Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth

About this book

Hailed by some as an "intellectual bombshell" and decried by others as unprofessional sensationalism The Limits to Growth has created a stir throughout the world. Dennis L. Meadows its main author and his mentor Jay Forrester are MIT system analysts whose work represents the most ambitious attempt so far to bring together forecasts of population growth pollution resource depletion food supply and industrial output into a general model of the worlds future. Models of Doom by an interdisciplinary team at Sussex Universitys Science Policy Research Unit examines the structure and assumptions of the MIT world models and a preliminary draft of Meadows technical reports. Based on computer runs it shows that forecasts of the worlds future are very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggests that the MIT assumptions are unduly pessimistic. Further the Sussex scientists claim that the MIT methods data and predictions are faulty that their world models--with their built-in Malthusian bias--do not accurately reflect reality. The second part of the book assesses the models and their assumptions in the context of historical forecasts about economics (including those of Malthus and Keynes) population the environment and technology. Here the Sussex scientists criticize the MIT approach for its lack of concern with politics social structure and human needs and aspirations. They assert that changing social values not a part of the MIT computer input can significantly affect the exponential growth of the worlds physical properties. Nevertheless they agree with Forrester and Meadows about the urgency of the challenge and believe that dealing with foreseeable physical limits and disturbing the fruits of growth equitably will require radical political and social as well as technological changes. Claiming that the Sussex critics have applied "micro reasoning to macro problems " the authors ofThe Limits to Growth in "A Response to Sussex " describe and analyze five major areas of disagreement between themselves and the Sussex authors. Hailed by some as an "intellectual bombshell" and decried by others as unprofessional sensationalism The Limits to Growth has created a stir throughout the world. Dennis L. Meadows its main author and his mentor Jay Forrester are MIT system analysts whose work represents the most ambitious attempt so far to bring together forecasts of population growth pollution resource depletion food supply and industrial output into a general model of the worlds future. Models of Doom by an interdisciplinary team at Sussex Universitys Science Policy Research Unit examines the structure and assumptions of the MIT world models and a preliminary draft of Meadows technical reports. Based on computer runs it shows that forecasts of the worlds future are very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggests that the MIT assumptions are unduly pessimistic. Further the Sussex scientists claim that the MIT methods data and predictions are faulty that their world models--with their built-in Malthusian bias--do not accurately reflect reality. The second part of the book assesses the models and their assumptions in the context of historical forecasts about economics (including those of Malthus and Keynes) population the environment and technology. Here the Sussex scientists criticize the MIT approach for its lack of concern with politics social structure and human needs and aspirations. They assert that changing social values not a part of the MIT computer input can significantly affect the exponential growth of the worlds physical properties. Nevertheless they agree with Forrester and Meadows about the urgency of the challenge and believe that dealing with foreseeable physical limits and disturbing the fruits of growth equitably will require radical political and social as well as technological changes. Claiming that the Sussex critics have applied "micro reasoning to macro problems " the authors ofThe Limits to Growth in "A Response to Sussex " describe and analyze five major areas of disagreement between themselves and the Sussex authors.