Sunday, March 31, 2019

Limits to Growth



                                              Comments due by  April 7, 2019

The following is from Limits to Growth published by The Club of Rome 47 years ago. This short book was the first computerised model to make projections about many of the issues that have become central matters in Environmental/Ecological Economics. It is interesting to note that although we have been aware of the severity of the possible ecological degradation that we are facing one can argue that we have not done much about it. Why?

                                                         ******************************
 “I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the Information that Is available to me as Secretary General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left In which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership Is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.” U THANT, 1969
 The problems U Thant mentions : the arms race, environmental deterioration, the population explosion, and economic stagnation-are often cited as the central, long-term problems of modern man. Many people believe that the future course of human society, perhaps even the survival of human society, depends on the speed and effectiveness with which the world responds to these issues. And yet only a small fraction of the world's population is actively concerned with understanding these problems or seeking their solutions.
Every person in the world faces a series of pressures and problems that require his attention and action. These problems affect him at many different levels. He may spend much of his time trying to find tomorrow's food for himself and his family. He may be concerned about personal power or the power of the nation in which he lives. He may worry about a world war during his lifetime, or a war next week with a rival clan in his neighborhood.  
 The majority of the world's people are concerned with matters that affect only family or friends over a short period of time. Others look farther ahead in time or over a larger area-a city or a nation. Only a very few people have a global perspective that extends far into the future. Fields can be destroyed by an international war. Local officials' plans can be overturned by a national policy. A country's economic development can be thwarted by a lack of world demand for its products. Indeed there is increasing concern today that most personal and national objectives may ultimately be frustrated by long-term, global trends such as those mentioned by U Thant. Are the implications of these global trends actually so threatening that their resolution should take precedence over local, short-term concerns ? Is it true, as U Thant suggested, that there remains less than a decade to bring these trends under control ? If they are not brought under control, what will the consequences be ? What methods does mankind have for solving global problems, and what will be the results and the costs of employing each of them? These are the questions that we have been investigating in the first phase of The Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind.
Every person approaches his problems, wherever they occur on the space-time graph, with the help of models. A model is simply an ordered set of assumptions about a complex system. It is an attempt to understand some aspect of the infinitely varied world by selecting from perceptions and past experience a set of general observations applicable to the problem at hand. A farmer uses a mental model of his land, his assets, market prospects, and past weather conditions to decide which crops to plant each year. A surveyor constructs a physical model-a map-to help in planning a road. An economist uses mathematical models to understand and predict the flow of international trade. Decision-makers at every level unconsciously use mental models to choose among policies that will shape our future world. These mental models are, of necessity, very simple when compared with the reality from which they are abstracted. The human brain, remarkable as it is, can only keep track of a limited number of the complicated, simultaneous interactions that determine the nature of the real world. We, too, have used a model. Ours is a formal, written model of the world.• It constitutes a preliminary attempt to improve our mental models of long-term, global problems by combining the large amount of information that is already in human minds and in written records with the new information-processing tools that mankind's increasing knowledge has produced-the scientific method, systems analysis, and the modern computer. Our world model was built specifically to investigate five major trends of global concern-accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources, and a deteriorating environment. These trends are all interconnected in many ways, and their development is measured in decades or centuries, rather than in months or years. With the model we are seeking to understand the causes of these trends, their interrelationships, and their implications as much as one hundred years in the future. The model we have constructed is, like every other model, imperfect, oversimplified, and unfinished. We are well aware of its shortcomings, but we believe that it is the most useful model now available for dealing with problems far out on the space-time graph. To our knowledge it is the only formal model in existence that is truly global in scope, that has a time horizon longer than thirty years, and that includes important variables such as population, food production, and pollution, not as independent entities, but as dynamically interacting elements, as they are in the real world. Since ours is a formal, or mathematical, model it also has two important advantages over mental models. First, every assumption we make is written in a precise form so that it is open to inspection and criticism by all. Second, after the assumptions have been scrutinized, discussed, and revised to agree with our best current knowledge, their implications for the future behavior of the world system can be traced without error by a computer, no matter how complicated they become. We feel that the advantages listed above make this model unique among all mathematical and mental world models available to us today. But there is no reason to be satisfied with it in its present form. We intend to alter, expand, and improve it as our own knowledge and the world data base gradually improve. In spite of the preliminary state of our work, we believe it is important to publish the model and our findings now. Decisions are being made every day, in every part of the world, that will affect the physical, economic, and social conditions of the world system for decades to come. These decisions cannot wait for perfect models and total understanding. They will be made on the basis of some model, mental or written, in any case. We feel that the model described here is already sufficiently developed to be of some use to decision-makers. Furthermore, the basic behavior modes we have already observed in this model appear to be so fundamental and general that we do not expect our broad conclusions to be substantially altered by further revisions.  It is not the purpose of this book to give a complete, scientific description of all the data and mathematical equations included in the world model. Such a description can be found in the final technical report of our project. Rather, in The Limits to Growth we summarize the main features of the model and our findings in a brief, nontechnical way. The emphasis is meant to be not on the equations or the intricacies of the model, but on what it tells us about the world. We have used a computer as a tool to aid our own understanding of the causes and consequences of the accelerating trends that characterize the modern world, but familiarity with computers is by no means necessary to comprehend or to discuss our conclusions. The implications of those accelerating trends raise issues that go far beyond the proper domain of a purely scientific document. They must be debated by a wider community than that of scientists alone. Our purpose here is to open that debate. The following conclusions have emerged from our work so far. We are by no means the first group to have stated them. For the past several decades, people who have looked at the world with a global, long-term perspective have reached similar conclusions. Nevertheless, the vast majority of policymakers seems to be actively pursuing goals that are inconsistent with these results.
Our conclusions are: 1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential. 3. If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success. These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition the transition from growth to global equilibrium.

11 comments:

  1. Denial is human nature. Especially when the problem is complex and difficult to deal with. As made apparent by this article, the mass degradation of the environment by human life and its threat on planet earth has been an apparent problem for decades; at least since the 1960s, and yet, we continue to ignore the seriousness of the issue. As the article states, it is widely accepted by the scientific community that if humans continue on as we have been, a economic and population crash is not only probable but inevitable within “the next 100 years,” yet, policy makers continue to exhibit the same destructive behavior. It’s easy to comment on how ridiculous it is that the issue of resource overuse is still ignored, or intentionally covered up, but it’s complicated, and policy makers aren’t evil. Dealing with these issues makes things harder on people now. It’s a road with more immediate obstacles, even if it will make things more sustainable for the future.
    To bring up one of my uncanny analogies, imagine you live with your family (spouse and 2 kids) in a house that is breaking down. The walls are beginning to crack and the ceiling is leaking. However, you know the house will stay up until you leave in a few weeks. However, a new family is moving in the week after you leave and the house will probably crumble while they live there. However, in order to save the house, you have to spend extra money and time, working hard on painting the walls and fixing the leaks. In order to save the house, you have to stop using water, pull your kids out of extra curricular activities and give up nice clothes. When you try to make small changes, your family complains, even thought they understand what you are doing and morally “agree” with the seriousness of the issue. At a certain point it might be easier to keep your lifestyle and keep your family happy by destroying the house for the next family, after all, you won’t be around for those consequences.
    It’s what we do. We look out for ourselves, and it’s hard for us to imagine a time beyond the moment we live in. If we continue our behavior, we will crash. But we can’t blame the policy makers, we also have to blame the family members. Even if one kid changes his/her/their behavior, the house won’t be saved unless the whole family is on board, and the whole family pushes you to guide them in the right direction, in the sustainable direction.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is rather hard for humans (specifically policy makers) to put issues that won't deeply effect the world until long after they are gone. Like a business cycle, population growth speeds up and slows down through time. In the sixties, as mentioned in the article, America was seeing a baby boom due to the Vietnam War. Parents today are not having nearly as much children. There are also many policies today concerning environmental control. I wonder if the model that the computer conducted was based off of data from the sixties or is using relative data. I am also interested to see what their model actually is, mathematically. What variables are they holding constant and what are they specifically testing for? There are a lot of missing holes to the claim that the world will run out of its resources in 100 years. - Joseph d'Alelio

    ReplyDelete
  3. U THANT and The Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind are two completely new sources of informtaion to me. However the truth is really very few people have time in this world. Most are so busy to even have a conversation these days. People who dont have money are to worried about working to make sure they have the things they need. Even some of the richest busineess owners still hardly have time to have conversation beceause they have become completely controlled by there own businees and althugh they are getting rich they are stil hiring nannys and babysitters becuase they dont have enough time to take care of their own kids. So if people are to busyto have a conversation they are to busy to learn. Even if its a conversation on the end of human race as we know it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The club of Rome is an informal organization, or rather, we can call it an “invisible academy”. Its purpose is to promote new awareness of the diverse but interdependent components of the global system, for example, economic, political, natural and social. To attract the attention of policy-makers and the public around the world, and in this way to promote innovative new policies and actions to protect our environment. The problem of human being is that with all the knowledge and skill, we can see the problem but cannot understand the origin, meaning, and interrelationship of its many components. So it's impossible to respond effectively. The reason for this failure is that when we continue to examine some part of the problem, we fail to understand that this part is only one aspect of the whole, and that one factor can lead to changes in other factors. As a matter of fact, the global problems are mainly caused by the indiscriminate plundering of natural resources by developed countries in the course of industrialization and the dumping of large amounts of pollutants and wastes. Now that the developed countries have developed into rich countries with both strong economic strength and advanced science and technology, they should carry more responsibility for effectively solving global problems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Present Bias is something that has come up a lot within the past year. And it is especially relevant when speaking on how policy makers view the environment. Due to the fact that consequences will not directly affect them since most of them will die before the Earth actually collapses in on itself, environmental issues do not pose an actual threat to their well being. It is human nature to see problems, but not be able to fully step back and see the sources and foundations in which it roots from. This is a huge normality with our beings and The Club of Rome is striving to bring awareness in effective methods to make policy makers listen to what needs to be regulated or fixed. I know Adam Smith whole heartedly stated in invisible hand theory in faith that when people are doing things for themselves, we are working towards the better good- but this seems to contradict itself often when greed, selfishness and desire for materials get in the way. The human mind is a complex one with no reason at times. We are all selfish but not in the way where we are taking care of ourselves, in the way that we are destroying what's around us without empathy. We do not care about the problems we make that others have to deal with. One of my friends constantly litters and whenever I call them out on it his response is the same "Someone will pick it up". And usually it is me. But if we all thought like this, nothing would get done. I'm not saying pick up every piece of trash that is littered in New York City, but I am saying take responsibility for the damage you provide to the situation you are currently in. If everyone did that, then maybe there would be less trash. You can't get rid of those trash people who do litter and not care, but you can be an example to them and inspire others to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It was very interesting to read and learn about the topics presented in this weeks blog post, especially since I had not had prior knowledge about U THANT or The Club of Rome’s Project on Mankind. This article explores the possible outcomes if steps are not taken to “curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts”. If a plan does not come into action in the next 10 years, these problems will no longer be in our control; we will have reached the point of no return. The articles explains that there are models that can be used to aid us in achieving these goals, but mankind needs to get behind it. This work can only be done with a large supporting, and the sooner we start, the better off we will be.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree that not much has been done about the environmental issues our globe faces. The Paris Agreement was supposed to aid in the reduction and removal of CO2 in our atmosphere and which makes me disappointed in the United States for pulling out. Thant suspects a lot of true life events that indeed did take places throughout the decades. Something needs to be done to reduce humankind's effects on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that not much has been done about the environmental issues our globe faces. The Paris Agreement was supposed to aid in the reduction and removal of CO2 in our atmosphere and which makes me disappointed in the United States for pulling out. Thant suspects a lot of true life events that indeed did take places throughout the decades. Something needs to be done to reduce humankind's effects on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Club of Rome was an organization founded in Italy in the late 1960’s. I was amazed after reading this blog because I was never aware of the organization nor that there were predictions about our world’s growth all the way back in 1969. The U Thant mentioned everything that we had to worry about, which he was totally correct about. He mentions, “The majority of the world’s people are concerned with matters that affect only family or friends over a short period of time.” I think this is very true and explains why we are facing so many environmental issues that we don't know how to overcome. If years ago we worried about our future, much of this may have been avoided.
    -Vianna Konoplin

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel as if we think we are doing much about ecological degradation and we take proud in that but are actually far away from improving the environment. Let’s not take away to the people that do put out all their efforts because well I’m assuming we do have people that care. However, I think it’s a pride thing where it said “Yes, I’m making a difference. I am contributing”. But the real question I believe is how are you personally making a difference to your environment and how as a whole can we improve the environment? One quote that struck out to me from the article was “Many people believe that the future course of human society, perhaps even the survival of human society, depends on the speed and effectiveness with which the world responds to these issues. And yet only a small fraction of the world’s population is actively concerned with understanding these problems or seeking their solutions”. These words I strongly looked into because I believe this statement is true. We are all struggling to make it in the world and survive, but not everyone will actually take the necessary means to do so. I feel as though our purpose is not to only debate about these issues but to make a change. What is “All talk, but no action”? I do agree that “policymakers seem to be actively pursuing goals that are inconsistent”. I think humanity needs to find a way to maintain growth but also reaching global equilibrium. Just think about it, say just within 100 years, the earth could possibly decline? The question is how to satisfy all the needs and wants of consumers with what we already have. I feel like people are not taking this topic seriously enough. The article was talking about the state of global equilibrium. “Basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied”. I do not understand this as everyone comes from different class systems as well as different countries whether developing or developed. I feel like at this current stage that people are comfortable with how their life is currently running and are not preparing for the future. I feel like people think we have enough time but unfortunately they will get a shock when their luck’s run out. I feel like the reduction of pollution does not convince enough people to pay more for a cleaner energy source. The model that was talked about in the article, I agree that it is too broad and overgeneralize. I feel like we need to hone in on the issue how to reduce pollution with the growing size of world population.

    ReplyDelete