I studied with Dennis Meadows in the late 1970s and followed the debate fairly closely in the intervening years. From the beginning the key message of LTG was always this: if you have to choose between two ways of looking at the world, one of which has no systemic feedbacks and one of which does, the first will get you in trouble and the second will give you a fighting chance.
That message was always more nuanced than "we will run out of raw materials" and was almost absent from the public debate immediately after LTG came out. But it was always the main message Dennis and Dana Meadows conveyed. By the time of the 30-year update this "think systemically" message was much more explicit in the presentation, but by then it was lost in the noise of other systems approaches, I think. I see LTG as a crucial 1st step in the evolution away from linear thinking and nature/economy separation toward nonlinear thinking and nature/economy fusion. The point estimates about when raw materials might run out were beside the point. In this regard it had the same kind of impact as Rachel Carson and the ecological revolution. Marc A. Levy Deputy Director, CIESIN Adjunct Professor, SIPA Columbia University PO Box 1000 61 Route 9W Palisades, NY 10964 [email protected] t +1 845-365-8964 f +1 845-365-8922 On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Peter Jacques <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > > As it turns out, I am writing a textbook on sustainability and I am to the > part where I talk about LTG. I am curious how this audience sees the LTG > "facts" - that is, is there anything that is conclusively disproven from the > LTG work? For my part, I find Graham Turner's 2008 piece in Global Env. > Change, "A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality" of > particular interest. > > > > While I had previously been quite doubtful of the accuracy/importance of > LTG, I admittedly had not actually read the whole thing, including all the > updated editions; and, it seems that many of the perceived shortcomings of > LTG come from either incorrect readings of the models or from those who have > not actually thoroughly read it. For example, there is the common > accusation that they don't take technology or markets seriously, but in > fact, this constitutes chapter 6 in the 30 year update and is included > specifically in their models in that chapter. > > > > That said, I would be interested in any specific (important) claims that we > might think are demonstrably incorrect as I consider this work for the > textbook. Certainly we could criticize it for the way it aggregates all > dynamics into a global monolithic model, and the nature of politics are > obscured terribly, but really I am concerned more about demonstrable > "errors". > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > Peter > > > > > > Peter J. Jacques, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Political Science > > University of Central Florida > > P.O. Box 161356 > > 4000 Central Florida Blvd. > > Orlando, FL 32816-1356 > > > > Phone: (407) 823-2608<tel:%28407%29%20823-2608> > > Fax: (407) 823-0051<tel:%28407%29%20823-0051> > > Peter J. Jacques, Ph.D. > > > > View my CV, articles, teaching documents, etc... here: > > http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques > > > > > >
