Talk:2050s

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2050s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331050553/http://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20%2707-goldmansachs.pdf to http://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20%2707-goldmansachs.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any source to confirm what was said there? It is retrieved twelve years ago yet there's no concrete tracing of this person or the book itself. Searching up the book's title directly yields no result. 58.160.88.152 (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Hopkins predicting full economic collapse by 2059 

message: "The world's oil supply could be depleted" is a very vague claim which doesn't even specify the probability this will happen. Why it might or might not happen in 2057 instead of 2047 or 2067 is very unclear.  Looking at peak oil and predicting the timing of peak oil shows that 2050 is actually at the far end of what some experts predict will be the peak production of oil, not anywhere close to being completely exhausted. These articles show that there is a long history of these predictions being incorrect, and also that there is a broad range of current predictions. The one prediction cited is from 2008, which is more than a decade old and is not informed by consumption history since then. The speed of consumption depends a lot on demand, which is currently being suppressed for an indeterminate period by a global pandemic, and by international greenhouse gas limitation treaties, which are highly dependent on politics and elections. Putting one prediction on a timeline I think does a disservice to readers, both in terms of giving undue weight to one prediction and in terms of reliability of that information. If we want to mention the topic at all, I think it would be better to link to one of those article where full context is available. -- Beland (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable prediction about fossil fuels 

message: This article is not representing the full range of estimates noted on Projections of population growth. That article also provides context on what factors affect population, including disease, resource limitations, war, and decreasing family size with increasing income. These estimates are not stable, and as the article notes have changed considerably since the 2000s. Picking one or two numbers puts undue weight on those figures, which given the history of inaccurate predictions, are unlikely to actually be met. Not to mention that the pandemic currently raging across the planet has pretty much invalidated all previous projections. I think it would be better to direct readers to that article for full context on these projections, and it will need updating. -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions about world population