[DesuMaiden]

It is simple. Peak oil and its consequences are too dire for most people to accept. Most people are unable to accept the fact that peak oil (along with other factors like population overshoot, resource depletion (of resources other than oil), and climate change) will led to the collapse of this civilization. It is just too difficult to accept.

Add to the fact that a significant portion (or the majority of) humanity will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil. And if you take the oil away, these 5 billion plus people will also cease to exist. When you reach these conclusions, it will, of course, be very difficult for the average person to accept the reality of the situation. The average person will deny peak oil. They will come up with the most pathetic reasons for denying peak oil like "peak oil isn't real. Oil is a renewable resource which we have a plenty of left". "We can always invent something to replace oil" (Even though all evidence shows to the contrary). Or "it is still a few generations away, and we still have plenty of oil left. We don't need to worry about it right now". But none of these excuses change the fact that peak oil is pretty much eminent it is happening right now, or it will happen in the very near future. And once our oil production declines, there is nothing to prevent the global economy and food system from collapsing. Quiet literally peak oil will cause the collapse of THE global economy and result in food shortages around the world. The average person is just unable to accept the grim reality that lies ahead in a few more years. Of course, they are going to believe in the nonsense that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS FINE. WE CAN CONTINUE CONSUMING RECKLESSLY INFINITELY.

The average person denies peak oil no matter how much evidence you present to them because they are too afraid to deal with the grim reality that lies ahead. They will just put their heads in the sand like Ostriches to avoid having to accept the reality that peak oil = the death of modern civilization. They will deny the consequences of peak oil regardless of how strong the evidence you present to them is.

Getting people to accept peak oil and its consequences are real is a difficult thing. The only thing you can do is show them the videos, movies, books, articles and other media that proves that the collapse of industrial civilization is eminent. And they will need to absorb the information themselves, and accept that information themselves. You can't force someone to believe something, no matter how good your evidence is. If they continue to deny this reality, then screw them. Let them die when the collapse happens.

I am certain many people will continue to deny the collapse of this civilization even after it happens. These people will be saying ridiculous nonsense like "peak oil isn't real. Alternative energy sources can still save us" or "these collapse wouldn't have happened if oil companies didn't suppress research towards alternative energy sources" or "if we drill in ANWR, this problem will be solved" and etc in abandoned gas stations after the post peak oil collapse happens. You just can't reason with people who will deny reality even when it is obvious they are wrong.

Peak oil and its consequences is something virtually everyone will deny especially at first. But most people will even deny it even if you present to them overwhelming evidence. This evidence can be overwhelming, but their denial mechanisms will override any logical thinking facilities. And they will just deny it. These people are clearly not worth saving. Their denial for peak oil is frustrating, because it is virtually impossible to convince some people that this civilization is soon going to be toast. But you can't argue with stupid people. Don't argue with stupid people. Just let these people perish when the collapse happens.

The bottom line is simple. Denying peak oil is very easy, and the overwhelming majority of people will deny it until it is too late.

[sunweb]

I think it is incredibly difficult to wrap our heart, mind and spirit around the massive changes facing us. It is indeed traumatic for what it might (probably) means not just for us but for our love ones, children, grandchildren. Our hearts break. We want to fix it. So we do more technology and more ultimate harm.

It is comforting to prefer the noise of delusional magical thinking and pretending that the system of perpetual growth can work forever. There is just too much tied up with it and any unraveling would be far too chaotic and unpredictable. Wrapping our heads around the eventualities of global warming; of overshoot; of the desecration of world wildlife; of the acidification of the oceans; of the poisoning of pollinators stymies. A world no longer powered by fossil fuels, no matter what incarnation, is almost inconceivable and for many terrifying.
It is like a person diagnosed with lung cancer saying he/she will just smoke these organic, non sprayed cigarettes for a little bit longer instead of facing the reality of the situation, quitting and having the operation.

[JuanP]

Desu, I gave up trying to talk about things like overpopulation and Peak Oil with normal people a very long time ago. For almost two decades I kept these things mostly to myself and dumped them on my poor wife. Now, I come here to PO and dump my doomerism regarding these kind of issues here.

Talking to normal people about these things is a waste of time and energy, IMHO, but I don't discourage others that do so from doing it, to each their own. I am only responsible for my words and my actions, what other people do is their responsibility, as far as I am concerned. You can only save yourself and a few close ones, if you are lucky. You can't save all mankind, because they don't want to be saved, and, IMO, most of them are not woth saving.

[Rod_Cloutier]

If you have been following the thread 'South American city on verge of collapse', as I have been, about the water crisis, you will see what will happen with the mainstream when peak oil arrives.

People will blame the government, utilities, and so forth for incompetence and mismanagement. There will be people fired, new governments elected, a change in the management. When this fails there will be strikes, additional changes in management/ government, and more calls about corruption and incompetence. When this strategy fails..... let us follow the thread and see history unfold, about the next stage of denial.

The same thing will/is happening with peak oil and catastrophic climate change. I don't know what the tipping point will be before people realize that it's not just mismanagement, corruption, governance, ect, and people have to face the reality that there are real issues, with no clear solution, and many problems demanding lifestyle adjustments, relocations, ect, ect.

When people face reality, that's the moment to watch for!

[DesuMaiden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JuanP', 'D')esu, I gave up trying to talk about things like overpopulation and Peak Oil with normal people a very long time ago. For almost two decades I kept these things mostly to myself and dumped them on my poor wife. Now, I come here to PO and dump my doomerism regarding these kind of issues here.

Talking to normal people about these things is a waste of time and energy, IMHO, but I don't discourage others that do so from doing it, to each their own. I am only responsible for my words and my actions, what other people do is their responsibility, as far as I am concerned. You can only save yourself and a few close ones, if you are lucky. You can't save all mankind, because they don't want to be saved, and, IMO, most of them are not woth saving.

[Logic]

Actually, I believe people deny peak oil because they continually hear extreme predictions, which don't come about, and they go on with heir lives.

Desu, you are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf.

The fact that we are running out of oil is self evident. The radical prediction of dark ages are what turn people away from your entire message.

[DesuMaiden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Logic', 'A')ctually, I believe people deny peak oil because they continually hear extreme predictions, which don't come about, and they go on with heir lives.

Desu, you are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf.

The fact that we are running out of oil is self evident. The radical prediction of dark ages are what turn people away from your entire message.

[GHung]

In short, cognitive dissonance; the same reason we haven't dealt with climate change. Just thinking about these things make folks uncomfortable. They have enough to deal with in their complex little lives, and most folks don't have much capacity for change anyway. They're fully invested in things as they are; all in for BAU. Those who have wiggle room, the most capacity to change, have the least incentive to do so. They like things pretty much the way they are.

Reality be damned, eh?

[dolanbaker]

Desu, it is important to remember that the world isn't Black & white as you are implying by saying doomer or cornie. There is in reality (at least) 50 shades of grey and the vast majority of people are "grey", peak oil means that the way most of the population lives will change as they have to work around a diminishing fuel supply. For many, this will mean that they'll have to move to a city from the suburbs, just like millions have already done so in developing countries (sometimes with disastrous results like the impending unfolding water crisis in Sao Paulo). A badly managed post peak oil landscape could be a very dangerous place to be, but most places should be able to transition with relatively little trouble apart from the feeling that many people will feel as they take a "drop in living standard".

[DesuMaiden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', 'D')esu, it is important to remember that the world isn't Black & white as you are implying by saying doomer or cornie. There is in reality (at least) 50 shades of grey and the vast majority of people are "grey", peak oil means that the way most of the population lives will change as they have to work around a diminishing fuel supply. For many, this will mean that they'll have to move to a city from the suburbs, just like millions have already done so in developing countries (sometimes with disastrous results like the impending unfolding water crisis in Sao Paulo). A badly managed post peak oil landscape could be a very dangerous place to be, but most places should be able to transition with relatively little trouble apart from the feeling that many people will feel as they take a "drop in living standard".

[tom_s2]

Hi Desu,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost people are unable to accept the fact that peak oil will led to the collapse of this civilization.

[Strummer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tom_s2', 'T')he "end of the oil age" is at least 120 years away if we assume a symmetric Hubbert curve of all oil extraction.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tom_s2', 'H')i Desu,

How do you know they're in denial? Maybe they know something you don't. Maybe you're wrong, or not convincing.

[tom_s2]

Hi ralfy,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd what is that "something"

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tom_s2', '
')
It could be anything. What I'm saying here is there could be multiple reasons for disagreement other than just denial. Perhaps people think that the failures of prediction, over and over again, calls this stuff into question. Maybe they wonder why it's such a fringe thing if the laws of physics so plainly imply it. That's not denial; that's doubt.

[sparky]

.
"Why people deny Peak Oil "
Simple , because it hasn't happened yet ,
peak oil will be an accepted fact , and its precise timing , about one hundred years after it has occurred
In fact , the exact timing will still be argued over then !

[tom_s2]

Hi ralfy,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think his argument is based on the premise that the population boomed during the twentieth century because of oil (energy and petrochemicals) used extensively for manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, both of which provided components and infrastructure needed for sanitation systems,

[tom_s2]

Ralfy,

I just don't see any legitimate responses to any of the questions I asked. Desu has just not responded at all, to any objections, despite claiming these things are science. You are just using the well-worn tactic of rapid topic-changing to avoid all objections.

You also claim repeatedly that scientific papers support your position, but when I asked for references, you provided none. You also claimed repeatedly that these objections were answered elsewhere on this forum, but you have provided no links, no references, and no quotations.

It is simply not legitimate to provide vague pseudo-references such as "my point is supported in some paper or comment somewhere" without being more specific than that. That is not valid. You are responsible for providing references for your own point.

These are basic questions I'm asking. These are basic objections. There has never been any answer to these questions on this forum.

-Tom S

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tom_s2', 'H')i ralfy,

That's just repeating his claim without answering the objection. I was asking why people do not sacrifice discretionary travel and switch to alternatives. You've not answered the question.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tom_s2', 'R')alfy,

I just don't see any legitimate responses to any of the questions I asked. Desu has just not responded at all, to any objections, despite claiming these things are science. You are just using the well-worn tactic of rapid topic-changing to avoid all objections.