Society is right on track for a global collapse, new study of infamous 1970s report finds
As echoes of a 1970s report resurface, the specter of a global societal collapse looms large. A recent study delves into this ominous prediction, exploring its validity in our current context. Brace yourself for a journey into the potential future of our world.
Human society is on track for a collapse in the next two decades if there isn’t a serious shift in global priorities
In 1972, a team of MIT scientists argued that industrial civilization was bound to collapse if corporations and governments continued to pursue continuous economic growth, no matter the costs
- The report’s most infamous scenario predicted that the world’s economic growth would peak around the 2040s, then take a sharp downturn, along with the global population, food availability and natural resources
- It’s not too late to avoid both of these scenarios
- Gaya Herrington, a sustainability and dynamic system analysis researcher at the consulting firm KPMG, decided to find out
- Herrington found that the current state of the world – measured through 10 different variables, including population, fertility rates, pollution levels, food production and industrial output – aligned extremely closely with two of the scenarios proposed in 1972
- One is the Business as Usual (BAU) scenario, while the other is Comprehensive Technology (CT), in which technological advancements help reduce pollution and increase food supplies, even as natural resources run out
Humans can still change course
The rapid development and deployment of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic is a testament to human ingenuity in the face of global crises.
- It’s entirely possible, Herrington said, for humans to respond similarly to the ongoing climate crisis – if we make a deliberate, society-wide choice to do so.
Brandon Specktor:
He grew up in the Sonoran Desert, but believes Sonoran hot dogs are trying way too hard.
- Read more about the report at Vice.com, and follow Brandon on Twitter at @BrandonSpecktor
- The author also writes for Live Science and Reader’s Digest, and previously served as an editor for five years