[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are lots of "solutions" to peak oil, just none that replicate cheap oil.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are lots of "solutions" to peak oil, just none that replicate cheap oil.

[TheAntiDoomer]

^silly straw man pops. You could have just said your statement was silly.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '^')silly straw man pops. You could have just said your statement was silly.

[kublikhan]

So we have twice as many "No crashers" as "fast crashers"? Well Carl, this does not bode well for your future trolling of doomers. Are you going to have to spend more time on other forums instead looking for the "hardcore" to troll? Or have you already tried that and they banned you outright?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', 'I')'m going to shit-can diots on PO.com who think they know the future!

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dcoyne78', 'A') problem I see with this poll is that people have different understandings of "collapse".

So some people believe that what we are currently experiencing is a slow collapse, others see the current situation as a slow rise, and still others see the present situation as just the normal ebb and flow of civilization.

[ROCKMAN]

Lore - Well, I've got my flying company car now...hasn't ExxonMobil delivered yours yet? Opps...that's supposed to be secret. Forget I said anything.

Yes...can't say never. No one knew of the Deep Water oil potential several decades ago. Folks knew there was a lot of oil in the Bakken 40 to 50 years ago. In fact estimates of recoverable oil from the Bakken where much higher in the 70's then anyone is proposing these days. But no one envisioned horizontal drilling and today's high oil prices back in the 50's.

But look at the technology we have today to make alternative fuels and a huge price incentive to do so. And those dynamics have been in play for several years. While we've seen some very modest improvements in alts they haven't come close to offsetting just the increased energy consumption let alone reducing overall demand for FF. The world is paying $2 TRILLION per year more just for oil today than just 10 years ago. That’s an rather big brass ring for some alt makers to go after. If someone can come up with a new trick pony we don't know about today that would be great. But we don't appear to have one today. And today is the world we live in...not some future maybe world. If that maybe future world develops...great. But it ain’t here now and it's the now that is effecting all of us.

Which reminds me of a scene from an old movie: an old cowboy and a young lad were using their hands to try to free a horse from a mud hole. The lad says: “I wish we had a shovel”. Wise old cowboy replies: “Son, if you’re going to wish for something that isn’t going to happen why not just wish the horse didn’t get stuck in the first place”.

IOW let’s just speculate about all of us being able to afford our own home mini reactor to produce electricity for a fraction of a cent. Then we can completely wean ourselves off of all FF. As the old cowboy implied: “If you ain’t getting it now anyway why bother with half-ass wishes…go big.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '
')Yeah.. some recovery.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'F')ortunately, improving unemployment is just one statistic of the economy, the DJIA and car sales would be another, and obviously the official statistic is GDP. And as reality is showing, all of those can improve without re-employing all the predatory lenders, real estate agents, and robo-signing cubicle monkeys going back into action feeding the American desire to turn their homes into an ATM machine with the help of banksters on Wall Street.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dcoyne78', 'A') problem I see with this poll is that people have different understandings of "collapse".

So some people believe that what we are currently experiencing is a slow collapse, others see the current situation as a slow rise, and still others see the present situation as just the normal ebb and flow of civilization.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'A')re you aware of a single creditor of the US government which has not been paid its due ...

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '
')While you write dismissively of jobs you disdain, the point is that a good 5-10% of the workforce lost their jobs, and those jobs did not come back, they remain unemployed, and for them, this economy is a nightmare.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'A')re you aware of a single creditor of the US government which has not been paid its due ...

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '^')silly straw man pops. You could have just said your statement was silly.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '
')"housing values recovering"
After a great deal of Detroitification.

[sparky]

.
Some places would be worst , some better
but the average trend would be down ,
at the energy consumtion of the 50 ies we would have a civilisation of the 50ies
plus improved production gains

[Peak_Yeast]

I think the vote needs a few more options, but i suppose its hard get all the variations of collapses..

I am a believer in the COR standard scenario - with deviations due to above ground factors. This means stagnation, slow decline, faster decline.

When the faster decline sets in it might lead to a collapse due to political reasons. But possibly even sooner.

On the way to the fast decline i find it possible that we will use the down-stair-case method. Crisis-Going down - Stabilisation - slight increase- New cycle.

Even if we find a new energy source - the devastation to the eco-system is accelerating at the same time as the eco-system is much smaller than in old times. Energy alone is not a solution at all.

I remember old times here in Denmark - there was a point where every single tree in the country had been chopped up. -Today we are much more able to chop up everything the day we need it and it will happen even if we find new energy.

In order to make a real difference thus stopping the decline the new energy source must be so cheap and abundant and easy to distribute that we can stop the devastation to nature. Which is not likely to happen even with cheap energy since so many enjoy and are proud of chopping it up - they feel connected with nature LOL. We have cheap energy now - and look at what we are doing...

When natures bread basket is empty the requirements for energy to produce food will go vastly upwards. There will have to be a very painful adjustment to available resources.

This adjustment is likely to cause a collapse in living standards and possibly the population figures and it will come with or without new cheap energy.

[dolanbaker]

I'm very much in the slow decline camp and at the moment the world economic wealth is see-sawing from West to East.
So the decline in consumption is already happening here, but increases in efficiency is softening the decline. Some countries like Egypt have seen wealth collapse due to exports stopping and imports starting to eat into their pockets.

So the answer really depends on where you live growth in consumption in Chindia will eventually top out, so it is likely that a large percentage of the population in those countries will never see the affects as they never got to own cars in the first place so won't be forced out of using them by future high prices or shortages.

Here in Ireland I expect that the recent trend of moving out into the country and commuting long distances will continue to decline (the ending of the Celtic tiger left many high and dry, miles from places of work and unable to afford to commute), the only reason that rural housing hasn't been abandoned is the fact that the houses are unsaleable and they can't afford to buy in the cities. We'll just have to get used to near zero growth for the foreseeable future followed by relatively small declines in economic activity in the long term.

The banking & financial sectors will have to change to be able to function in this new environment of we will have a another financial meltdown before the end of the decade. Banks here are shrinking and becoming more prudent, a trend that is likely to continue.

The US (North America) could become self-sufficient if they really wanted to, if they just cut out much of the excesses and become more like many central European countries.

[evilgenius]

Ha, ha, the world is actually in a pseudo-perpetual state of collapse. Some people see that as creative destruction. Others see it as something 'we' need to gather together and make decisions about so that 'we' can all live better lives.

This pseudo state will continue until we live in a world where, should a too cheap to meter energy source come about, the difference between nothing and something is not made up by creativity exhausting taxes and fees (a nod to those who see reality as creatively destroying). In short, 'we' have to figure out more fairly how to distribute profit and loss amongst ourselves far short of going to the well of socially prescribed mechanisms or we won't really be doing anything to address the root causes of inequality and suffering (hurray, for all those who realize we are all in this together). This means addressing the way that capitalism is formed.

Capitalism is the best mechanism for dealing with uncertainty and change man has ever developed, but it isn't perfect. The initiative to change the way we go about doing our business was lost somewhere in last century's polar opposite argument between Capitalism and Communism. Some people have brought it back with the current renewal of the 'Small is Beautiful' ideals of last century. Nobody, yet, has done much to enter into a conversation about how we can pull off restructuring on a much more massive scale. Small is Beautiful is very appealing, but it does not speak to the needs of everybody, only to those who can, for various reasons, participate in it. Most people are far too distracted by their own lives to adopt it. It's easy to call those people who can't participate names, but in the end there is no success unless we can include them.

Okay, then, how do we address profit in the realm of so much economy of scale and division of labor that the amount of money we are talking about becomes obscene if it is shared amongst only a small group of people? Obviously you can't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Can you teach it to share? What answers lie out there concerning how ownership, and, therefore, payouts, of the goose is split up that are different than the way we do it now? Which ones hold any promise?