>>10969607Neat. Shows how poor we can predict these things. Only thing that ended up being consistent is population size, but only because the errors in births and deaths happen to cancel each other out. Also note how almost all of the deviations are in a positive way.
>more resources>less pollution>more food per capita>more services per capita>lower death ratesOnly negative development are industrial output, which I guess correlates with lower emissions so not that bad, and birth rate not being as high as expected, but at least death rates are proportionally even better so who gives a shit.
Not sure how these people got their results but it seems like it was a bunch of pessimistic bullshit, but I guess doomsday prophets have been around for a while... Makes me a bit comfortable that we can tackle our currently predicted catastrophes as well.
