50 years on from The Limits to Growth, what did we learn and what’s next?

Dunno about &quot;we&quot;, but I learned to recognize self-serving bullshit when I see it, from people who have no concern for my aspirations in particular, and those of humanity in general, only their own, and those of those paying their way with the fruits of your and my labor. Too bad their only aspiration in the end is just that, sticking their heads further up their asses, dragging along as many of the rest of us as they can.<p>What&#x27;s next is more of the same, as we&#x27;ve seen over the last few years.

What did we learn? Um, that the book was wrong?

we learned that it&#x27;s incredibly hard to model changes in complex systems over time and especially to anticipate disruptive technological change. Systems science is an attractive strategy for modeling at fixed points in time, and is a fantastic way of thinking about problems. However it has not fully delivered on its promises for accurate predictions or solutions.

There is no limit to growth. Innovation is unlimited. Space seems to be unlimited, too.

We&#x27;ve managed to kick the can down the road, just like with Y2K, so we imagine the problem wasn&#x27;t real, and didn&#x27;t learn anything as a society.<p>Stating the obvious:<p>We didn&#x27;t learn shit, we&#x27;re an energy blind society that believes globalization and the status quo are here to stay, and the pandemic was just an anomaly. We&#x27;ll be getting back to normal soon. The kind of society that trusts economists and believe that anything is possible, if there&#x27;s money to be made doing it.<p>My bet is that Peter Zeihan[1], Nate Hagens[2], and Daniel Schmachtenberger[3] are far better guides to the future than most. If we manage to avoid Nuclear War, the world is about to undergo deglobalization, and this will in turn have massive economic consequences.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;zeihan.com&#x2F;meet-peter-zeihan&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;zeihan.com&#x2F;meet-peter-zeihan&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thegreatsimplification.com&#x2F;about" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thegreatsimplification.com&#x2F;about</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;civilizationemerging.com&#x2F;about&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;civilizationemerging.com&#x2F;about&#x2F;</a>

I was 11 in 1972 when &quot;Limits&quot; came out. There was a huge stink about it, what we would identify as a moral panic today. The book must have been widely disparaged for an 11 year old to notice.

Julian Simon learned a different set of lessons.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;financialpost.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;no-limits-to-growth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;financialpost.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;no-limits-to-growth</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cato.org&#x2F;sites&#x2F;cato.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;pubs&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;edb-29-updated.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cato.org&#x2F;sites&#x2F;cato.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;pubs&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;edb-29-up...</a>

Why do people fetishise growth? Cancer is growth. How about measuring things that actually matter? Health, happiness, freedom etc.?

There are no limits to growth provided technology continues to increase productivity. If we were stuck with the same output, then productivity would scale linearly with the working age population, and in a shrinking-population world our quality of life would decrease.<p>Luckily it takes less people to make the same goods and services, year after year, enabling humanity to continue to prosper. This will continue forever barring some authoritarian government that artificially limits human ingenuity and work output.