Beyond Neo-Malthusians and Cornucopians: comment on Chenoweth and Feitelson

In a recent paper in Futures, Chenoweth and Feitelson test of the validity of the projections of the Global 2000 Report to the President and The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. This commentary critiques their approach, focusing on their comparison of the two studies' Year 2000 projections, and the pitfalls for near-term tests of long-term projections. Empirically, their paper does little to resolve the neo-Malthusian and Cornucopian debate. Nonetheless, given the past history of this acrimonious debate, their conclusions may undermine current efforts to balance global economic, social, and environmental concerns.