[FatherOfTwo]

We sorely need some definitions. Use this thread to post your suggestions and then I’ll pull out up to the 10 best and we can vote in a separate thread (polls only allow 10 options… moderators can feel free to take this over). Of course, a time scale is necessary. Since the ASPO estimate is currently forecasting a peak in 2007/2008, let’s hold this time scale to the next 20 years.

Here are some definitions I’ve found for soft-landing

Economists define it as:
The avoidance of both inflation and high interest rates as well as a recession as an economy slows its growth rate. opposite of hard landing.

Space scientists (airline pilots?) might define it as:
The landing of a space craft such that it is able to continue operations.

Others here on this forum have stated (and I’m sort of combining them all and paraphrasing)

A gradual downturn in the production of oil which allows economic activity to continue, although possibly it would be in a lengthy recession. There is a drop in the standard of living, an increase in the cost of living, and higher unemployment but people and society are able to adjust. No serious wars.

[khebab]

I noticed that you are not involving any transition toward alternatives in your definitions. I think soft-landing implies that we can successfuly subsitute some of our ernergy needs by alternatives at least for the essential part of the economy (food, electiricity production, etc.). A soft landing will have to meet at least the following requirements:
- no major conflicts;
- slow oil field depletion (<1%) or more reastically some new discoveries are reducing the global oil depletion
- transition toward alternatives is implemented in certain economic sectors;
- some key economic factors are controlled or contained: inflation, unemployement, etc.
Hard or Crash landing means one or more of these conditions are not met.

[PhilBiker]

I would add something to the effect of "The movement towards alternative fuels causes serious environmental damage as coal is explioted in unprecedented volumes."

[khebab]

The definition of soft/hard/Crash-landing may aslo depend on the region of the world and the type of economy. A soft-landing scenario may not be the same for Bangladesh or the USA! I will say the higher the number of barrels of oil/capita/year the more complex the definition must be.

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('khebab', 'T')he definition of soft/hard/Crash-landing may aslo depend on the region of the world and the type of economy. A soft-landing scenario may not be the same for Bangladesh or the USA! I will say the higher the number of barrels of oil/capita/year the more complex the definition must be.

[larrydallas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'I') would add something to the effect of "The movement towards alternative fuels causes serious environmental damage as coal is explioted in unprecedented volumes."

[Graeme]

This is definitely the best thread I've seen on this site so far. A definition of a soft-landing is the first step towards finding solutions to peak oil.

The contribution I want to make here is that the alternatives need to be divided in two:
1. Substitutes for oil (that is gasoline)
2. Energy alternatives to lower the demand for oil

Under 1, I would include:

biomass, coal, orimulsion, diesel, natural gas, tar sands/oilshale, hydrates, hydrogen, nanotechnology, thermal depolymerisation, compressed air

Under 2, I would include:

wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, battery, fusion.

This is not an comprehensive list. Others may want to add more. Nor do I attempt to evaluate the effectiveness or suitability of each of these.

Perhaps another is the political will to make these substitutes a reality. It is not happening to any great extent in the USA at present. Europe is far ahead of USA in this regard.

[khebab]

I would add also:
- we are able to maintain our vital infrastructure (roads, water distrtibution system, electric production and distribution system, health care system) so that it can continue to function without too much disruptions our failures.
I think that's the biggest challenge especially for countries with harsh weather (ex: Canada).

[nero]

I agree we really need to define this. Khebab's definition sounds much "softer" than my definition, which basically is your:

"gradual downturn in the production of oil which allows economic activity to continue, although possibly it would be in a lengthy recession. There is a drop in the standard of living, an increase in the cost of living, and higher unemployment but people and society are able to adjust. No serious wars."

Here would be my definition:

A soft landing is any peak oil scenario where the rule of law, government, and a minimal social safety net remains intact.

[Doly]

The problem with defining soft vs hard landing is that there is a complete spectrum of scenarios, between the "common man doesn't even notice" to the "back to the Stone Age".

I would say that hard landing and soft landing are relative, rather than absolute, terms. If we go to a standard of living similar to the 19th century in Europe, is that soft or hard landing? If you are expecting to be back to the Stone Age, it's soft. If you are expecting to barely notice, it's hard.

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('khebab', 'I') noticed that you are not involving any transition toward alternatives in your definitions.

[FatherOfTwo]

After thinking about this more the definitions might need to be all encompassing. I’m posting this to all 3 threads.

Do we agree that the definition should include impacts on:

Vital services (police, health, fire, courts, food production)
Vital infrastructure (transportation, roads, electricity, water etc.)
Economic conditions (unemployment, interest rates, trade, standard of living, cost of living)
Environment conditions (air quality, water quality, global warming, species decline)
Local Social conditions (crime levels, poverty/homelessness)
Global Social conditions (wars, trade disputes, population levels)

Am I missing anything?

[FatherOfTwo]

And one other: total energy available!

[FatherOfTwo]

Definitions:
Vital services (police, health, fire, courts, food production)
Vital infrastructure (transportation, roads, electricity, water etc.)
Economic conditions (unemployment, interest rates, trade, standard of living, cost of living)
Environment conditions (air quality, water quality, global warming, species decline)
Local Social conditions (crime levels, poverty/homelessness)
Global Social conditions (wars, trade disputes, population levels)


SOFT LANDING
Energy impacts A gradual but significant drop in total available energy. There is a gradual downturn in the production of oil and alternates are able to be ramped up quickly enough to help soften the blow, but not act as a replacement.
Global social conditions Global reactions are coordinated and for the most part cooperative. No serious wars. Population levels start leveling off.
Local social conditions Crime, poverty and homelessness see significant increases.
Vital services Are reduced but basics are maintained with few major interruptions.
Vital infrastructure Essential maintenance is maintained but little new infrastructure is built except for mass transit initiatives.
Economic conditions Economic activities continue, although possibly in a lengthy recession. Stagflation rears its head. There is a drop in the standard of living, an increase in the cost of living, and higher unemployment. Global trade is impacted, but not eliminated. Personal transportation is greatly curtailed.
Environment conditionsThe environment is worse off as there is a rush to alternates - pollution levels are higher and global warming is becoming more critical.

In general, there is a rude awakening, but people and society are able to adjust. But the environment is suffering greatly.

[gg3]

This is good and productive...

Seems to me that the emerging consensus here points to some common denominators, and these suggest a relationship between the definitions of soft, hard, and crash.

In all cases: A transition to a post-petroleum society.

Soft landing: All or most of the core functions of civilization are maintained. Few of the core functions are damaged. The functions that are damaged can be restored within a single generation (30 years).

Hard landing: Some of the core functions of civilization are maintained. More of the core functions are damaged. Some of the damaged functions can be restored within a single generation. The remaining damaged functions can be restored within three generations (90 years; the timespan of "living memory" in a society).

Crash landing: Few of the core functions of civilization are maintained. Most of the core functions are damaged. Few of the damaged functions can be restored within a single generation. Most of the damaged functions can be restored within three generations. Some of the damaged functions will take longer than three generations to restore.

I would also include a fourth category in which none to few of the core functions are maintained, few can be restored within one generation, some can be restored within three generations, and most will not be restored within three generations if at all. I don't like the word "apocalypse" because it tends to be over-used and alarmist, but I think it would be an accurate description of this scenario.

What I mean by "civilization" is a more specific and limited definition than we normally use here: A type of society that is characterised by three essential conditions: One, the ongoing accumulation of useful knowledge (this includes pure science that is not "useful" short-term, for example astrophysics). Two, the ongoing reduction in violence and other forms of human suffering. Three, governance under a body of law that is applied consistently and uniformly to all persons who reside within its established geographic boundaries.

From these core essentials, other conditions arise. For example, the combination of "reduction of violence" and "governance under law" leads directly to civil and human rights, and to political democracy. All three core points taken together, lead to freedom of enterprise and economic pluralism. (I use the term "economic pluralism" to refer to an economy in which there is freedom of enterprise, a market system, and diverse forms of ownership. Opinions may vary as to the degree to which American-style capitalism and European-style socialism are consistent with economic pluralism.) The ongoing accumulation of knowledge also leads directly to religious pluralism, since any system of knowledge is understood to be incomplete at a given point in time, thereby ruling out claims of exclusive truth by any one denomination. Etc. etc.

As for material conditions or standard of living, the ongoing reduction of violence and suffering imply an increased quality of life over time. However, this does not require specific means in order to achieve, nor does it leave room for fulfillment of "created desires" (by which I mean, desires that are not already-existing but are created by a self-interested party). So for example, safe reliable transportation is a social good, and off-road-capable vehicles are useful tools of certain trades (fire fighting, construction, etc.), but SUVs are a "created desire" and a luxury that can be foregone.

Civilizations develop technologies and then become dependent upon them in order to sustain a given population at a given standard of living. This is the nexus of the present crisis, in that the energy supply upon which all else rests is going into decline.

A world of rational and reasonable humans could easily make a soft landing by voluntarily reducing birth rate, converting infrastructure, and giving up wasteful luxuries.

Conversely, humans who don't reduce birth rate, don't convert infrastructure, and don't give up wasteful luxuries, will have a foreseeably harder and harder time maintaining the technologies -including social institutions- upon which civilization depends. Clearly this is irrational and unreasonable behavior because it contradicts both the empirical facts and foreseeable self-interest in all but the shortest time frame.

So in a very real way, the question of whether we'll have a soft landing, hard landing, crash, or apocalypse, comes down to this: can humans behave rationally and reasonably or not?, and if they're not doing so, what will it take to make them do so?

Peak oil is not really a technology problem: we have all the technology we need to make a transition that preserves civilization intact. Instead it's a human problem: politics, economics, individual desires multipled by the number of individuals, and the willingness or lack thereof to forego luxuries in exchange for necessities. It's not a "can or can't," it's a "will or won't." So: will we or won't we...?

[Tyler_JC]

If people were totally rational, we wouldn't have ever invented industrial civilization. Rather than take the risk that farming might lead to civilization, we would have avoided it completely. We would be living in small tribes of hunter/gatherers spread out across the planet. The passenger pegion and the dodo bird would still be alive...and no one on this forum would have been born.

To say that people need to be totally rational in order to survive is absurd. We are not rational. We do things based on our emotions. We bumble around and refuse to take a good look at our surrondings. We make the rational choice for today rather than the rational choice for the next generation. The Tragedy of the Commons is apparent in nearly every action people make.

So you're right. The question is not "could we". The question is "will we"? And based on my knowledge of this species, the answer is a resounding no! Most of the people on this board are still unwilling to surrender themselves to a life of childless poverty. No one outside of the VHEMT freaks are willing to pick this lifestyle either. It just doesn't fit our nature to choose a lower standard of living than the one we could afford. If you want to try, go right ahead! In fact, it would be great for me if lots of other people went the childless poverty route...more space for me and my possible offspring .

{edit} I shouldn't have posted this, I'm hijacking this thread. If you want, I'll split the thread

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'P')eak oil is not really a technology problem: we have all the technology we need to make a transition that preserves civilization intact. Instead it's a human problem: politics, economics, individual desires multipled by the number of individuals, and the willingness or lack thereof to forego luxuries in exchange for necessities. It's not a "can or can't," it's a "will or won't." So: will we or won't we...?

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')SOFT LANDING
Energy impacts A gradual but significant drop in total available energy. There is a gradual downturn in the production of oil and alternates are able to be ramped up quickly enough to help soften the blow, but not act as a replacement.
Global social conditions Global reactions are coordinated and for the most part cooperative. No serious wars. Population levels start leveling off.
Local social conditions Crime, poverty and homelessness see significant increases.
Vital services Are reduced but basics are maintained with few major interruptions.
Vital infrastructure Essential maintenance is maintained but little new infrastructure is built except for mass transit initiatives.
Economic conditions Economic activities continue, although possibly in a lengthy recession. Stagflation rears its head. There is a drop in the standard of living, an increase in the cost of living, and higher unemployment. Global trade is impacted, but not eliminated. Personal transportation is greatly curtailed.
Environment conditionsThe environment is worse off as there is a rush to alternates - pollution levels are higher and global warming is becoming more critical.

In general, there is a rude awakening, but people and society are able to adjust. But the environment is suffering greatly.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')What I mean by "civilization" is a more specific and limited definition than we normally use here: A type of society that is characterised by three essential conditions: One, the ongoing accumulation of useful knowledge (this includes pure science that is not "useful" short-term, for example astrophysics). Two, the ongoing reduction in violence and other forms of human suffering. Three, governance under a body of law that is applied consistently and uniformly to all persons who reside within its established geographic boundaries.