Industrial civilization headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

[truebrit71]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

VERY interesting read...the parallels between past civilizations and today are stark to say the least...

[daleanime]

1. Kick....

[kristopher]

2. There is a huge red flag in that blog post at the Guardian

What is the name of the study? I reviewed the websites of several of the parties involved and can not find any information on the study being discussed.

It has been my experience that almost without exception, professional bloggers that omit information allowing easy access to the original study are spinning a load of crap. If this is an exception, I'll be happy to withdraw the criticism, but as it stands, the blog post should be regarded as worthless blather, IMO.

[truebrit71]

3. I googled the same and found a link to a report by one of the author's...

http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/handy-paper-for-submission-2.pdf

This was found an a Dailymail link about the Guardian story.

I believe this is the basis to the article.

[kristopher]

4. And would you say the blogger is making a valid presentation of the research?

Or is he using it as a basis for sensationalistic BS?

A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction

Abstract
There are widespread concerns that current trends in population and resource-use are unsustainable, but the possibilities of an overshoot and collapse remain unclear and contro- versial. Collapses have occurred frequently in the past five thousand years, and are often followed by centuries of economic, intellectual, and population decline. Many different nat- ural and social phenomena have been invoked to explain specific collapses, but a general explanation remains elusive. Two important features seem to appear across societies that have collapsed: (1) Ecological Strain and (2) Economic Stratification.
In this paper, the structure of a new model and several simulated scenarios that offer significant implications are explained. The model has just four equations that describe the evolution of the populations of Elites and Commoners, Nature, and accumulated Wealth. Mechanisms leading to collapse are discussed and the measure “Carrying Capacity” is devel- oped and defined. The model suggests that the estimation of Carrying Capacity is a practical means for early detection of a collapse. Collapse can be avoided, and population can reach a steady state at the maximum carrying capacity, if the rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed equitably.


<snip>

In this paper we attempt to model collapse mathematically in a more general way. We propose a simple model, not intended to describe actual individual cases, but rather to provide a general framework that allows carrying out “thought experiments” for the phenomenon of collapse and to test changes that would avoid it. ...

That's the study's tone.

Here is the headline:

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

[truebrit71]

6. I couldn't say, not having seen all of the source material the blogger is referencing...

...not just this one paper...although he is certainly on the right trail with his conclusion..

[kristopher]

7. He's using nasa's credibility to peddle horsehocky

The paper is not a basis for the headline or the conclusions of the sensationalistic article. That's why he made it difficult to find. Anyone who is actually doing valid reporting on the contents of a study accurately ensures the reader's access to the material, they don't hide it.

The OP is garbage on that basis alone.

[truebrit71]

10. I see...

..didn't realize you were the arbiter of "the truth"...

[GliderGuider]

5. I notice that paper is from 2012.

The one the article is based on hasn't been published (by the peer-reviewed journal "Ecological Economics&quot yet - presumably Nafeez Ahmed saw an advance copy, which is why there is no link.

I also note that the paper apparently mentions the rebound effect in reference to efficiency and why it doesn't slow down growth.

"Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."

Presumably those bloggers on this board who are better informed than NASA scientists will be writing a correction to the journal.

[kristopher]

8. The one the article is based on is a different one?

Then why is the para you cite a direct quote from the 2012 paper?

As to what is said about it in the paper:

Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource of extraction, such that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use. These are associated with the phenomena referred to as the Jevon’s Paradox, and the “Rebound Effect” [Polimeni et al., 2008; Greening et al., 2000]. For example, an increase in vehicle fuel- efficiency technology tends to enable increased per capita vehicle miles driven, heavier cars, and higher average speeds, which then negate the gains from the increased fuel-efficiency. The extent of these effects varies, but in this initial model, we assume that the effects of these trends tend to cancel each other out. In future versions, the rates of these trends could be adjusted in either direction.

So they bring it up as an (invalid) excuse to simplify their modeling through the elimination of the effects of energy efficiency. i say invalid because we know conclusively that the forces in the example they use don't come close to canceling each other out. Neither do those forces act differently writ large.

[GliderGuider]

9. No way to tell if it is or isn't the same one.

The pdf paper was dated 16 months ago and we have no reference to the as-yet-unpublished paper, so we can't tell.

About the rebound, I'm sure you'll write the journal a stern correction when it's published. Frankly, I'm surprised you weren't on the review panel. Knowing everything there is to know about energy and economics ought to be worth something. There just ain't no justice in the world!

[bananas]

11. Keith Cowing at nasawatch.com asked NASA PAO for a copy of the paper - same one.

NASA PAO sent him the same link: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/handy-paper-for-submission-2.pdf

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/03/its-the-end-of.html

It's The End Of The World As We Know It (Update)
By Keith Cowing on March 17, 2014 9:18 PM. 16 Comments

NASA-Backed Study Says Humanity Is Pretty Much Screwed, Gizmodo

"Hope you've enjoyed civilized life, folks. Because a new study sponsored by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center says the world's industrial societies are poised to collapse under the weight of their own unsustainable appetites for resources. There goes the weekend . . . and everything after it for the rest of our lives."

Keith's note: I have asked NASA PAO for a copy of this report.

A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction (PDF) as submitted.

"This work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC grant NNX12AD03A, known as "Col- laborative Earth System Science Research Between NASA/GSFC and UMCP" ... Even in the absence of economic stratification, collapse can still occur if depletion per capita is too high. However, collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."

Keith's update: It is rather baffling in the 21st Century for NASA to be funding research on the future of civilization that does not include extraterrestrial resources as part of the equation - at the same time that the agency wants to go grab an asteroid. The authors have their heads in the sand as they totally ignore the fact that Earth sits amidst vast resources outside of its biosphere. This is rehashed 1960s Club of Rome defeatist thinking all over again. I wonder how much money NASA wasted on this. I'll ask.

[GliderGuider]

12. Thanks.

[GliderGuider]

13. kristopher, you may be interested in this follow-up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112766699