Those graphs come not from the 1972 model runs but from revisiting the models on the 40th year anniversary. Sadly it’s paywalled but they accompany this article in New Scientist.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328462-100-boom-and-doom-revisiting-prophecies-of-collapse/
LtoG is just one attempt at modelling the future that is a bit more comprehensive than the sound bites about exponential growth in TFA. Would you like to suggest some other one? How about this, the UN’s 2015 Revision of World Population Prospects http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/
What bothers me is the anti-pattern of green washing displayed here with successive layers of simplification. Cory summarizes a post in Nature found via a blog. The post in Nature tries to summarise a couple of research papers. The research papers turn out to be post-doctorate meta-analysis of some UN analysis. That turns out to be some real statistics with lots of error bars and describes several possible future scenarios. So what might have been some interesting descriptions of possible futures gets turned into “Doom cancelled. Population growth not exponential. Say scientists”. Well that’s all right then. We can all go back to business as usual. Oh Look, there’s a banana. Just look at it.
Mankind is so fucked. Unfortunately that means you and me as well as them.
