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.