something about how the left wingers are finally catching on, I smell a retraction, at least implicitly, from the NYT. Especially after they read the subscriber letters to the editor over the next couple/few weeks.

[Lore]

They are part of the same Main Street media funded by advertisers that dislike talk of doom and gloom no matter how realistic. Pessimism does not sell product.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'T')hey are part of the same Main Street media funded by advertisers that dislike talk of doom and gloom no matter how realistic. Pessimism does not sell product.

[Lore]

Think of it this way, they write like their jobs depended on it.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - "And for the record Ehrlich was not "wrong", just way too early on his estimates." Never bothered to read the hype at the time. But reasonable and logical concept IMHO. But like so many other expectations (PO dates, Mad Max society, nuclear winter, etc.) there seems to be an irresistible urge to push the time frame into the near future. Maybe that's just the best way to boost book sales. Or maybe it's due to some delusional desire leading them to really believe the catastrophe was close at hand. Or maybe a fair bit of Munchausen by proxy syndrome: the desire to be the hero that saves us...but it must happen soon so everyone knows it was their warning that saved us.

Kinda like the candy factory worker who fell into a vat of melted chocolate. After telling "FIRE!" he was pulled to safety. Asked why he yelled fire he said: "Who would have come to save me if I has yelled CHOCOLATE!" So how many books would someone sell and how many TV interviews would he get if he has been warning about a population induced catastrophe happening IN 50 YEARS?

[ennui2]

The LTG chart is still the only reliable indicator we have, because it's ultimately a function of a math formula and therefore largely immune from bias.

[kiwichick]

I think the equation is generally written as;

I=PxAxT

[kiwichick]

did Murdock get to them?

[Newfie]

FWIW. Linked from our homepage.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

[Pops]

Good ROCK.

Enui, The Limits to Growth chart is not a "math formula" because the thing that drives the scenario, resources, can't be reliably quantified — as every PO Swami with a Lexan Ball knows. We can't even figure out how oil much is left, let alone the whole category of "Resources".

Here is SciAm's take from 2012:



The most telling things can be tracked; both births and deaths are falling at a much faster rate than predicted.

The death rate in particular has a lower bound and can only fall so low (much to the chagrin of some, LOL) and is already leveling off, probably has leveled off by now. The birth rate on the other hand, can, and will likely continue to fall steeply. In fact, more recent data says that since the recession, births are way down (although that may be just postponing hoping for better times).

Point is of course that there are 2 reasons the population curve can bend, fewer births or more deaths. The bias around here of course being more deaths, as one glance at the forum listing shows (boiling-in-our-skins, EBOLA!, Fukushima, war, drought, etc, etc)

But the thing that drives the model is resources and food. Food is still increasing on trend and above the forecast. Not surprisingly there is no "actual data" for resources, depletion is a given, but there is not much way to tell the rate if you don't know the URR — as we all know, LOL

So the declining curve of resources and so the entire scenario timeline is an article of faith. Resource reserves may be virtually zero or may have not even have begun to bend.

[kiwichick]

@ lore

or lament the fact that if we had taken action ,based on , for example, the warning quite clearly stated in LTG, we would be in a very much better position today

[ennui2]

I am not seeing enough divergence in the LTG chart to discount its algorithm.

Of course, nobody will view the chart as a warning until the most important metrics start to skew in a negative direction, like death rate spiking and food supplies dropping. That's still a little ways off, but not so far that most of us won't live to see it validated or discounted once and for all.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'I') am not seeing enough divergence in the LTG chart to discount its algorithm.

[ennui2]

Is it really true that there's no reliable data for "resources", though?

Do you have any links that back that up?

We have plenty of macro-level metrics. Total acres of arable land, freshwater, solar insolation, etc... There are lots of charts out there showing the "drawdown" aspect of Overshoot.

Of course, if we resort to eating bugs and soylent green that balloons out our available resources a lot, but if you constrain resources to something reasonable, I don't see how it's impossible to calculate.

[Newfie]

IIRC, and I think I do, the authors of LTG said that their post peak projects were unreliable after the point where the first major indicator started to break for the worse. There were simply too many ramifications and too much interconnectedness to make any reasonable projections.

Frankly I think it's pretty obvious that they were onto something and that their work should be taken very seriously. I see no credible reason not to.

Then again, if they are correct, at this point there is precious little anyone can do.

[yellowcanoe]

The arrogance of cornucopians is truly astounding. To believe that we can simply forge ahead growing the world population at 70+ million people per year without considering the risk that the food and resources needed to support this growing population won't be there is negligent in the extreme. We're talking about people here and if cornucopians are wrong in their assumptions it will result in a tremendous amount of suffering. The prudent thing would be to try to stop population growth even if one believes the planet can support more people.

[SeaGypsy]

Where to go from giving banks money for free & letting them lend it out at the inflation rate to anyone with a serious credit rating allowing them to pour money into anywhere with above inflation lending rates & open to offshore funds & business.

The only step further from zero would be for the banksters to be handed their bonuses by the money printers, bonuses earned investing free money. Doesn't seem sustainable on paper, but so far no mass panic. Might not take much of a push to tip over, drought in China perhaps?

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'I')s it really true that there's no reliable data for "resources", though?

Do you have any links that back that up?

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')But if all you look at is the original Doom model, the Death Curve is set to begin rising just about now. So again, if you all are so convinced that the bomb is about to go off, why in gods name are you people sitting there looking at this screen instead of doing something to protect yourself and your family?

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'W')hy do you assume we are not doing anything? Besides, this site is great for advance warning.