Limits to Growth was right about collapse

Model Accuracy & Historical Track Record

• Several commenters doubt that Limits to Growth “was right,” arguing its concrete predictions (resource depletion, food shortages, population collapse by ~now) have largely failed, similar to past Malthusian forecasts and Peak Oil timelines.
• Others counter that while specifics were off, the broad picture of overshoot and approaching limits still “feels” increasingly relevant.
• Simon–Ehrlich wager, Our World in Data food/calo­rie charts, and declining commodity prices are cited as evidence that scarcity predictions have repeatedly missed.

Finite Resources, Growth & Technology

• One camp stresses physical limits: exponential growth on a finite planet must eventually saturate; logistic growth just shifts in time, not outcome.
• Opponents argue that growth is increasingly decoupled from raw material use, with technology enabling efficiency, substitution (e.g., solar, fracking, Green Revolution), and potentially vast untapped resources on Earth and beyond.
• There is disagreement on whether “exponentially increasing resources” is coherent on a finite planet vs “we are nowhere close” to binding limits.

Capitalism, Externalities & Research Incentives

• Some argue capitalism structurally locks in a “myth of growth” and underfunds basic research because it isn’t directly monetizable.
• Others respond that non‑capitalist systems also produced science and that all large institutions (states, NGOs, corporations) can be environmentally destructive.
• There is broad agreement that unpriced negative externalities (fossil fuels, pollution, surveillance economies) lead to pathological growth, but disagreement on whether better pricing/internalization is realistic.

Collapse vs Adaptation

• Skeptics think the model overstates collapse: historically, scarcity raised prices, drove innovation (e.g., fracking), and the system reconfigured without dramatic breakdown.
• Supporters emphasize that even if timing is off, crossing ecological or resource limits could still yield severe suffering, especially if externalities like climate damage are counted.
• Some suggest “collapse” might be gradual (population decline, ecosystem shifts) rather than a single dramatic event.

Politics, Demography & Energy

• Economic growth is framed by some as politically stabilizing; without it, conflict over resources may rise.
• Others note falling fertility, potential future labor shortages, and large “cards left to play” (nuclear, GMOs, renewables) that could ease pressures—blocked mainly by politics, not physics.

Modeling Limits, AI & Uncertainty

• Commenters question the article’s claim that updating World3 to 2025 proves it “right” without real‑world validation or sensitivity analysis.
• Some note missing factors like AI and contemporary political instability, arguing that such complex, adaptive systems are beyond reliable long‑range modeling.
• A few see AI/singularity as a possible escape—or a different kind of collapse.

Psychological & Personal Responses

• Several participants describe existential dread from these scenarios; others caution against “doomerism,” recommending focusing on personal resilience, health, community, and filtering non‑actionable fear‑driven media.