<Li> Growth trends existing in 1972 could be altered so that sustainable ecological and economic stability could be achieved . </Li> <Li> The sooner the world's people start striving for the second outcome above, the better the chance of achieving it . </Li> <P> Criticism of LTG was immediate . Peter Passell and two co-authors published a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as "...an empty and misleading work...best summarized...as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out ." Passell found the study's simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production . They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources, and, finally, that the entire endeavor was motivated by a hidden agenda: to halt growth in its tracks . </P> <P> In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom; A Critique of The Limits to Growth . The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models . They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic . The Sussex scientists concluded that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality . Claiming that the Sussex critics applied "micro reasoning to macro problems", the LTG team, in "A Response to Sussex", described and analyzed five major areas of disagreement between themselves and the Sussex authors . </P>

(tco 3) what must be limited according to limits of growth critics
find me the text answering this question