Limits to Growth (again)
Read these. Do it now. You can skim read them as long as you grok the conclusions.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-growth/
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/09/cassandra-and-limits-to-growth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_growth
If it's still TL;DR. then here's the precis.
1) We live in a closed system although it is one with a very high solar energy input.
2) Thus there are finite resources and finite limits on by-products such as pollution.
3) Growth in resource usage is exponential. Human thought models things linearly.
4) There are delays in feedback.
5) Thus there is a lag in between our perception and the current resource usage and any actions we might take to mitigate it.
6) This lag is the source of the instability which makes overshoot and catastrophic collapse inevitable.
The thing that makes our current growth an existential threat is the fraction of planetary resources that are being controlled by humans at this point. There really aren’t the spare resources to provide a cushion to the shock.
Now for the tinfoil hat problem.
Imagine that there are some wealthy and/or politically influential people out there who understand this existential threat. If they wanted themselves and their descendants (ie their genes) to survive the instability what would they do? And would the policies and actions they take with this goal increase or decrease the threat? These people are not just in the West.
Population will probably plateau soon after 2020 (when the birth rate and death rate cross), tho as we live longer lives you'll get a net increase.
I think it's quite difficult to make any kind of accurate extrapolation between the 20th century and the 21st century, as technology is a big factor for change. The thesis of exponential growth need not necessarily be a given. Maybe we are on the verge of a new age where people appreciate that there's a benefit in helping the poorest in society. A new monetary system, for example, could achieve this.
You think we dont have enough food to feed a population, of, say, 10 billion? Surely, life finds a way?
Total world population is just one of the curves in an integrated inter-dependent set. The models all point to an overshoot-crash in that one as in several of the others.
I'll need to reread some of this and do some more research on this topic, to really be able to make an informed comment. But I read the whole way through thinking 'somethings missing'.
Perhaps that something is the possibility of a paradigm shift, that may not be technical, but rather, cultural. For example, if we, as a species were able to allocate capital more fairly, how many of the big problems would be lessened or disappear?
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=3253
In some disciplines (eg chess) mathematics cannot be beaten.
I've written pretty successful mathematical models (eg linear programming) for prediction games such as fantasy football, which I do feel give you a huge edge, yet there is still some intuition and luck.
In some things such as intuiting the fate of nations, or of the planet, the picture is much less clear. The sheer number of variables make it very hard to extrapolate from historical data accurately, in order to make predictions.
Some facts can be compelling, and as I said, it's worth further investigation. In particular, short term predictions can have a relatively high confidence interval. But there are so many possible game changers. A very effective contraceptive that gained mass popularity could turn some of these models on their heads.
Most of all there is the possibility for the group think of the planet to move rapidly in one direction or other. We dont have a time scale but a new global mythology or movement could emerge to sweep away existing power systems.
On the whole I think mathematics (for example game theory) tends to either underestimate, or completely mismodel the psychological aspect, which is the basis of every significant civilization to date.
But many cast iron economic theories, based on the Law of Large numbers. were completely disproved in 2008. (Bayesian analysis).
I didnt say that I'm hoping for a white swan. It's not like I can easily change things, so why hope? I said that a paradigm shift is plausible in the coming decades. Especially given that we undoubtedly are in the midst of an information revolution.
And also dont forget, exponential growth works both ways! You cant compare the next 40 years, with the previous:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/quantifying-history
It is very interesting tho, thanks for the links, definitely worthy of more study.