Slashdot Mirror


MIT Institute's Gloomy Prediction: 'Global Economic Collapse' By 2030

suraj.sun writes "A new study from researchers at Jay W. Forrester's institute at MIT says that the world could suffer from 'global economic collapse' and 'precipitous population decline' if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace. The study's researchers created a computing model to forecast different scenarios based on the current models of population growth and global resource consumption, different levels of agricultural productivity, birth control and environmental protection efforts. Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without 'drastic measures for environmental protection,' the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash."

15 of 816 comments (clear)

  1. Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand, people have been predicting the imminent collapse of civilization for quite a while now with nothing to show for it. On the other hand, our high-tech society is basically a house of cards and it has to collapse sooner or later.

    Forrester's group, btw, are the same folks who produced the Club of Rome-funded "Limits to Growth" study in the early '70s, which also predicted serious trouble around 2030. You can choose to read this as consistency, good initial assumptions, or simply a pig-headed insistence on sticking to his original premises rather than admit error, as you wish.

    1. Re:Again... by geogob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Completely unrelated to oil, but while skimming over the report, figure on page 30 struck me as odd. Anyone doing such an extrapolation without providing a thorough basis justifying is doing something questionable.

      On the graph showing grain demand, you see a fairly linear progression between 1960 and 1990 with a slight regression 1990 onwards. There seem to be a local increase in demand just before 2010, but it seems non significant considering earlier trend deviations. But suddenly, after 2010, the extrapolation shows a strong increase in the rate, contradicting a 20 year regression trend. Added to that local variations on the extrapolated data that can hardly be attributed to any model...

      I'll restrain myself to extrapolate the credibility of the whole report based on this single figure though.

    2. Re:Again... by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>"a population and economic crash."

      Which is why I think the EU and US should institute a 1-child-per-couple policy* to control population. Otherwise come 2050 Mother Nature will be downsizing our population through starvation and suffering. Better we do it ourselves.

      *
      *Maybe a 2 child/couple policy would meet less resistance.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  2. Computer Models by ZiggieTheGreat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Were they using SimCity, Civilization, or simply the Sims to predict what is glaringly obvious.

    i can imagine the Civilization model:

    World ends in 2030 when Bismarck conquers Spain!

  3. Re:What...No technological advancement? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please list below any advancements since 1994 that seriously reduced resource consumption. I can't think of any.

  4. The problem with these models... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is they assume that we will go on like business is usual. As soon as scarcity of a resource gets past a point we go and find alternatives. The Prius came popular at US gas went over $4.00 a gallon back in 2008. Then when prices went down the Prius wasn't popular and now it is getting popular again at $4.00. For US consumers $4.00 a gallon is a price enough to evoke change in behavior and look for alternatives.
    We tend not to deplete a resource if possible, but when it gets scarce enough we go for alternatives. If pork or cattle get to expensive we go with less resource needed chickens or turkeys.
    Usually the things that us humans kill off forever, are things that at least in our short term mindset see are things that are not directly useful for us. We don't see a drop in cattle. But we see a drop in wolves, as they are in competition with us for our cattle... So we kill the wolves, they are not really a direct resource for us so they killed. As well as lot of bugs and other animals. I am not saying this is a good thing we should work hard to preserve nature for it is better in the long term. But as human nature when scarcity happens we change our behavior, and we wont change our behavior until we feel the effect of scarcity.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The problem with these models... by rmstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is they assume that we will go on like business is usual. As soon as scarcity of a resource gets past a point we go and find alternatives.

      Since your post was certified insightful, maybe you could help me with a question that I have: what should they have assumed instead if what they wanted to do is predict what would happen if we go on like this? Eh?

      We tend not to deplete a resource if possible, but when it gets scarce enough we go for alternatives. If pork or cattle get to expensive we go with less resource needed chickens or turkeys.

      The problem here is oil, not pork. There is at the moment no viable substitute for oil. People would like to believe that there is, but it is not true. The Prius, and all these other things are just a distraction. They only work in the current environment because they are the exception, and not the rule. It is simply not realistically possible to replace all internal combustion cars with battery-powered ones.

      I do not think it is impossible to solve the problems humanity is facing. I just think humanity will not do it.

  5. Re:FROSTY PISS!! by busyqth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The wonderful thing about this prediction is that it is testable.
    Nothing is going to change significantly in the next 18 years, so we will see whether this prediction is accurate.
    My guess: It isn't accurate.

  6. Re:Good Timing! by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you'll be old, unable to work, and have no money? How is that "good timing" for you?

    An economic collapse won't just let you alone, you know. Actually, the people with kids are more likely to survive (and prosper): they will have children willing and able to support them. You? You'll have a mostly worthless retirement fund. You may not have though this all the way through.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  7. Re:WAY TO GO, MIT! by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Historically everyone who has predicted the end of the world has been wrong. Some guys twice in a row.

    That really depends on your definition of end of the world. MIT is not forcasting the end of the world. They are forcasting a large population decline. Those have happened several times in history. (Black Death, Small Pox in New World) Citation needed on them never being predicted. Large economic collapses have also occured in the past.

  8. Re:Club of Rome Study 2 by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Sure the timing was off, but it's impossible to predict the oil peak accurately given uncertainty of reserve data and technological progress."

    So you are saying their prediction was right even though it was wrong?

    As energy use increases, energy will get more expensive, providing pressure to use less energy or find more efficient ways to use energy. It's a self-correcting system, as long as there are no market distortions like, say, massive oil subsidies, or ridiculous regulations preventing new energy generation methods from being adopted.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  9. Re:Good Timing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go study population ecology. The population of many/most organisms goes in the same sort of cycles. It's most drastic in insects and micro organisms, but also applies on longer scales to larger creatures.

    The population will stay mostly low and constant for a time, and then when the conditions are right, there will be an abundance of resources (food), and the population will spike. Breeding will increase exponentially until the resources aren't enough. Rather than just some of the population dying off to keep balance - the vast, vast majority starves. The population is then less than where it started, and the cycle will repeat with time.

    Humans aren't immune to this! It just happens over much longer time scales.

    It's not about avoiding breeding completely as a society - it's about using our intellect and breeding a lot less so that we don't all die of starvation because our resource production can't keep up. Unless we can do that, we're really not much smarter than grasshoppers, and no, I'm not an optimist.

  10. Re:FROSTY PISS!! by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's easy to make a prediction when it's so far off into the future that you know no one will remember you even making it when it doesn't come true. It's like a President promising to put a man on Mars long after his administration is gone. It's an easy promise to make when you know no one is ever going to be able to hold you accountable for it (and even if they tried, you could just blame your successors).

    I can predict anything as long as it's far enough off in the future for people to forget it if I'm wrong. Obligatory xkcd.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  11. Re:WAY TO GO, MIT! by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the one thing in common with every major pandemic, catastrophe, and economic collapse has had in common? No one ever saw them coming.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  12. Re:Insert title here by FTWinston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You may mock Roosevelt, but perhaps he was aware, as you seemingly aren't, of how many past civilisations have collapsed due to timber crises... Easter Island being one of the most dramatic. What if someone hadn't invented creosote coatings? Sure, technology provided a solution that time, and many other times in recent history, but there are plenty of other times it hasn't.

    Our modern global/western civilisation is big and impressive, I'll give it that. But if you take the historical perspective, the number of civilisations that have collapsed is quite a long list, and some of them were quite big and impressive, too.

    So yeah, we've got lots of scientists. You think we're the first civilisation to have lots of scientists? Sure, we're more advanced than our predecessors, but do you really think that our civilisation's size, or even technology like the internet makes us so different from all other civilisations to come before us, that we're immune to collapse? On the contrary, our current civilisation is so big that most efforts to make significant changes seem almost completely ineffectual. And that oil is going to run out.

    I've certainly not abandoned hope, but I'd like to think I've got beyond the mindset of thinking that people in history were so radically different from us. Technology may well provide a solution to all our problems, but it also might not. Isn't it wise to prepare, at least slightly, for that eventuality? Isn't believing otherwise just placing blind faith in a deus ex machina?