Environment & Energy

NickB79

(19,253 posts) Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:08 AM Sep 2012

Nat. Geo: 2052: The New 2012 (Total collapse of civilization predicted in 40 years)

http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2012/05/24/2052-the-new-2012/?source=link_dp_02

A computer model developed in the 70s by MIT, called World3, predicted a major collapse of civilization. Based on a number of factors from climate change to overusing our resources, the findings revealed that the planetary stress placed on our planet was so strong that there was no way to undo what had been started unless drastic changes were made. It was hotly debated at the time, but now it’s back in big way.

Now, some of the original modelers from the World3 project are plugging new scenarios into a similar simulation explored in a new book 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. While the various possibilities differ in many ways, the ultimate outcome is the same… and it’s looking grim.

The updated World3 computer model is saying the same thing it was saying back in the 70s: we are on a fast-track to the total collapse of civilization — but this time there’s no way to stop it because the “sustainable pathways” the original simulation foresaw are no longer available to us. In effect, we’ve gone too far. This new model is predicting that once the population peaks at 8-9 billion, it will crash rapidly down taking much of civilization-as-we-know-it with it, heralding the arrival of its newest apocalyptic scenario on or around 2052.

Is this the same model that The Limits of Growth was based upon, or is this a separate model?

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nat. Geo: 2052: The New 2012 (Total collapse of civilization predicted in 40 years) (Original Post) NickB79 Sep 2012 OP

apocalyptic MFM008 Sep 2012 #1

This book is basically Jorgen Randers' extrapolation. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #2

Do you have a link to that assessment? I'd like to read it... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #3

Incoming PM... GliderGuider Sep 2012 #4

Got it, TYVM! truebrit71 Sep 2012 #5

Thank You GG, n/t CRH Sep 2012 #7

I'l love to read it too! nt Mojorabbit Sep 2012 #9

Seems interesting, but total collapse is far from inevitable. AverageJoe90 Sep 2012 #6

It might be equally productive, ... CRH Sep 2012 #8

MFM008

(19,818 posts)

1. apocalyptic

Reply to NickB79 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:13 AM

Sep 2012

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzif the Mayans dont get it right..im through

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

2. This book is basically Jorgen Randers' extrapolation.

Reply to NickB79 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:20 AM

Sep 2012

These excerpts from an Amazon review echoes what I've gathered by watching Randers' videos about the book's findings:

In my opinion, Randers' forecast has many weaknesses. He's a big fan of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), solar panels, and wind turbines. He sees the transition to sustainability as involving energy efficiency, yes, but also lots of high tech. I simply cannot agree with him here. I think CCS from power plants cannot work on a scale large enough to make any difference to the climate; I'd say it's more of a coal company boondoggle than anything else.

Randers also thinks that the current trend toward urbanization will continue, with only a small human population working the land. I have to disagree with him here. I think it is much more likely that in the next few years we will see a big increase in unemployment. At the same time, the decline of fossil fuels will mean a big increase in demand for human labor in the fields. Eventually these trends will meet up, and the percentage of people working at farm labor will go up. Jobs formerly done by chemicals or diesel-powered equipment will be increasingly done by people. Long days using a hoe or a pitchfork will be common. The reason for this is simple: in a world where labor was expensive and fuel to build and run machines was cheap, it made sense to run farms using machines. In a world where unemployed and desperate humans are all over the place and fuel for machines is expensive, running farms with mostly human labor will be what makes sense.

My comment on FB was. "IMO Randers is a crazy-ass polyanna optimist. He's still clapping for Tinkerbell in his own way."

I'm far more inclined to trust Dr. Graham Turner's assessment for CSIRO, showing collapse beginning (whatever that means) in 2015 and ramping up to the Big Stumble in 2030. But then I'm one of those crazy-ass doomers so WTFDIK?

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)

3. Do you have a link to that assessment? I'd like to read it...

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:01 PM

Sep 2012

..thanks...!

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

4. Incoming PM...

Reply to truebrit71 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:49 PM

Sep 2012

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)

5. Got it, TYVM!

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:54 PM

Sep 2012

CRH

(1,553 posts)

7. Thank You GG, n/t

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:47 PM

Sep 2012

Mojorabbit

(16,020 posts)

9. I'l love to read it too! nt

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:48 AM

Sep 2012

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)

6. Seems interesting, but total collapse is far from inevitable.

Reply to NickB79 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:18 PM

Sep 2012

What I'd like to know, above all else, is exactly how they explain a rapid population decline(although the graph on the site doesn't quite suggest that)......barring a world-wide nuclear war(which is already very unlikely in this day and age), it's not going to quite happen in the proverbial blink of an eye, as some may think.

What is possible, however, is regional collapses leading to long-term problems worldwide; for example, a Chinese collapse could potentially lead to another severe long-term recession in the United States, possibly even on the level of the Great Depression itself, and could have very long-term effects on our GDP(remember, China is our number one trading partner). And certainly, effects will vary across the world: many parts of India & China, and some countries in Africa, such as Nigeria or the Congo(both of them, really)will likely be hit much harder than say, Western Europe or the U.S., once the population bombs do start hitting.

But again, to be perfectly realistic, the worst case scenarios are not, or ever have been inevitable. Our biggest problem so far, has been the global criminal elite, the .01%, who have conspired to harm the rest of us in every way imaginable, and their enablers. There is potential for a better future, and our responsibility is to fight for that whenever and however we can.

CRH

(1,553 posts)

8. It might be equally productive, ...

Reply to AverageJoe90 (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:03 PM

Sep 2012

not to think in terms of a collapse of regional population as an economic event. China will experience problems, but so will Bangladesh, India proper, South East Asia, central and southern Africa from the west to the eastern, shores. Remember, we are talking climate change, no water, no agriculture, in many areas. The means of migration, minimal.

Your personal US reality will take a bit longer.

The 'global criminal elite', whatever their conspiracies, are unlikely to be held accountable. However the reality, will remain reality, for those without the means to dodge.

Reply to this discussion