[flagged]
First, the "predictions" have been well massaged as more data came in. The original predictions said we would already have hit "collapse" some time ago.
Second, the "predictions" your references show are the same as those of alternate models that do not predict an imminent collapse. (All of these models, suitably adjusted to reflect the latest data, predict growth up to now, which is what the data shows. The alternate models simply predict a leveling off as population growth stops, not due to "collapse" but due to the fact that increasing wealth leads to lower birth rates.) So all of these models are useless for telling us whether a collapse is actually imminent or not. The fact is that we simply do not have that kind of predictive power using models.
Most of their scenarii didn't predict collapse, but steady decline, and the main difference was 'how fast'
Here's a fairly recent paper with recent data comparing actual historical data to the book's predictions: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13084
Quoting from the abstract:
> The two scenarios aligning most closely with observed data indicate a halt in welfare, food, and industrial production over the next decade or so, which puts into question the suitability of continuous economic growth as humanity's goal in the twenty-first century.
I could dig up more sources/data but I'm guessing you aren't going to read them since you certainly haven't read the book.