The book Limits to Growth doesn’t answer everything about the environment and sustainability, but I find it gives the best high-level, systemic understanding of the patterns of humanity’s overall interaction with nature. The authors created a model and ran simulations. It could have happened that none corresponded with observation, but after 50 years, there is remarkable correspondence, as researched by podcast guest Gaya Herrington. I recommend reading her results after[…] Keep reading →

Five months ago, Gaya’s work led to headlines like Yep, it’s bleak, says expert who tested 1970s end-of-the-world prediction. The 1970s predictions weren’t exactly predictions, but the headline refers to the book Limits to Growth. If you’re not familiar with it, we start by talking about it. We both consider its views and analysis among the most important. The book simulated possible outcomes for humans on Earth. Those outcomes varied[…] Keep reading →

Five months ago, Gaya’s work led to headlines like Yep, it’s bleak, says expert who tested 1970s end-of-the-world prediction. The 1970s predictions weren’t exactly predictions, but the headline refers to the book Limits to Growth. If you’re not familiar with it, we start by talking about it. We both consider its views and analysis among the most important. The book simulated possible outcomes for humans on Earth. Those outcomes varied[…] Keep reading →

I’ve mentioned many times how I considered the approach to the environment, economy, population, etc by the book Limits to Growth the most comprehensive and valuable, though I hadn’t read much critical of it that didn’t seem politically motivated or starting from disagreement. I’ve wanted to find alternative perspectives. I found more resources and perspective, especially in two papers in American Scientist written by Brian Hayes. Both articles followed publishing[…] Keep reading →

One of my top resources on the environment is the book Limits to Growth. Reading it was revelatory. They approached the environment the way I thought made sense, then created a model, researched the numbers, plugged them in, and got answers. What made sense was what they call a systemic approach—not to look at one of all the interacting parts, but to look at the whole system, including how the[…] Keep reading →

I’ve described Tom Murphy’s textbook, Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet, the science book of the decade. He just published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Physics, one of the most important parts: how basic physical constraints limit how much our economy can grow. The paper is called Limits to economic growth. Quoting Tom’s blog post linking to the piece inline and in pdf, the “real” article [is] in[…] Keep reading →

My closing paragraphs on yesterday’s post, anticipating people’s reaction, got me thinking about Marshall Goldsmith, one of today’s top business thinkers (and a friend). I wrote the following: By now, many of you are probably thinking “we’ve solved all the problems so far, we’ll solve the ones to come” “since before Malthus scientists project doomsday and they never happen, we can ignore this” or “this won’t affect me” If so,[…] Keep reading →

I’ve written about the Do The Math blog, which looks at the numbers underlying how our economy works, particularly the energy part, which is to say, what drives it. If you think something else drives it, do the math! I think you’ll see otherwise. Incidentally, analysis like his is one of the reasons I studied physics (if you didn’t know, I got a PhD in the subject) — to understand[…] Keep reading →

Population modeling can be hard, as is figuring out a prediction’s accuracy, therefore how much confidence to give your conclusions. Many people can’t hear talk about population without hearing things like eugenics and racism even when they aren’t there. But population is one of the most important factors in sustainability. Everything becomes easier when population isn’t near or above what Earth can sustain and harder when it’s above. I came[…] Keep reading →