Talk:The Limits to Growth

The way this article is written does not follow the style of that of WP:LEDE. The criticism needs to be in the lede and especially "most economists" disagree. Further the UN don't seem to support limits... either.

while the special Club might think it is the UN, it is not. Therefore illuminating to readers what the current opinion is, is vital for the lede. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

No. What you are saying is that you don't agree with the analysis of Wards et al. Who cares. Find an RS that disagrees and cite that. Do please remember that it was YOU who introduced the Wards paper. How convenient that you should now seek to disavow it when another editor dares to give the full quotation that directly contradicts your 'summary' of it.

As far as the lead is concerned, WP:LEAD says that the lead should summarise the main points of the body:

1. the body does not contain a section on the views of [un-named] economists but merely a mention of them in a paper you don't like because that paper goes on to say that they are in error because they have discounted the externalities. But if it is to be included (despite not having significant coverage) then it has to be included in full, including the assessment that the view is inaccurate.
2. the article is about the book, not about your favorite hobby horse. No evidence has been produced that "economists" have criticised the book, its updates, or the modelling on which it is based.

But if the views of the [un-named] economists are to be included in the lead (which they should not, as I have explained), then the criticism of their selective blindness must also be included. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the 2010s the UN released its Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth report. Writing in The Conversation in 2017, a team lead by University lecturer James Wards, noted that "most conventional economists and policymakers now endorse the idea that economic growth can be decoupled from environmental impacts – that the economy can grow, without using more resources and exacerbating environmental problems" and that this is presently ongoing, citing a paper by Hatfield-Dodds et. al published in Nature that incentivizing technology to do so, would suffice alone, with multiple example economies growing upon this trend, without using more resources or exacerbating environmental problems.^[1] In 2021 Our World in Data presented data that the countries of Sweden and Switzerland most notably have continued economic growth over the last decade at 50%, yet with declining carbon emissions and energy usage.^[2]

If another editor would like to include Lecturer James Wards non-peer-reviewed personal opinions in the supporters section of limits..., or any other papers they may cite, then they may. However the repeated egregious blanking removal, of what is most notable about this reference, is the quote "most economists [disagree with Limits...]" and the Nature paper Wards links to immediately upon these very words. Hatfield-Dodds. That make it WP:NOTABLE and representative of a WP:CONSENSUS in the field.

By contrast the low impact rating of the paper that Wards personally sides with, claiming decoupling hasn't occurred, isn't particularly relevant, notable nor is it supported by either "most economists" nor the very data that has come out of Sweden & Switzerland. So the repeated attempt to shoe-horn it in, between the two, as another editor has repeatedly done, is looking more and more like WP:FRINGE. As our world in data summarizes "decoupling has occurred "even [when] offshoring is taken into account". Boundarylayer (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Neither the UN report nor Ward's commentary mention Limits to Growth. Those views may be relevant to other articles, such as Eco-economic decoupling but they have zilch to do with criticisms directed at Limits to Growth. Also, you don't mean "notable" because WP:NOTABLE refers to what articles are worthy of existing. What I think you mean is WP:WEIGHT, which is about what content is worth including. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted the edits by Boundarylayer, because they seem to me be serious NPOV violations. In the past few days, I have had to clean up their report of the study by Wards et al, where they grossly and egregiously misrepresented that study to make it say the very opposite of what it actually said. They also do not appear to understand the scientific method, that distiguishes 'support' or 'opposition' to a hypothesis from research to search for real world evidence that confirms or (preferably) denies it. It is an accusation of bad faith to describe these researchers as 'supporters'. Likewise to note that Gaya Herrington is "an advisor to the Club of Rome" without the qualification that this appointment happened after her research, shows a preference for ad hominem attack rather than produce an RS that demonstrate flaws in her research methods.

So rather than make a third attempt to force through their POV edits again, Boundarylayer needs to use this talk page to explain and secure consensus for the changes they believe should be made. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are in error, again, there is no need to "explain" or "secure consensus" for matters of fact. The article does not follow WP:Lede, this is a matter of fact. You very curiously have not engaged with this above. Despite your requesting a talk page discussion be opened on it. Something done as seen above, out of courtesy, why have you chosen not to engage nor discuss? On what you had requested? You are also making personal attacks by writing this "shows a preference for ad hominem attack". Claiming an editor is making ad hominem when they are stating a persons affiliations, to the club of rome, which is something that meets WP:RELEVANT and WP:NOTABLE and if you haven't noticed, the reference that was added from day 1, something that is in "use by others" when discussing Herrington's activities. That this, you react with claiming "shows a preference for ad hominem attack" is evidently, utterly absurd.

I will not be discussing further here while you, to the diametric opposite of your claim, continue making personal attacks, of another editor, then of "bad faith" included. However it would be interesting for you here to explain, how you have gotten to an ad hominem from including a person's highly relevant affiliations, that are included by others when discussing, an affiliates, publishing activity. Boundarylayer (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

FYI I have further tweaked the text and sources re Gaya Herrington. She started a volunteer advisory position with Club of Rome in Nov 2020, and the study was first published online in the very beginning of that month (Nov 3). Her paid job was (and still is) at KPMG. I also deleted the editorializing characterization that firm is "controversial", see also WP:CONTENTIOUS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I take it, given the above, you didn't intend to blank the factual statement in the article, that they are a club of rome affiliate NewsAndEventsGuy? So both in Nov 2020, the same month, we'll include that then? For no references specify which came first, joining the club of rome during preparations, or after publication, of the anomalously high, orchestrated media campaign for a lowly, non-PhD, published paper.John Maynard Friedman do you claim to have insider information, not in the public domain? As its highly curious your acclaimed familiarity with the chronology of their joining, which is not discussed in the public domain. Would you personally know this individual? That joined the Club.^[1][2]

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

Anyone who has prepared similar reports has "insider information" about the publication process, and can tell you that nearly all of the work was done before November of that year.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, anyone who recognises that amongst other things, LinkedIn isn't a reliable source, wouldn't rely on it, especially when the curiously nebulous "Nov 2020" is given and not a specific date. That really isn't neither here nor there. We will go with wikipedia policy - what reliable sources state, which is that they are a member and if it is wished, officially joined in the same month of publication? If reliable sources state that. Do you have such?

Your entering into what sources of sole pay they receive is also original resource, reliant upon self-published material. Instead, all reliable sources state, is that they are a member, what more than that, is all just opinion and original resource. We sure would like full transparency but we can all recognise that won't be happening by such a club. Reliable sources state they are an "Advisor at the club of rome" and have been for 2 years now and if you wish and have them, were also such during the month of publication.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can SAY LinkedIn is not RS, but has that been tested by the broad Wikipedia community? I'm operating on the belief that it is considere a self published source, and you're right, those are usually not RS. However, see WP:ABOUTSELF, which explains they are OK to use when the subject is speaking about themself. So at the moment I'm still of the opinion LinkedIn is a valid source to use for this specific purpose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

See WP:Perennial sources#LinkedIn for consensus on LinkedIn. Gusfriend (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

What "specific purpose" is that exactly? Blanking what's in them, that they are a member? Boundarylayer (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Using LinkedIn's self published description of herrington to describe Herrington, as envisioned by WP:ABOUTSELF, which I hadn't read in a long time and I see that in the intervening years LinkedIn was explictly listed as being OK for such use.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

So you're about to include that she joined/is a member/is an "Advisor" to the club of rome, that both their LinkedIn account(that you added) and the still far more reliable references, explicitly state. Their WP:relevant and WP:notable association (occurring at least as early as the same month of publication, with the club. Or as below, you continuing the blanking of that too, over what you have described as your "relationship" with me. With there now 2 "OK" sources corroborating it? Its not clear, what you're doing?

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bl, since you are accusing other editors of "disruptive editing" (below), I suggest you look in the mirror. You have been around here long enough to know that when your bold edits are reverted and a BRD discussion is called, you must NOT simply counter-revert and try to bully your POV through. That is edit-warring. Keep it up and you know where it leads. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This belongs at WP:ANI. See WP:Focus on content NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

"You've been around here long enough" John, that misattributing conduct is a personal attack as is this, suggesting "keep it up and you know where it leads". Anyone caring to look at the article edit history and here, whom started the talk page discussion? That's Me. That John Maynard Friedman has instead chosen not to engage with. Which only they, can tell us why? Rather to instead begin here throwing editor-threats, claiming their very "ad hominem finger pointing mirror looking" edit warring, is occurring... by me? Can you verify that claim?

I opened up talk page discussions, with headings on each and every one of your quibbles, took the time to and you throw this? ...What is this?

If you think there are grounds for administrative action on your behalf? not on mine? with all these bad faith aspersions, claims of ad hominem and now threats. Why haven't you?

Another editor has joined(they are disturbingly WP:FOLLOWING me around for years now) and they don't agree with your preferred edits, the removal of the Lede tag and your preferred "validation" heading in the article, if not more. This is how consensus is built. The only one engaging in combative prose is you John and who's conduct fits the criteria of a combative conduct, edit war.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are well aware that you have changed the names and order of the sections in this "debate". The first invitation to discuss and reach consensus was when I opened a Bold, Revert, Discuss section with this diff on 09:07 UTC, 1 June 2022 , which is an invitation to work on differences in talk space not edit war in live space. As for "where this leads" is not a threat, simply a reminder. ANI sanctions behaviour, it does not get involved in content disputes. It is for us as interested editors to resolve the dispute amicably but I find it difficult to engage with an editor who does not appear to have any interest in doing so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

NewsAndEventsGuy seems unaware that sources don't need to explicitly give the title of a fringe theory from the 1970s, when they are discounting it. See WP:ITA. That permits reliable sources that relevant to this article, specifically mention Growth, economic growth and its allegedly limits and prepetual resource usage, permission into this article. For otherwise what occurs is a stacking of material that is, as you believe, only that which mentions it by explicit name. A major problem amongst WP:FRINGE theory articles.

You may undo your disruptive editting, if it is not based on what looks to be a wholly faulty premise of yours, that on inspection, actually doesn't exist. That every reference must refer specifically to the title of the article. It doesn't. Not in wikipedia. This is not a requirement that you have used/abused multiple times in your WP:HOUNDING activities of me.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This belongs at WP:ANI. See WP:Focus on content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It certainly belongs in both now, doesn't it. You're also engaged with further disturbing, distruptive disappearing, of references WP:VANDALISM now. Then tagging the MIT paragraph with "citation needed" tags. As though it wasn't just there before your disappearing of it. This is textbook disruptive and tendentious, vandal editting. You are aware I didn't even add that MIT reference but you took it upon yourself to deface the whole section, merely for the fact I had added to the section. Going on years now, how many, WP:STALKING.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hounding means trying to mess with someone just to be a asshole to them. It does NOT mean watching edits to ensure we present articles following WP:P&G. So if you want to complain at ANI, by all means, that's what you should do. You'll need diffs that show me following you for asshole purposes.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I searched the web without success for evidence to support the line added by Boundarylayer, who has a track record in selective quotations to support assertions that say the reverse of what the source says.

Robert Solow from MIT argued that prediction in The Limits to Growth was based on a weak foundation of data.

In the circumstances, I think it too close to a WP:BLP violation to assert that somebody said something unless it can be supported by citation, so I have deleted it for now. It may be in

• Solow, Robert M. (1973). "Is the End of the World at Hand?". Challenge. 16 (1): 39–50. doi:10.1080/05775132.1973.11469961. JSTOR 40719094.

, which I will review later. If it is there, I will restore the statement with supporting citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

A good approach, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've searched that paper, which I suspect is the only creditable source and not found the words claimed.

• What he did say (and it is a more rational criticism) is "The most glaring defect in the Forrester-Meadows models is the absence of any functioning price system. ... There are several ways that the working of the price system will push our society into faster and more systematic increases in the productivity of natural resources."^: 46. [IMO, he has failed to allow for lag effect. By the time the price goes up, the damage is already done.]
• He also considers dubious the F-M assumption that families will get bigger as they get more affluent^: 48 (and, given access to contraception, this exactly what does not happen – indeed the reverse. New young families in the countries with historically high fertility (e.g., Nigeria) have ≤ 2 children BUT there is a huge lag effect: the world's population is set to get a lot bigger before it reverses, let alone returns to sustainable levels. In the meantime, access to fresh water and inundation of coastal cities and fertile coastal plains may mean that the question is moot. IMO of course, not his.)
• Finally he concludes that his criticism of the "Doomsday School" is "that it diverts attention from the really important things that can actually be done, step by step, to make things better."^: 50 Again IMO, there is little evidence that anything of significance having changed in the subsequent 30 years – either to stop everything before its too late or to work hard on mitigation. It is only in the past ten years that anything has been done (in a very few countries) to introduce emissions trading or carbon tax: the two big emitters [US and China] have done nothing [California partially excepted]. The Internation Panel on Climate Change says that it is already too late to avoid serious effects and that strong action now is needed just to avoid catastrophe.

So back to the question at hand: do we have any evidence that Solow used the words in question? No, so we can't in good faith say he did, while that remains the case. Should it be replaced by something he did say? Well his paper is cited in the very first sentence of criticism and it not obvious to me at least that we should cherry-pick quotes from it. Other opinions welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article gives the impression that The Limits to Growth is now uncontroversially considered accurate, by only listing criticism from the 70/80s and then listing a bunch of more recent praise for the book. But from what I've seen it's still a very controversial topic. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well let's see your wp:reliable sources then. The article has a "Criticism" section ready and waiting. Go ahead, make our day.

For everyone else, Climate change and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides the evidence that, although TLtG got many of the detailed mechanisms wrong, the current climate trajectory is remarkably close to the predictions it made 50 years ago. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea why you think the IPCC is relevant. I suggest you read up on the debates on such matters as "degrowth" and "neo-Malthusianism" and realise that the subject matter of The Limits to Growth is still highly controversial.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

"still highly controversial" - have you found a scientific source that says so? Yes, I know that there are climate change denialists who believe that it is "woke nonsense" but do you have any evidence-based critics? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's the Google Scholar search for Neo-Malthusianism, knock yourself out. I think you will find that the "woke" thing to do is to strongly dislike people like Paul Ehrlich.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

You tagged it, so the WP:burden is on you to make good the deficiency you perceive, by adding a balancing narrative supported by reliable sources. Otherwise it is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the tag gets removed.

Just to help you get started, I tried your search of Google Books, refined so that it addresses this specific question: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=neo-Malthusianism+%22limits+to+growth%22&btnG=

The first books it found were

• Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; Helga Zepp-LaRouche (2015). There Are No Limits To Growth. The publisher's blurb reads It is not necessary to let millions of babies die or to murder your own aunt in order to save the trees! Lyndon LaRouche refutes the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth hoax and shows that human creativity expressed as continuous scientific and technological progress is the single prerequisite to both secure the future of humanity and to spread the principle of life through more and more of the Universe. Oh, wait, LaRouche is a convicted fraudster and conspiracy theorist, so that's a guaranteed WP:RS failure
• Mehta, Lyla, ed. (2013). The Limits to Scarcity | Contesting the Politics of Allocation. Taylor & Francis. The publisher's blurb reads Scarcity is considered a ubiquitous feature of the human condition. It underpins much of modern economics and is widely used as an explanation for social organisation, social conflict and the resource crunch confronting humanity's survival on the planet. It is made out to be an all-pervasive fact of our lives - be it of housing, food, water or oil. But has the conception of scarcity been politicized, naturalized, and universalized in academic and policy debates? Has overhasty recourse to scarcity evoked a standard set of market, institutional and technological solutions which have blocked out political contestations, overlooking access as a legitimate focus for academic debates as well as policies and interventions? Theoretical and empirical chapters by leading academics and scholar-act... The preface is visible on Google Books so surely there is something in there you can use?

Either way, the ball is in your court. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

You claim you searched on Google Books but provide a link to Google Scholar, which gives completely different results to the ones you post, including:

• ‘Green’ Malthus? A Bibliographical Itinerary between neo-Malthusianism and Environmentalism
• Julian Simon and the “Limits to Growth” Neo-Malthusianism
• “THE POPULATION QUESTION” IN DEGROWTH AND POST-DEVELOPMENT
• Malthus’s specter and the anthropocene
• Population control, public health, and development in mid twentieth century Latin America
• Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism, Social Mechanics, and Labor Discipline
• Waste in the Limits to Capital: How Capitalism Lays Waste to the Web of Life, and Why It Can’t StopWeb of Life, and Why It Can’t Stop

These all make critical comments on The Limits to Growth, from a large variety of angles, perspectives, and political views. I also suggest you look at some of the other articles I've placed POV tags on if you think I'm some sort of climate denialist.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, I claim nothing of the sort. What I said was that it shows that the material is there for you to write the balancing material. Drive-by tagging contributes nothing. If you aren't prepared to do the work, then don't complain when the tag is deleted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is a ridiculous attitude. You are essentially claiming that the POV tag is useless.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am just making a passing comment as I do not have scholarly sources available, but I have in all of my *many* years lurking on WP never seen a "validation" section, which is not made better when almost all of the validation comes from authors either directly related to or with an indirect connection to the group that commissioned the study/book in the first place!

The debate on Herrington above? Has been rendered entirely moot by time as she is now a full member of the Club of Rome. Ugo Bardi? Is now a full member as well. Mr Graham Turner in Melbourne is the only paper author cited in the "validation" section without any discoverable links, however he has largely ceased publishing and his last paper on this topic from 2014 has really not stood the test of time well as it is very focused on the implications of peak oil (which is what he contends is the core of what LTG got right).. which as the pages on that topic have talked about has been heavily blindsided by unconventional oil sources and a rather successful ongoing fossil fuel phase out.

As I said, I don't have scholarly criticism handy, but the validation section is utterly full of people who ended up joining the CoR and the independent guy's papers haven't stood the test of time in any way. I regret not having quality sources to cite to add to criticism, but the "validation" isn't so valid anymore. -- LTSarcasm (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the six months since the POV tag was attached,there has been very little to substantiate the accusation by the tag poster that "The article gives the impression that The Limits to Growth is now uncontroversially considered accurate". I would suggest that the tag should be removed. DaveApter (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have removed it now. DaveApter (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply