As an aside found out from the demands of a toddler that our local IHOP ironically does DoorDash pretty well. Their take out containers are like multi tiered to keep stuff separated but stacked together in close proximity to still retain heat. Obviously they starting with a pretty low brow product but got here surprisingly well. All this to say I think the quality of carry out in general definitely could be improved by optimizing packing schemes if places remain interested in that in general
Speaking of packaging
zz posted this the other day.
Worth ready the whole thing and following it to this
Itâs always interesting to see Malthusian thought repackaged.
Anyways, well off countries with access to plenty of resources are the ones that have stopped having rapid population growth, not the other way around.
1 Like
Thanks Milton Friedman.
In 2008, physicist Graham Turner[c] at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called âA Comparison of âThe Limits to Growthâ with Thirty Years of Realityâ.[13] It compared the past thirty years of data with the scenarios laid out in the 1972 book and found that changes in industrial production, food production, and pollution are all congruent with one of the bookâs three scenariosâthat of âbusiness as usualâ. This scenario in Limits points to economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.[43] In 2010, NørgĂĽrd, Peet, and RagnarsdĂłttir called the book a âpioneering reportâ. They said that, âits approach remains useful and that its conclusions are still surprisingly valid ⌠unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny.â[6]
Also in 2008, researcher Peter A. Victor wrote that, even though the Limits team probably underestimated price mechanismâs role in adjusting outcomes, their critics have overestimated it. He states that Limits to Growth has had a significant impact on the conception of environmental issues and notes that (in his view) the models in the book were meant to be taken as predictions âonly in the most limited sense of the wordâ.[12]
In a 2009 article published in American Scientist entitled Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil, Hall and Day noted that âthe values predicted by the limits-to-growth model and actual data for 2008 are very close.â[44] These findings are consistent with the 2008 CSIRO study which concluded: âThe analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features ⌠[of the Limits to Growth ] âstandard runâ scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century.â[13]
In 2011, Ugo Bardi published a book-length academic study of The Limits to Growth , its methods and historical reception and concluded that âThe warnings that we received in 1972 ⌠are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the ⌠scenario had generated.â[45]: 3 A popular analysis of the accuracy of the report by science writer Richard Heinberg was also published.[46]
In 2012, writing in American Scientist , Brian Hayes stated that the model is âmore a polemical tool than a scientific instrumentâ. He went on to say that the graphs generated by the computer program should not, as the authors note, be used as predictions.[47]
In 2014, Turner concluded that âpreparing for a collapsing global system could be even more important than trying to avoid collapse.â[48]
In 2015, a calibration of the updated World3-03 model using historical data from 1995 to 2012 to better understand the dynamics of todayâs economic and resource system was undertaken. The results showed that human society has invested more to abate persistent pollution, to increase food productivity and have a more productive service sector however the broad trends within Limits to Growth still held true.[49]
In 2016, a report published by the UK Parliamentâs âAll-Party Parliamentary Group on Limits to Growthâ concluded that âthere is unsettling evidence that society is still following the âstandard runâ of the original study â in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standardsâ.[50] The report also points out that some issues not fully addressed in the original 1972 report, such as climate change, present additional challenges for human development.
In 2020, an analysis by Gaya Herrington, then Director of Sustainability Services of KPMG US,[51] was published in Yale Universityâs Journal of Industrial Ecology .[52] The study assessed whether, given key data known in 2020 about factors important for the âLimits to Growthâ report, the original reportâs conclusions are supported. In particular, the 2020 study examined updated quantitative information about ten factors, namely population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial output, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human welfare, and ecological footprint, and concluded that the âLimits to Growthâ prediction is essentially correct in that continued economic growth is unsustainable under a âbusiness as usualâ model.[52] The study found that current empirical data is broadly consistent with the 1972 projections, and that if major changes to the consumption of resources are not undertaken, economic growth will peak and then rapidly decline by around 2040.[53][54]
1 Like
Butitmightworkforus.jpg
2 Likes
Youâre right bro. The environment is doing just great!
fyp
1 Like
Micro the theory youâre posting relies heavily on peak oil and Malthusian food shortage predictions. It didnât account for how population growth in developed countries sharply declined.
Thatâs very different than the threat of agw.
You hadnât heard of it and you didnât read it. You have no idea what it relies heavily on.
1 Like
But, something you saw on a forum post years ago when someone else posted something they saw on Mises.org or in an article in Fortune Magazine sponsored by the Koch Brothers is more convincing to you than Yaleâs Journal of Industrial Ecology.
What this incredibly snarky and dismissive and uninformed thing is saying is that natural resources are infinite. This is a product of you just swallowing neo-classical economics whole. (which is what most people have done because itâs presented as common sense in places like WSJ, Fortune, every business show on cable, etc)
1 Like
The model puts the maximum amount of natural resources at 1900 and then has it continually downtrending. Thatâs malthusian and peak oil nonsense. You also just cited a peak oil book when you copy/pasted from the âvalidationâ portion of the wiki page. Malthus and this book are linked on wikipedia.
No it doesnât. It simply points out how literally every prediction of disaster based on Malthusian thought has been wrong since 1798. Maybe this one will be the one, but given itâs already failed to predict the gradual slowing of the worldâs population because people are simply choosing to not have tons of babies that is happening right now, it seems super unlikely.
1 Like
saying that natural resources are finite is meaningless without context. like there are a lot of resources that are effectively limitless until population is a trillion, and there are many resources that are used wastefully, and relatively simple management and reuse would make them more than enough for populations upto 20b and more.
of course there are other resources which are not plentiful enough for even current industrial processes, and replacing such resources with other technology has been the focus of a lot of innovation.
letâs take another thought experiment. if we achieved 100% renewable energy in the next 10 years, the population ceiling is probably increased for humanity, based on climate change effects alone. but of course a renewables economy (i believe) would raise the real incomes for all populations which effects people to have fewer kids, so the population growth will slow down, perhaps not to zero globally, but somethere between current growth and zero. so, in my fake armchair âmodelâ, not only the population ceiling will rise, but humanity will also take longer to approach the limit as well. longer as in not just past a few generations after out lifetimes, but also so far into the future that our models simply donât account for future advances.
itâs not that we should ignore the doomsday analysis, we shouldnât. think globally act locally still applies. the point is that a doomsday scenario with fuzzy math behind it reads just like doomsday scenarios with nothing but a religious text behind it. itâs vacuous.
1 Like
The model predicts peak industrial output in 2040, which may or may not be right, but morons have always ignored the forest and looked at a tree or two to justify continuing to roll coal. And, the mention of peak oil in what you read was this - right?:
In a 2009 article published in American Scientist entitled Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil, Hall and Day noted that âthe values predicted by the limits-to-growth model and actual data for 2008 are very close.â[44] These findings are consistent with the 2008 CSIRO study which concluded: âThe analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features ⌠[of the Limits to Growth ] âstandard runâ scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century.â[13]
An article in a reputable magazine (right?) that publishes mostly peer reviewed scientific and engineering works that shows that the predictions of the model you are dismissing (based on what?) have been accurate.
But, you know, Jim Cramer called something Malthusian that one time.
2 Likes
Youâre citing an article that declared peak oil had already happened in 2009.
Eventually someone is going to be right about this kind of thing. They were not.
Thatâs true. Maybe your knee shouldnât jerk so hostilely about it then and you should think of things like DoorDash as something that might be bad for life on Earth rather than evaluating its impact on Venture Capitalists.
1 Like
lol what the fuck are you even talking about?
1 Like
You donât even read posts. You donât even follow conversations that you are taking part in.
3 Likes
Maybe you should take a break so you donât let your emotions get the best of you? That way you wonât post wild straw men about door dash and how I evaluate it. Whatever the hell you mean by that post, honestly.
3 Likes