Interesting projection coming true

Just curious as to whether anyone on here has seen this and what you all think of it:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html

That is too funny/coincidental! I was referring to that today to an acquaintance....not having seen any semblance of your posted link.
But i remember that it was the same time that i heard the announcement in the very early 70's. I have referred to it in years past also...since the admission back then by the elite movers and shakers , impressed me !
However, what i remember most was this conclusion from the Club of Rome at that time : That no matter what man/science does to improve the situation, it will only make it worse!
Put the mon santo into that category, vaccinations, etc.etc. Like, even if it is well-intentioned ...without a greed/profit motive, it is highly presumptuous of "so-called science" to elicit support thru the public purse for their not-so-bright ideas....or to prostitute their privileged positions by business-lobbied universities/institutes.

I only had to glance at this without bothering to crunch the specifics. No need to focus further. This is pretty much what I saw was our trajectory at age ten. It was obvious and set me on my prepping path. The years that followed, watching how people did everything possible to deny this, to seek scapegoats and do any mental gymnastics possible to deny responsibility...taught me about human evil. The game plan seems to be a mutually agreed apon suicide pact. I have little hope for humanity...but I don't plan on waving the flags and following the herd, 36 years later. I'm only here to save who I can.

I find it curious that when everything else peaks and begins an exponential dive , that human population follows an almost lineal descent. Why does that descent not take a belated but more drastic dive ? I think perhaps it overestimates the resiliency of people and underestimates other impacts ?

This is Grade 9 Biology. Every organism has external factors that will effect its population. space, food, etc. There are all kinds of predictions when we will hit that peak. My understanding is that our population growth is starting to slow, so I'm assuming it will happen in our lifetimes. As humans though...we have an ability of self realization...and can actually manipulate (to a point) our environment to our benefit... An amazing trait which has led to us essentially mastering the globe...

One factor that someone mentioned outside of the typical food, water, environmental conditions, etc. that effect the growth rate of other organisms...is that of education. Womens' rights, and education have shown a direct inverse result in child births in 3rd world and developing countries! As these countries progress, birth rates decline. What other organism has this factor?

so many variables....

I was thinking how people seem to subsist now on increasingly questionable diet and likely have rising health issues , as the world is increasingly polluted with chemicals , genetically engineered product , radiated waste , I am not so sure it is not rather delusional that population will beat the odds with its resiliency . We are for the most part utterly dependant on a very complicated and fragile system , like we are on a life support of oil dependancy. With that predicted rising population , I am wondering if the very act of calculating on our perceived resiliency will not severely bite us in the butt being overestimated and those factors, for example like bacteria out competing us, being underestimated. Or our own competitiveness amoungst our own species infighting, leading to a chemical, biological and nuclear devastation to population ? I look at the for profit driven use of environmental resources and I wonder if climate change impacts will bring us to our knees faster than we ever anticipated ? I am not too sure I would bet on human resiliency as projected on that graph.

Does it bother anyone that there is no unit of measure on the Y axis??? There are multiple unrelated variables noted on the graph and the X axis describes time (with calculated measures of an unknown variable over a thirty year period and projections going on for an additional century), but no description of the Y. I have to say, it's pretty easy to claim accuracy when you don't qualify the unit of measure! Very disappointing indeed for a source which claims to endorse science.

p.s. It is pretty easy to make the lines of a graph look any way you want when you have an ambiguous measure on an undefined axis. I should think that if this graph sways your opinion of our future you might consider taking advise from the crazy homeless guy on the street corner with a sandwich placard over his shoulders which reads, "REPENT! THE END IS NEIGH!"

Antsy, I am not a scientist but I am taking it that the chart was created for demonstrative purposes portraying the y axis as differing quantative measures of the subjects in comparison to human population over the x axis of time . I don't think you can take it as a definitive plot of data but it is suppose to be representative so we can see a visual . I know with my grasp of math and science I should just bug out of these conversations : )

Antsy, I am not a scientist but I am taking it that the chart was created for demonstrative purposes portraying the y axis as differing quantative measures of the subjects in comparison to human population over the x axis of time . I don't think you can take it as a definitive plot of data but it is suppose to be representative so we can see a visual . I know with my grasp of math and science I should just bug out of these conversations : )

I will take that to mean that it does not bother you. I stand by my assertion that if one does not identify the ambiguous axis, one can make it look like anything one wants and that it is therefore not science. I wouldn't be bothered either if the graph projected an outcome I personally agreed with. 😉

The diagram doesn't really bother me.

There are no graphs in existance that accurately portray that many variables of that magnitude and complexity. It's not actually a graph, it's a diagram. It's really just meant to show some general curves placed over top of each other for perspective. The curve shapes shown on the diagram are generally accepted to be the right shape and recognizable by most people.

Sometimes we mix up actual science with the communication of scientific concepts. Science is dry, and must be distilled for the average citizen to grasp a complex concept such as global population and resource utilization. Antsy, you are right in that this is not science, and yes, without checking the actual statistics used to make this graph, there could be errors, omissions, or mis communications... I think it's meant to do one thing, and that is to make you think.