Talk:Club of Rome

message: Under "Formation", it is stated that Aurelio Peccei was one of the inner group in 1993 - this has to be in error as he died in 1984.  Please correct.
Tony (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aurelio Peccei stated as being part of inner group in 1993 

message: After looking at the book The First Global Revolution, it appears to me that whoever cited it hadn't read it, and was getting their information from some "quote" website. Take a look at this sentence from the article:
:"According to the club's publications, the common enemy of humanity is man, so democracy may not be well suited to the tasks ahead. However, the threat of pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famine can be used to fulfill humanity's need for a common adversary."
:"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely, sacrilegious though this may sound. In its present form, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time. Few politicians in office are sufficiendy aware of the global nature of the problems facing them and little, if any, awareness of rhe interactions between the problems. Generally speaking, informed disucssion on the main political, economic and social issues take place on radio and television rather than in Parliament, to the detriment of the latter. The activities of political parties are so intensely focussed on election deadlines and party rivalries that they end up weakening the democracy they are supposed to serve This confrontational approach gives an impression that party needs come before national interest. Strategies and tactics seem more important than objectives and often a constituency is neglected as soon as it is gained. With the current mode of operation. Western democracies are seeing their formal role decline and public opinion drifting away from elected representatives. However, the crisis in the contemporary democratic system must not be allowed to serve as an excuse for rejecting democracy." page 71-72 (emphasis mine)
Similarly, there is this quote in the article:
:"In 1993, it published the The First Global Revolution. According to this book, "It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.""
:"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." page 75
I will rewrite these parts of the article.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in context, the gist is still that some arbitrary problem, real or concocted, can be designated the common enemy and this can be used to justify reorganizing the structure of government, or as Thomas Friedman puts it, we can be China for a day. In some places, the authors seem to be bemoaning this as a sad reality, but the "searching for a common enemy" passage appears to be celebrating it. Kauffner (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your personal interpretation. In my opinion you take those quotes out of context and add your own spin to it. This should be removed. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So the problem with it is just that I wrote it? Nothing specific? Kauffner (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Context Information 

message: I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing memetics category

message: There used to be criticism that the Club of Rome promotes two mutually contradictory theories, those of Peak Oil and Anthropogenic Global Warming. Peak Oilers say there isn't enough oil in the ground to produce the amount of global warming claimed will happen over the 21st century. The article now seems like a promo whitewash...97.94.189.111 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can safely say both those "theories" have been validated, right? There's been a lot of talk that peak oil was 2019, and AGW has followed the exact trajectory academia said it would back in the 90s. 20WattSphere (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I read somewhere (Lessing?) that Idries Shah was a founding member. Any further info on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.74.1 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Idries Shah's obituary in the Daily Telegraph mentioned this, but it appears to have been written by a Shah propagandist. One of Shah's students, Augy Hayter, writes in Factions and Fictions (p. 262): "To a certain extent, one can say that a good deal of the literature put out by Shah and friends under various pseudonyms was designed to act as a decoy. It occupied would-be students and opponents alike, and inflamed critics to quite amazing degree. A lot of it was fake: Shah knew perfectly well that he was not a founding member of the Club of Rome; he was a member for a short time and was politely asked to leave because he didn't turn up to meetings; but this mythology around Shah's public personage was  necessary in order to provide the dream-lie without which no truth can exist, because a student must always have a choice." There is no mention of Shah on the Club of Rome website:  --JN466 14:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Idries Shah

message: States that three original members and contributors to the COR, left in 1970 because the COR adopted a "mechanistic and elitist methodology for an extrapolated future." No reference is cited. The language sounds like the POV of a contributor to the article--unless a suitable citation is produced!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs) 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same glaringly POV bit. Removed as unreferenced POV but would be happy to see it return with a WP:RS source. --Lyncs (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 2

message: Hans-Peter Dürrs membership is at least documented here: . Gabriel Kielland (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: I agree with the above comments that this appears to be a whitewash. A bunch of smart people came up with the idea to work together to model the entire world.  The models were insufficient and underspecified.  This needs to be clearly addressed.  Also missing is the ideological tension between liberal thinkers (who these folks were) and others who have a more nuanced way of looking at the world (I didn't use the word intelligent in this context because it has absolutely nothing to do with my point).  Saying you understand something therefore you can model it - here, the entire world economy and its resource base - is a fallacy if you are are developing deterministic unverifiable model producing output / conclusions that are shaped by the model specification, data, structure and assumptions (and using a lot of statistical correlations that are unworthy of extrapolation out of sample) with goals to drive public opinion or personal notariaty. This is subject to many biases besides errors from mispecification of the model structure and assumptions.Bryanwobley (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is critical balance 

message: I have NEVER seen the use of crosses (a/k/a "daggers" U+2020)  to differentiate between living and dead individuals on any other WP article (and I've been editing here nearly nine years.)
Its use for indicating the "mortality" of non-Christian individuals is highly problematic and religiously offensive.
I'm going to be bold and remove them. -- Eliyahu S Talk 21:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crosses?!! 

message: It is generous calling this outfit a 'think tank' and it is a vague overused i.e., meaningless term in any case.  Is the author saying this group has the sort of competence found at Rand, SAIC, Cranfield, CNA, and some management / IT companies such as Deloitte.  The Limits of Growth brought a lot of attention not to speak of author income from book revenues, but it was based on very rudimentary and simplistic models and was profoundly wrong.Danleywolfe (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling The Club of Rome a 'think tank' is generous 

message: This section wasn't much to begin with and is of limited value as it was. If there are notable references in popular culture they should be explained why they are notable (imo). I took the liberty of removing the section. Greg G (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Club of Rome. 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/20130529205510/http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=324 to http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=324
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424221221/http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=1331 to http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=1331
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/confs/meadows_abstract_21_08_04.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907092333/http://clubofrome.org:80/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/CoR_Flyer_090605.pdf to http://clubofrome.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/CoR_Flyer_090605.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531074559/http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=375 to http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=375
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the field of "Civil Society"? I am not familiar with the term being used that way, or a field of study or profession thus described. My understanding is that "Civil Society" is either a state that certain types of society attain, or a multi-discipline approach to creating and maintaining such a state within society.108.241.122.20 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field of "Civil Society" 

message: Here's a new article that may be of interest: Club of Rome: Looking to Africa for solutions to climate collapse. Esowteric+Talk 18:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club of Rome: looking to Africa (2019) 

message: The article refers to "the Meadows model" out of the blue as though the reader is supposed to know what that is.
51.219.141.160 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the Meadow's model?