Je comprends donc que tu n'as pas lu le rapport du club de Rome ou le livre mis a jour 40 ans plus tard "Limits of growth"
Le problème, ca n'est pas de savoir qui a lu quoi, le problème c'est de savoir si la théorie exposée par the limits to growth est soutenue par les faits.
D'autres personnes beaucoup plus compétentes que moi l'ont fait et le résultat est sans appel. Je cite Wikipedia :
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Limits_to_Growth"The Limits to Growth was ridiculed as early as the 1970s."
L'article que j'ai posté montre bien les incohérences du livre et de la théorie.
L'essentiel des prédictions faites se sont révélées fausses. Les faits sont là même si le raisonnement peut plaire.
Quelques exemples:
"Their conclusion was that before 2012, the world would run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc -- 12 of the 19 substances they looked at. They were simply and spectacularly wrong.
They singled out mercury, claiming that its known global reserves in 1970 would last for only 13 years of exponential growth in demand, or 41 years if the reserves magically quintupled. They noted that "the prices of those resources with the shortest static reserve indices have already begun to increase. The price of mercury, for example, has gone up 500 percent in the last 20 years." Since then, however, technological innovations have led to the replacement of mercury in batteries, dental fillings, and thermometers. Mercury consumption has collapsed by 98 percent, and by 2000, the price had dropped by 90 percent.
They predicted that gold might run out as early as 1979 and would certainly do so by 1999, based on estimations of 10,980 tons of known reserves in 1970. In the subsequent 40 years, however, 81,410 tons of gold have been mined, and gold reserves are now estimated to be 51,000 tons."