http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html

"A renowned Australian research scientist says a study from researchers at MIT claiming the world could suffer from a "global economic collapse" and "precipitous population decline" if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace is still on track, nearly 40 years after it was first produced.

The Smithsonian Magazine writes that Australian physicist Graham Turner says "the world is on track for disaster" and that current research from Turner coincides with a famous, and in some quarters, infamous, academic report from 1972 entitled, "The Limits to Growth." Turner's research is not affiliated with MIT or The Club for Rome.

Produced for a group called The Club of Rome, the study's researchers created a computing model to forecast different scenarios based on the current models of population growth and global resource consumption. The study also took into account different levels of agricultural productivity, birth control and environmental protection efforts. Twelve million copies of the report were produced and distributed in 37 different languages.

Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without "drastic measures for environmental protection," the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.

However, the study said "unlimited economic growth" is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.

The Smithsonian notes that several experts strongly objected to "The Limit of Growth's" findings, including the late Yale economist Henry Wallich, who for 12 years served as a governor of the Federal Research Board and was its chief international economics expert. At the time, Wallich said attempting to regulate economic growth would be equal to "consigning billions to permanent poverty."

Turner says that perhaps the most startling find from the study is that the results of the computer scenarios were nearly identical to those predicted in similar computer scenarios used as the basis for "The Limits to Growth."

"There is a very clear warning bell being rung here," Turner said. "We are not on a sustainable trajectory."

Correction: This post has been edited to reflect that MIT has not updated its research from the original 1972 study....."

Paul Hawken's "Ecology of commerce" is also a good read if you're into books. Produced in 1993 but basically talks about the costs of things as including all the extraction, transport, manufacture, distribution - but that we don't factor in disposal or impact on environment, in other words it's a "cost" that's ignored or essentially, paid by the population at large. Some car manufacturers say they are building in recycling, and that's a start or a blatant bit of propaganda, depending on your level of cynicism.

I think if you have enough people doing little things, that can also have a really big impact: for example, improving the stuff they already have (like making the GH2 better rather than rushing off to buy the next big thing with all its accessories) or creating your own stuff at home (food, music, things to use) rather than buying it. The only problem is whether it's enough to save us in time. This sort of original creative behaviour can be hugely satisfying to us, but doesn't make the corporate fatcats very happy, of course, so that adds to the political pressure in favour of consuming. And it's not as exciting as buying shiny new stuff - which is often cynically manufactured to last only long enough to be fashionable.

In my web shop we use all the packaging that comes into the house and re-make it and send our goods out in it. Not one person has ever complained about the fact we don't use new packaging - and it saves money because we don't have to buy new packaging, we don't have to pay to have the old stuff disposed of, and we don't have to add the cost of packaging into the prices we charge. But that's a tiny thing - I'm just saying that's what we do, not that it's saving the planet or anything. At best, each cardboard box gets several lives if rather than being disposed of when we receive stock, we remake that box into lots of smaller ones and send them back out to customers.

But we're not a "big business" and I'm not sure recycling packaging makes that much difference to the bigger picture, or is even acceptable at the moment to consumers who are buying from the big companies. I'm just using it as one example of how you could rethink what you do. I think the really big issue is how - or whether - we're prepared to accept that shiny new stuff (while great fun) also comes at a huge price.

Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here? Plastic… asshole” (C) GC

He was so right...