Models of Doom, by an
interdisciplinary team at Sussex University Science Policy Research
Unit, examines the structure and assumptions of the MIT world models and a preliminary
draft of Meadows technical reports. Based on computer runs, it shows that forecasts
of the worldÕs
future are very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggests that the MIT assumptions are unduly pessimistic. Further, the Sussex
scientists claim that the MIT methods, data, and
predictions are faulty, that their world models - with their built-in Malthusian bias - do not accurately reflect reality.
The second part of the book assesses the
models and their assumptions in the context of historical forecasts about economics (including those of Malthus and Keynes), population,
the environment, and technology. Here the
Sussex scientists criticize the MIT approach for its lack of concern with politics, social structure, and human needs
and aspirations. They assert that changing social
values, not a part of the MIT computer input, can significantly affect the exponential growth of the worldÕs physical properties. Nevertheless, they agree with Forrester and Meadows about the urgency
of the challenge and believe that dealing
with foreseeable physical limits and disturbing the fruits of growth equitably will require radical political and social,
as well as technological, changes. Claiming that
the Sussex critics have applied Òmicro reasoning to macro problems,Ó the authors of The Limits to Growth, in Ò Response to Sussex,Ó describe and analyze five major areas of disagreement between
themselves and the Sussex authors.