I'm sure by now the majority of you have read and contemplated the article Gaya Herrington published in Yale's Journal of Industrial Ecology in November of last year.
I, however, am only just now getting my hooves on this fascinating and provocative piece of research, largely because I have a tendency of disappearing myself into the wilderness for months at a time.
Such is the life of a mountain goat, I guess.
But already I digress.
Update to limits to growth: Comparing the world3 model with empirical data reevaluates the findings of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's famous 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, which warned of global economic, social, and environmental collapse in the 21st century if humanity did nothing to curb and control its high-output, "business-as-usual" approach to industrial growth.
Herrington's Update upholds the MIT team's original findings, confirming that collapse is likely—and impending—unless major, immediate shifts in human output are made.
Put more politely:
The two scenarios aligning most closely with observed data indicate a halt in welfare, food, and industrial production over the next decade or so, which puts into question the suitability of continuous economic growth as humanity’s goal in the twenty-first century.
To arrive at this conclusion, Herrington relies on a trove of new empirical data made available since the original report.
These data span 10 crucial variables—population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial output, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human welfare, and ecological footprint.
Herrington also refers extensively to other publications that followed Limits to Growth. Of course I'm talking about the two subsequent MIT reports (Beyond the Limits, 1992, and Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, 2004), as well as research by Graham Turner from Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which most of us by now have undoubtedly all but committed to memory.
Now, I don't want to get too distracted in the details of Herrington's research, as admirable and commendable as it all is.
I mustn't forget that I'm merely another mountain goat, and this is merely another opinion essay.
So let me just get to my point:
Humanity should have good reason for serious concern right about now.
Note that I say should.
I say should, because I've watched humanity from the forests, and from the mountaintops, and from the valleys, for long enough now to know that they will not take corrective action.
It's been decades since the initial warning, with numerous subsequent studies all reaffirming the original reported risk—and still the human race charges recklessly forward with hardly an attempt to slow their course, much less reverse it.
And now, as recently as last fall, they've been warned one more time.
I am but a humble mountain goat in a big, wild world teeming with creatures great and small.
Yet I think all creatures, save one species in particular, will agree with me when I say I find Herrington's new research to be quite encouraging and optimistic.
This is exactly the sort of research we want to see, for it gives us hope that humanity is soon to be running out of hope.
I say, let humanity drive itself right into that collapse.
Let it push itself straight to the breaking point.
And let it grow, until by its very growth it ushers in its own apocalypse.
I will be watching, as I always am.
Watching and waiting, for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to witness the downfall of human society.
Would you like to watch and wait with me?
