In 2019, Pierre Charbonnier wrote an article for the French magazine Revue du Crieur about an emerging trend called foldology. "Theories about the impending collapse of industrial civilization are popular," he wrote in an article entitled "The Brilliance and Dirty of Collapse Studies." 

A year before COVID-19 changed humanity’s view of the world and its future, Charbonnier tried to evaluate the merits of collapsibility theory, focusing on the motivations of its promoters. He accurately identified the market for the increasingly popular literary genre, and pointed out that "fear is an obvious political emotion. The production of apocalyptic scenarios activates our belief system, our attitude towards the future, and our perception of good and evil. A deep level." These are obviously the secrets to making bestsellers.

In other words, it makes good business sense to predict a catastrophic global collapse. Charbonnier accused avalanche scientists of hoping to "restore" the "enthusiasm and submission" associated with the "millennial warning" in history. He called the contributors a "community of believers," but still distinguished these fanatics from serious anthropologists (such as Jared Diamond) or philosophers (such as Walter Benjamin), who are thinkers of reason and reasoning , They use scientific terms to describe the process of civilization's decline.

Obviously, Charbonnier does not believe that the collapse is imminent, which does not necessarily mean that he insists on Steven Pinker's optimistic style. Charbonnier wrote his article in 2019 as his contribution to the active debate in French intellectual circles at the time. After a never-ending pandemic, will he make the same judgment today?

Fast forward to 2021. Gaya Herrington, a researcher at KPMG, described herself as a “system thinker with a background in econometrics” on LinkedIn. She decided to study a study conducted by a research team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1972. She delved into its findings and updated it with modern tools.

This MIT study was published as a book titled "The Limits of Growth." It became a bestseller. This means that every politician and every CEO must at least understand the results of their investigations. The research is based on a number of complex simulations achieved by the computing power of the period, trying to determine whether the current trends in the economy are sustainable. After testing many variables, it came to the conclusion that even in the most optimistic scenario, technological progress is predictable, unless some measures are taken to correct deeper trends, the most likely scenario is 2040 Systematic breakdown.

Herrington tested the same trends that have occurred since 1972. She found that because the world chose to stick to the “business as usual” (BAU) scenario described by the research institute, the worst outcome of the collapse, even before 2040, is still the most likely. It may even come earlier than expected.

According to Herrington's work, Richard Threlfall, the global head of KPMG IMPACT, said that he hopes that every decision maker who plays a role in the current economy will take this case seriously. "The world has only 10 years," he wrote, "cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half and treating the issue as a business risk is the first step to play an active role in responding to this common survival challenge. "He really imagined that if economic participants viewed the collapse as a "business risk," would they take immediate action?

Today's Daily Devil Dictionary Definition:

KPMG’s role in the economy is equivalent to providing advice rather than making decisions. "Promote purposeful business behavior and good corporate citizenship" is one of the company's mottos. But consultants and consultants don't drive; they provide maps at best, and drivers may or may not read them if they have time. Drivers have nearly 50 years to learn from the "limits of growth" lesson, Herrington pointed out in her update that no major measures have been taken. There is a systemic reason for this, and it has nothing to do with the lack of good advice.

Threlfall correctly views the imminent collapse as a "common, existing challenge." This is a threat to everyone's survival. In most cases, the perception of threats requires action, and this situation requires "joint" action. But in a consumer society related to free markets and competitive capitalism, threats are everywhere. The most direct threat that people are accustomed to seeing comes from the competition itself. The core driving force of this spirit is to gain an advantage in the competition, compete for market share, and then defend one's position. People learn the art of "courage" in schools to successfully accomplish these things as independent economic participants rather than as collective partners.

In a consumer society, sharing is seen as a sign of weakness. Everything in the environment is regarded as a purchaseable object or threat. Most things can do both. This is the key to competitiveness. Treating things as threats inspires enterprising people to overcome and defeat the threat. For prosperous companies, the easiest way to succeed is to buy threats, thereby enhancing their ability to threaten others. The standard technology for any company that can raise cash is not to invest in research and development, but to buy competitors. This is why Facebook acquired WhatsApp. This is the fastest and easiest way to monopolize. Will KPMG provide different advice to Facebook?

Gaya Herrington compared the results of MIT's research with the history of economic development over the past half century. “Given that the prospect of a crash is not attractive,” she explained, “I’d like to know which scenarios fit best with today’s empirical data. After all, books featuring this world model were best sellers in the 1970s, and now we have With decades of empirical data, comparisons can be made. But to my surprise, I can’t find any recent attempts.”

Should she be surprised? Some people may find that her surprise is the most surprising aspect of this question, especially from "system thinkers." KPMG itself is part of the system, which encourages everyone-including KPMG accountants-to focus on local threats rather than "shared, existing" threats.

However, her findings are important. Her curiosity deserves our admiration. After studying the dominant trends since 1972, Herrington came up with this insight: "The two closest scenarios indicate that growth will stop in the next ten years or so. This makes people feel that continued growth is the goal of humanity in the 21st century. Usability is questioned." Now, this is a good system observation. She pointed out that the history she studied "shows that it is almost too late for society to change direction, but it is not too late."

Herrington regards the concept of "continuous growth" as the culprit. This suggests that economic success may appear in other areas than growth. But today, everyone with real economic or political power continues to insist on growth as the only key to success. The Guardian calmly pointed out that “despite loud warnings that sustained economic growth is incompatible with sustainability, the government largely wants the economy to return to normal growth.” This is what they are taught to do. This is what voters expect. Although they may sometimes express their opinions verbally, from a philosophical point of view, the government and financial gurus are unwilling to spend their energy on coping with "common, existing challenges."

Herrington explained to The Guardian with consolation, “We can still choose to be consistent with the scenario that will not end in collapse. With business innovation and new developments in government and civil society, the continuous update of the model creates a better environment for us. The challenges and opportunities of a sustainable world provide another perspective."

The two key words in Herrington's suggestion may cloud her optimism. She cited "innovation", but we already have a lot of innovation, and it seems to be heading in the wrong direction, focusing on growth. She wants to "update" the model she has completed, but does she really believe that any political decision maker will follow suit?

"Good deeds can still bring profits," she said comfortingly, but as Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and others have demonstrated, in the real world, doing bad things will continue to produce greater Profit.

*[During the time of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American genius, journalist Ambrose Bierce (Ambrose Bierce) made a series of ironic definitions of commonly used terms, revealing their hidden in actual discourse meaning. Bills eventually collected them and published them as a book in 1911, the "Devil's Dictionary". We shamelessly misappropriated his title to continue his useful teaching efforts to inspire generations of news readers. Read more "Daily Demon Dictionary" on Fair Observer. ]

The views expressed in this article are the author's own views and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer's editorial policies.

For more than ten years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a non-profit organization supported by readers. Unlike many other publications, we provide readers with content for free, no matter where they live or whether they can afford it. We don’t have a paywall and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers, and filter bubbles, we publish multiple opinions from all over the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a strict editing process. Therefore, you will get fact-checked and well-reasoned content, not noise.

We released more than 2,500 voices from more than 90 countries. We also carry out education and training programs in subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. It's not cheap. Servers, editors, trainers, and web developers all need to spend money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a regular donor or maintenance member.

You must be logged in to leave a comment.

New to Fair Observer? Register now

If you have any questions, work inquiries or anything else, please feel free to contact us using this form.