Scott Alexander criticizes a Guardian article's flawed reasoning in claiming 'Limits to Growth' accurately predicts economic collapse, comparing it to the philosophical 'grue-bleen induction problem'.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander critiques a Guardian article claiming that the 1972 book 'Limits to Growth' accurately predicted economic collapse. He argues that the article's reasoning is flawed, comparing it to the philosophical 'grue-bleen induction problem'. Scott demonstrates how easy it is to make accurate predictions about the past and present, but how this doesn't necessarily translate to accurate future predictions. He uses humorous examples like a fictional book 'No Limits To Bears' and creates alternative models for the data presented. The post concludes that while economic collapse might still happen, the Guardian's argument for it is not scientifically sound.
Shorter summary