A new study by a director of one of the world's largest accounting firms, KPMG, reveals that a 1972 model by MIT researchers predicting the collapse of society in the 21st century looks to be worryingly on track, a report by Vice explains.
The 1972 model, called World3, was created in the '70s using empirical data, and it was published in a book called 'Limits to Growth'.
Essentially, the model aimed to answer the question of what would happen if humanity keeps pursuing economic growth, no matter the societal and environmental cost? It concluded that, without drastic change, industrial society was headed for collapse.
However, not all hope is lost, the study says. Though we have a strikingly small window in which to make the necessary changes to avoid the worst-case scenario, according to the study.
"A deliberate trajectory change brought about by society turning toward another goal than growth is still possible. The LtG work implies that this window of opportunity is closing fast," Herrington's paper reads.
I know it was the 70s and even seeming like a pinko could kill your career but I wish scientists would just come straight out with the obvious conclusion they come to: Communism must win or we die
There are plenty that would be communist if they weren't in the core. I'd say most would be totally cool with a communist government as long as they kept getting research funding.
Sometimes they produce these studies that just end up in the Westworld "that doesn't look like anything to me" phase where they acknowledge that it exists, and refuse to see the solution clearly and directly presented by their own data because acknowledging it means decommissioning and losing their tenure.
I'm reading this with my 3 year old beside me, and her birthday is coming up. She sees the balloons on the guys back in the article and is now heckling me about balloons and cake for her birthday while I try and figure out how much longer human society will exist.
Cool.
Anyways, how much longer we got? Gotta learn this kid how to forage for berries and use a variety of weapons before we enter Mad Max world.
You're better off trying to learn the kid how to make integrated climate-resistant industrial-scale agriculture and infrastructure systems using only resources and supply chains that can be found within 100km of the place she lives.
Hunter-gatherers are probably the first to go when the weather turns angry. They can survive in harsh climates, sure, but they need to be consistently harsh. You get 2 failed hunting seasons a decade, max. We're looking at 5-6 by 2100.
Which is to say, don't give up, make your daughter a strong, smart, capable person with specialised and useful skills. The only way out is FALGSC, not An-Prim.
I mean, whats the dif between me pulling it on a comrade instead of some normie ass Becky? It's a terrible decision to make regardless.
In my view, because it's not in the spirit of solidarity to treat a person's already born child like their life is purely a tragedy/ mistake and like the parent is bad for doing something that comes naturally for everybody that hasn't specifically contemplated anti-natalist rhetoric or climate disaster stories.
Alright fair. I guess there’s no point after the suffering node has been created against its will. I reserve the right to drag people who want to have kids tho!
Unprotected sex leads to kids and my girlfriend did not opt for an abortion. I supported that and now I'm trying to be the best dad I can given the circumstances. Why are you being a derisive asshole?
This whole argument has real liberal vegan energy. Just the idea that personal decisions are something that matter removed from societal context.
People have kids, it's a normal function of life and society. Especially because right now we still have surplus food production in most prosperous and moderately prosperous nations. People either have kids because they aren't starving or because they need labor power. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Present conditions are significantly more impactful on decision making than future conditions. Even when those future conditions are pretty clear.
E.g. every day millions of people get in cars even though they know that it will lead to thousand of them dying.
our ancestors bred for farm hands, we are breeding for post-apocalyptic communist super soldiers responsible for creating a new mankind from the ashes of the old
Shit happens. And fine for you but it seems the alternative is to give up hope and just end human existence, which is way more depressing to me than explaining our predicament to my daughter and trying to prepare her for it.
I don't mean human existence would end because we'd stop reproducing but it's more of a mindset. If I thought that depopulating the Earth was the way to solve climate catastrophe, I'd probably have to be an ecofascist and encourage genocide. That's just me though.
And yes, people are wildly unconcerned; mostly the chuds who are popping out children to preserve ytness.
Society has collapsed numerous times throughout earth's history. We're only here today because someone DATEDIFF(NOW(), collapseDate)/365.25 years ago decided to have a kid even though the Roman/Mayan/Indus River Valley empire was in the midst of collapse
I'm just imagining all the MIT professors present for the presentation agreeing that their methods were sound and that the conclusion was accurate. Then they all stood up, walked out of the room, and never spoke of it again.
Academics have been talking about this stuff for decades. There's just a gulf between an academic consensus and political action.
always faster than expected.
apocalypse and civil war by 2025.
Because the US military and its nukes will not go quietly into the night
They don’t mean the apocalypse they mean the collapse of Rome. And it will be a global collapse because the US is a global empire
Limits to growth theory is rubbish, as eloquantly explained in this book which any person on the left or interested in ecology absolutely must read at some point.
Edit: I may have come off as too harsh. At our current pace sure yes it could accurately predict how things will turn out, but it's not the only way. In fact, our only way out of our current ecological crisis is to build more, contrary to the Malthusian eco-fash anti-growth folks
At our current pace sure yes it could accurately predict how things will turn out, but it’s not the only way.
Well if you had read limits to growth you'd find that's what they say
Ah shit collapse of society by 2040 :doomer:
On the other hand, death to America by 2040 :bloomer:
10 years to global eco communism or collapse ready set go! world governments faceplant qwop style
Fascinating. Too bad they later teamed up with none other than Epstein himself to pursue economic growth LOL
can this wait until i find love and get to be happy for a few years please thanks
