It's absolutely terrifying how accurate Meadows has been in his report so far, I totally expect everything he predicted up to the 2030s collapse to happen. What's even more scary is how everyone in the higher and lower spheres ignored his warnings, I hope he's still alive when the collapse happens, just so he can tell everyone "I told you so".
He'll be 88 years old in 2030 which is pretty old, but before then we'll see increasing tensions over resources and increasing signs of the economic and ecological decline.
From what I have been aware of,the 2030s and 2040s indeed look rough. It's possible we could bounce back briefly, but then there's the fallout where towards the finale of the century, it looks like (from our current vantage point) human civilization globally will peak and decline. We'll have to wait and see if the situation improves or worsens.
A religion and its fanatics. Nothing of their so called predictions come true in fact. Even if you had a read the book which is clearly you hadn’t, me Meadows himself says that they are not and never been sure if their assumption is even real. All they have is the stupid truism that the world will end one day. Wow, genius! We never had any ideology or religion before that would rely on such approach! They are pure genius. What is more funny they don’t have any reliable portfolio with related projects which would confirm that they are professionals and won’t mistake. So the bottom line. All they have is a religion that dictates us that the biblical apocalypse is approaching and the judgement day is here. But they don’t have neither calculations, nor argumentations that they are right. On too of that they are not even sure that humanity will reach the limits. So yeah, with this fairy tale they now dictate us how to build families, how to build our diets, how to live and how to die. Just a religion of 21 century. A stupid cult of masses and a tool of manipulation for wisemen.
Get involved, lean about the issues and take them right to the top. We get one go at this and I'm trying my darnedest to see a future - indeed a better one - for all.
Enjoy what you have and be grateful and connected to people around you. Do some good and stop the pettiness about little things. Be fierceful about your beliefs: what you do not accept do not push yourself. Say NO! Remember: we will ALL die one day. Also, if you are spiritual, believe in GOD! ♥️
Can some one provide a link for the book mentioned about 7 mins before the end concerning the case study of Japan. Prof Meadows calls it Negative Population Growth Economics (I think) but nothing shows up in a google search with that title.
Incredible how his predictions about Germany's problem caused by its dependence on Russian energy supply came true just recently, along with his predictions of higher prices for food. I wish our political leaders would listen to him. I wish they would not have to fear being voted out of their office by taking the right decisions in order to ensure that at least a bit of the collapse ahead will be buffered. Every word of this talk is so precious and so true.....
Felicito al Dr Meadows por ir a las universidades, son ellos los que pueden a través de la práctica de la resiliencia lograr un cambio en los patrones de consumo. Los gobernantes e instancias como la ONU sólo han retrasado las tomas de decisiones necesarias!
I don't understand. When you look at slide 11, it looks to me that population growth will stabilise in 2050 but Dr. Meadows says we are in the midst of our overshoot scenarios (18:36)
I see the slide number now. To clear up some of your misunderstanding. You wrote "I don't understand. When you look at slide 11, it looks to me that population growth will stabilise in 2050 but Dr. Meadows says we are in the midst of our overshoot scenarios (18:36)". The graph displays several scenarios. Some overshoot scenarios may play more favorably to the variable population than others. For example, if average consumption per capita is reduced, then you can live in a world which supports more people.
Hi Serge, the scenarii are not predictions. That actual data is aligned with that scenario doesn't mean that it is what it is going to happen (stable population after 2050).
This is basically a death sentence for a majority of humanity in the coming 20 years. And the climate consequences are moving faster and faster. I'm starting to believe that we will totally collapse in the very short-term... I just wanted to live a little longer in peace...
Don't be depressed m8! The period we're living is the most interessing period of humanity because a part of the population have access to many truths and huge freedom in terms of knowledge. Few decades ego it was not possible and in few times it'll not be possible either. Just see everything without feelings and judgment and you'll be fine. I could say many more things but remember that you don't what time is left before you have less of your comfort and just take profit of it, carpe diem!
@@mulleralban4703 Totally agree. Depression is an automatic, but useless reaction. Even if we fight to make the future better, we can also take popcorn and watch one of the most incredible experience of the history of the human time. Living this period of our time is a gift !
I still have some hope. At least we have recognized the issues and making some progress despite the inherent greed of market economics. For sure economy and ecosystems are in collapse but as long as people understand why we might turn a corner. That is my hope...
Climate consequences? Sounds like you're still taking those boosters 🤦♂️ Temperature and CO2 has always risen after each periodical 'little ice age'. Usually 4-5 degrees. Previous little ice age ended around 1870. Did you know they were ice skating on the Thames river London in the 1800's? Also USA: Galveston Bay froze over from Houston to Galveston Island in the 1800s; the ground in Dallas was frozen on Mayday then too, the settlement "La Reunion" had to quit and move into town. Did you know these same 'scientists' were terrified of CO2 levels dropping below 300ppm and an imminent new 'ice age' in the 1970's? (e.g., Balling 1992, Giddens 1999, Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004, Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery 2007, Horner 2007). These 'scientists' income is dependent on fear mongering. There are plenty of honest scientists exposing this fraud but the MSM can't make money if there's no 'drama' to report. Do a little research. I don't mean 'Google' research.
Ok. I'm ruining 69 comment count for this. But this guy. He goes on about how the data is bad, then uses the data. He puts up a slide with text, then says you read it. (Thhannkkksssss) and his doomerism isn't even specific.
I hope EVERYONE can see what they are dressing in the sweet words of "science" and congrats to all who ja bb ers who are accepting their sick ge no ci de voluntarily! These people are sick!!!
Polio, smallpox, measles have all been brought low by the science of vaccination. This subject should never have been politicized. 3 million US citizens have died from Covid, and 300 per day still do.
51:00 "If you can't afford to lose don't gamble", he says his mother said. Yet all parents gamble with the welfare of their children, who before existing had not a single problem. And they all lose at the end because they either grow old or sick, or old and sick. And then they die and again have no cares. We all lose people. Even on a pristine planet. Anyway, all very interesting this planetsaving notion, but I have no kids. And I sure as hell know why. Not because conservationists tell me to.
I get your point - surely it would do better to minimise risk through education and an economic paradigm that provides for sustainability and security that everyone has an interest in?
Represents the issues of an evolutionary species. With hindsight I might shout 'How didn't you know?' How we might understand the science being done as contemporary or prior like Mikhail Budyko on physical climatology without internet and in a 'cold war' scenario. I would like to ask Prof. Meadows if he knew Buckminster-Fuller or Jaque Fresco that would seem to me, to bring together the knowledge available to build upon.
I'm really sorry - I haven't checked my commentary on YT for 2 yrs or so. With regard to climate change the Arctic is melting and raising sea levels. Hope this is what you were asking?
Dr. Meadows said that sceptical people don't come to his meetings but I am still a bit sceptical and the confusing slides and lack of hard proof did not help me to make up my mind.
I'm skeptical too and what is robust about his model is that it is not a prediction. It is modeling different scenarii. He said many a-time that we don't know what is going to happen. And unfortunately, hard proof is coming up every year but there is no one blinder than one who wish not to see. As you saw on slide 13, data is closer to worst case scenario than to the optimistic ones. His answers to objections are founded and sound.
To be fair they say they cant predict anything with pin point accuracy because theres so many variables. They cant predict how Govt will react. They cant predict wars. They cant predict how people will react striking and rioting. They cant predict the weather and say such and such a place will experience three years of drought leading to this and that. What they can do is see the trend in numerous scenarios and everyone leads to a collapse....and soon. Within the life time of many today. Ive read a lot based on this and it strongly suggests a banking collapse but when exactly they dont know but soon, within twenty years and one is currently developing and we've had one already in 2008. The consensus is, collapse is coming its just a question of when and how exactly. Slow and steady? Or incredibly fast and sudden? And even then some areas are likely to be hit earlier and harder than others because America can afford to import food whilst an African country might struggle to finance imports after years of drought or just to finance rising energy costs so their food production declines. Governments are preparing for it but most have yet to realise it.
You'd expect more from academicians than figuring out that the earth is finite. The answer is what it always has been. The strong one lives and the weak one dies, this time on a global level. Politics need the problem and the solution, The Club of Rome forgot the solution.
I guess you missed the fact that after the end of the bi-polar world of the Cold War, “the weak ones” hugely benefited from increasing health and lifespans, as well as the growing of life-giving staples and foodstuffs. Thus, hunger and famine is disappearing. The 2000s witnessed the most rapid decline in human poverty in history. And this benefit to the poorest has not stopped. Contrary to Meadows, economic growth is the humane hope that actually happens. In fact, we’ve passed peak farmland use. Contrary to Meadows, Jesse Ausebel at Rockefeller University has led in closely examining this question and re-wilding is supplanting agriculture for land use. Thus trend is accelerating, except for biofuels mania - a waste of natural resources. See “The Story of Human Progress: Why This is The Greatest Period in History” by Johan Norberg, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CUbwxEMRUJw.html SEE ALSO Marian Tupelo on our Age of “Superabundance” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KzhhRJTiM2Y.html
I've been thinking about the technology question. Does technology change the fundamental limit to growth? I think it could when seen to enhance and solve rather than add to unsustainable growth. Jeremy Rifin and Kate Raworth are exponents - Third Industrial Revolution / Doughnut as a more nuanced model. Ultimately it is going to be for us to enable democracy that provides politicians to realise at least a hope to do sustainable and provide hope for solutions. I'm not seeing anything like as yet.
If technology is put into service of sustainability (keep in mind that regenerative agriculture is a technology), we could turn a corner. What do we have to give up? Consumerism and growth as presently conceived. It's a tall order.
We'd need the japanese title to find it ! I guess it has not been translated as no one in the neo-liberal growth trope/biais is interested in that topic.
I came to this video today to ask the exact same question. I am glad you did already. So I could not find the book anywhere, including on worldcat.org. The only book that I could find that treat the same subject written around the same time was "Japan’s Population Implosion: The 50 Million Shock" by Yoichi Funabashi. I was wondering if Dennis Meadows was referring to this book with a different name, or it is simply a different book that is hard to find.
I did not find a book but I did find a bunch of papers from Japanese economics professors (and one from stanford, as well): www.cambridge.org/core/journals/macroeconomic-dynamics/article/effects-of-negative-population-growth-an-analysis-using-a-semiendogenous-rd-growth-model/1EEC283D7719BC0EC59405DBC599985A mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53833/ web.stanford.edu/~chadj/emptyplanet.pdf ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/92204.html ideas.repec.org/f/psa1333.html
Having read their "report" long ago, most of their extreme predictions were wrong. He does seem to now realize that there are only two resources relevant to humanity's future on this planet and they are energy and human creativity. His food prediction fell apart with increasing yields and now GMOs. His mineral predictions fell apart as shown by long-term inflation-adjusted price decreases and we still have not gone after the deep sea resources. "Peak oil" was claimed back in the 70's but has been postponed by half a century. A half a century hear and a half a century there add up over time. It is only politics that has prevented the rest of the world from fracking shale deposits for gas (the governments own the mineral rights and in the US only most of the mineral rights and the fracking is almost all private rights areas -- most governments are not rational). He doesn't even consider that we have a 600-year energy supply in depleted uranium stored above ground (no mining) that could be used in fast breeder reactors. If we ever figure out economic fusion humanity will have almost infinite growth potential. Having been into math modeling at the time, their model never had stability and their solution never would have worked. It was a very simple model, even for the time, but it gave them the answers they wanted. There was no ability in their model to ever accommodate our present population let alone the 3 billion more people on the way as the human population ages (not a birth rate issue, but a low death rate).
"...as the CO2 increases in the atmosphere the food quality of the plants goes down, their nutrition level..." This I did not know. There is nothing positive at all in a globalised neoliberal growth economy - indeed it is hugely negative. Why are we doing this?
If some country limits its growth, other countries will fill the void. the self-limiting country will suffer. the other countries will gain in the short term. -> the self-limiting country sets a bad example nobody wants to follow -> the social order in the self-limiting country will be heavily endangered. * therefore mankind must change things in many, ideally all countries at once so that nobody has an unfair disadvantage (unlikely) * or mankind will be forced to change by environmental pressure (very likely and very unpleasant)
@@steffenpanning2776 seems about right. Id like to emphasise that nature isn't out to kill anyone. Its just a complex system of feedback loops and one outcome of those will be an environment not suitable for humans in most places. Best case scenario humanity won't die but civilisation will collapse
@@gaswhole Revisited this lecture and I don't see a scenario of civilisation collapse. That this knowledge can be shared, discussed and understood is for civilisation change, hopefully for the better. Consider. 'In total, the number of people that own a smart and feature phone is 7.26 Billion, making up 91.00% of the world's population.' Nov 22 stats. I get that many will gossip, game, goose and do porn and yet the ability to collaborate is established. I'd suggest the more people are censored the more they will ask why and rebel. Iran, Russia, China, USA etc to circumvent security and 'whistle blow' as a feat in itself. E2EE for eg.
@@mrjonno establishments view censorship in at least 3 different ways 1) in the conventional sense, where it is overt and people are aware they are being censored 2) Preemptive censorship, where certain things are kept hidden. How successful this is will only be known based on studies. For example the chinese govt's control over knowledge of the tiananmen massacre. 3) (most successful) self censorship or social censorship where the establishment's role is successfully hidden
How can you say we cannot substitute energy ? Actually we are at less then 10 years of the first fusion nuclear reactor producing stable energy (and maybe less)
@@wahrheitsfinder6750 A.I. and the fact that all the theoretical problems receive answers .We are in the process of integration. and new materials allies at improving deep learning methods will shorten the completion of the first working prototype dramatically. Also it is state research and not private research in China and this make a huge difference in efficiency. Private company are good to sale dreams state company are good to make Science e science
Looking at humanity as a whole, there are none except for continued destruction and possibly the end of us. I think many of us idealists had too much hope that we would do something to better life on earth. There is no cohesive agreement and things are only getting worse.
WOW!! WHAT HE BEGINNING TO SAY AT 48:07 IS ironic as hell! Just look at what is going on in the United States now! This is one thing he was definitely wrong about.
Thank you Professor Meadows - Well said sir. Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn, published in 1948 was read by academics and ignored by the public. In 1948 the population was around 2.5 Billion, in 1972 at the publication of Limits to Growth the population was just under 4 Billion, today it's passed 8 Billion. I'm an old man, I believe I'v lived during the golden age of mankind, my early thinking was influenced by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and LTG as well as Osborn's publication. Unfortunately the response to concern about rising population, destruction of the biosphere and reaching a tipping point for a climate shift catastrophe was often " don't talk daft laddie " or god will provide. The path we're now on will in the words of Roger Waters - amuse ourselves to death.
He has self importance is for little. 1.5yrs of data gathering is insignificant. Promoting thought on already known issues is ordinary. His doomsday style speak is useful only if facts and causes for changing habits, stack up. His rhetoric based on fear over facts is will be found out for what it is - "and so-forth". Growth is only at our own risk, not to the danger of the planet as is the mistake of generating worry about climate/planet change. How is famine or war or disease problems imposed by the planet? Garbage
Open your eyes man, ice sheets melting, record heat waves in the Arctic, massive forrest fires everywhere, more and more flooding. This shit is happening and faster than almost any period in earth history because of us. This guy's been right all the way
@@joejagu no need just yet, it's just going to be a relatively slow and gradual decline in climate peppered with big disasters like more flooding, forrest fires, droughts the likes of which we have been seeing more regularly this last few decades. Our governments will continue to try to prop things up but inevitably with decreasing resources and more mouths to feed, more conflict and bad stuff is certain. Acceptance of these facts is difficult I know but forewarned is forearmed.
I guess you're wealthy enough that you don't mind about climate change. Actual people's lives are at stake. Compared to economic delusion, I reckon prof. Meadows science is more robust than any economist lecturing governments and the public with religious dogma! Just have a quick look here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vwwvZ8g5eHE.html or here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XZKjQtrgdVY.html
I don't think anyone with rational thought capability is suggesting that 'climate change' isn't a fact, any longer... In 1.5yrs you could get a project together to take an ice core from the Arctic which potentially can provide 800,000 yrs of data.
This is one of the most influential people of the 20th century, and what he's saying is wrong! Interesting Meadows begins by talking about habits - because at 4:52 he seemingly makes a habitual assumption when he talks about the need to change our USE of energy. This assumption stems from an anti-capitalist political bias that precedes the Limits to Growth hypothesis, such that the analysis suffers from confirmation bias. In fact, we need to change our SUPPLY of energy, and looking at the problem in these terms, there are no Limits to Growth. It's difficult to overstate how significant this mistake has been; the assumption of Limits to Growth is ubiquitous on both left and right; with the left talking about 'infinite growth on a finite planet' and demanding policies to reduce demand; the universal assumption underlying all green policy approaches is that sustainability requires sacrifice. The right believe this too; and consequently ignore the climate and ecological crisis because they don't want to 'pay more, have less, stop this and tax that' - and so actively campaign against environmental science. Limits to Growth is an extremely influential idea; but it's factually incorrect! In 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs demonstrated the viability of drawing energy directly from magma pockets in the earth's crust, and estimated the size of the US magma energy resource alone - at a minimum of 50,000 quadrillion btu. Global energy demand is a mere 600 quads. Worldwide, the magma energy available is effectively limitless. Given limitless clean energy to spend, there are no limits to growth. Magma energy, converted to base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel, could supply all our energy needs carbon free, plus provide ample energy to desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and capture atmospheric carbon. In this way, it's possible to sustain economic growth, and increase prosperity for many more people - without costing the earth. Excluding this possibility for the past 50 years by assuming Limits to Growth may very well have killed humankind. I wonder how things might have been different had Greenpeace through to Extinction Rebellion demanded application of magma energy technology to balance capitalist prosperity and environmental sustainability; instead of a green communist dictatorship imposing poverty forever to save the world!
@@christinearmington Your comment suggests you don't understand that global warming is caused by heat trapped in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and other gasses. The earth radiates enormous quantities of heat energy all the time; and usually, that is not a problem - because usually, the heat dissipates into space. But with a carbon rich atmosphere, the heat is trapped in the atmosphere. Producing energy without producing carbon will allow heat to radiate into space.
