I'll be honest, I find most of the stuff from that group to be a bit vapid and typically doesn't reflect deep familiarity with the background literature. As an example, the author offhandedly proposes a just-so story about why Rome collapsed. If we go to our trusty 210 reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire [1] (compiled by a historian frustrated that everyone and their pet had different, often contradictory explanations), we see that "depletion of mineral resources" is #53. So why #53 as opposed to #191, or #67, or #3? Similarly, there are entire fields of studies about how complex systems evolve created since Forrester's work, yet the headline here is all about how complex systems aren't resilient (which flies in the face of most observation and literature).

[1] https://courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME%20250/21...