As I discussed in the previous entry, a recent Guardian blog post (structured loosely as a news article) made worldwide headlines. It was trumpeted by the Guardian blogger as an “exclusive”; he was given a copy of a paper soon to be published in the journal Ecological Economics. Because he didn’t provide any context for the paper (the authors were not interviewed, nor were any independent experts), I thought I’d jump into this vacuum.
Let’s start with the first paragraph of the study’s abstr
The article provides a lot of useful skepticism, including the fact that just what a collapse is was not defined.
As one of the critics stated, it is the Limits to Growth all over again.
There will have to be a lot more work before this is even close to being generally accepted.
And, it can all be brought down in a short time if access to space changes the resources shortage. NASA is planning on retrieving asteroids, which wii=ll change everything.