Once again about "The Limits to Growth"  (in Russian)

Jørgen Nørgaard; Natalia P. Tarasova; D. I. Mustafin

Once again about "The Limits to Growth" (in Russian)

Jørgen Nørgaard, Natalia P. Tarasova, D. I. Mustafin

Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

83 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The paper analyses the critics of the pioneering and best selling report "The Limits to Growth" from 1972 by D. Meadows et.al., which outlined future global development options, with respect to population, resource depletion, food production, pollution, etc. In the paper is observed that nothing that we know today implies that the report was in any sense fundamentally wrong. A cohort of critics at the time, it can be said, was seriously in error when they managed to derail the debate by rejecting the report’s conclusions, and a lot of the critique was not related to the content of the report. Actually the report seems to be surprisingly right in its agregated analyses of future options, and in the present recognition of climtate change it would be wise to learn from the report and its updating version.

Original language	Russian
Journal	Chemistry in the Interest of Sustainable Development
Volume	17
Pages (from-to)	333-338
Publication status	Published - 2009

Keywords

Environment
Limits to Growth
Futurology
Economics

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

Russian, 2009, Once againFinal published version, 536 KB

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{cde7ad2d35dd47fb9e3edf4799eebabb,

title = "Once again about {"}The Limits to Growth{"} (in Russian)",

abstract = "The paper analyses the critics of the pioneering and best selling report {"}The Limits to Growth{"} from 1972 by D. Meadows et.al., which outlined future global development options, with respect to population, resource depletion, food production, pollution, etc. In the paper is observed that nothing that we know today implies that the report was in any sense fundamentally wrong. A cohort of critics at the time, it can be said, was seriously in error when they managed to derail the debate by rejecting the report{\textquoteright}s conclusions, and a lot of the critique was not related to the content of the report. Actually the report seems to be surprisingly right in its agregated analyses of future options, and in the present recognition of climtate change it would be wise to learn from the report and its updating version.",

keywords = "Environment, Limits to Growth, Futurology, Economics",

author = "J{\o}rgen N{\o}rgaard and Tarasova, {Natalia P.} and Mustafin, {D. I.}",

year = "2009",

language = "Russisk",

volume = "17",

pages = "333--338",

journal = "Chemistry in the Interest of Sustainable Development",

publisher = "Russian Academy of Science, RAS",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Once again about "The Limits to Growth" (in Russian)

AU - Nørgaard, Jørgen

AU - Tarasova, Natalia P.

AU - Mustafin, D. I.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - The paper analyses the critics of the pioneering and best selling report "The Limits to Growth" from 1972 by D. Meadows et.al., which outlined future global development options, with respect to population, resource depletion, food production, pollution, etc. In the paper is observed that nothing that we know today implies that the report was in any sense fundamentally wrong. A cohort of critics at the time, it can be said, was seriously in error when they managed to derail the debate by rejecting the report’s conclusions, and a lot of the critique was not related to the content of the report. Actually the report seems to be surprisingly right in its agregated analyses of future options, and in the present recognition of climtate change it would be wise to learn from the report and its updating version.

AB - The paper analyses the critics of the pioneering and best selling report "The Limits to Growth" from 1972 by D. Meadows et.al., which outlined future global development options, with respect to population, resource depletion, food production, pollution, etc. In the paper is observed that nothing that we know today implies that the report was in any sense fundamentally wrong. A cohort of critics at the time, it can be said, was seriously in error when they managed to derail the debate by rejecting the report’s conclusions, and a lot of the critique was not related to the content of the report. Actually the report seems to be surprisingly right in its agregated analyses of future options, and in the present recognition of climtate change it would be wise to learn from the report and its updating version.

KW - Environment

KW - Limits to Growth

KW - Futurology

KW - Economics

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

VL - 17

SP - 333

EP - 338

JO - Chemistry in the Interest of Sustainable Development

JF - Chemistry in the Interest of Sustainable Development

ER -