[EddieB]

I voted 4 because I slide between 3.5 and 4.5 depending on my mood. Sometimes I think we'll make it through no problem, other times I think a bit of dying off will occur... I don't think the die-off will necessarily suck as terribly as many on this site imagine it will. Some european nations and Russia have been going through a "die-off" for a number of years now and they seem alright to me. If it's slow it won't be all that bad.

[LadyRuby]

I'd like to know who voted for number 6!! The doomiest of the doomers!!

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DriveElectric', 'W')hich level of doomerosity means that we will at least still have beer?

[bruin]

Easy 4. It's going to be a tremendous change but there isn't going to be a huge die off. The key word here is we will "adjust".

Certainly, I could see the population growth reversing slowly, which in itself would be a big change. Keep in mind, the birth rates are already very low in many developed countries and the bulk of our population is already starting to retire.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', '
')Compare PO with the great depression...then look at demographics:
- more than double the world population since TGD.

[OldSprocket]

I voted 3 with the understanding that the problems will develop a few years after "peak". We could easily hit 4 by simply not changing.

[sjn]

Definitely a 5. I think we can learn to live sustainably, but not until we've addressed the overshoot problem - and to that there's only one solution. Die-off. As a species we must learn how to work with nature, as part of nature. Once we've done this we'll be able to make real achievements. One day perhaps even solar colonisation. Until then we have many lessons to learn.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', ' ')Once we've done this we'll be able to make real achievements. One day perhaps even solar colonisation.

[lateStarter]

Could you add an 'other' category/choice? I am in the 4-5 camp, but I have reason to believe that long term, we (meaning people - not nations) will be ok...

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 'c')ampaign of filling up dollar bill borders with sites containing PO information, (written in the white borders on front and back),

[Eli]

Here is why I am doomer fiver

China ready to use nukes over Taiwan

PO or no PO things are sketchy.

[alpha480v]

I voted 3,but am leaning towards 4.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'H')ere is why I am doomer fiver

China ready to use nukes over Taiwan

PO or no PO things are sketchy.

[Eli]

good point Aaron.

Yeah China imploding is a real possibility, that will be ugly though.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '2')) As I've written in a couple of other threads, China will implode within the next two years, IMO.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'g')ood point Aaron.

[gego]

When I am out on the highway and notice all the vehicles, I often think of the idea that 30 years after peak oil there will be no economically meaningful production of oil.

I an unconvinced that anything can come close to replacing that lost source of energy to move vehicles, not to mention all the other things dependent on oil.

I just don't see how the earth population can stay at 6.5 much less grow to 9 billion by 2050 as is predicted from some quarters. It seems a fairly basic conclusion that population must fall to meet the new food, water and shelter reality.

Without gas to power tractors the next best alternative is to revert to draft animals for farming. It will take decades to build up the number of draft animals. They need to eat and historically 1/3 of agricultural production has gone to feed draft animals. Agricuture without modern methods can only produce 1/3 of what modern methods produce. Given these two factors contributing to agricultural production, we are down to 22.22% of what we now produce and this will be where we will be in just 30 short years after peak. This only accounts for food production problems and does not address food distribution problems. This is without considering the problems people will have with keeping warm in the winter, cool in the summer, disposal of human waste and garbage or access to water in an economy that is contracting violently from lack of energy.

[Hawkcreek]

--

[k_semler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DriveElectric', 'W')hich level of doomerosity means that we will at least still have beer?

[Sunspot]

I voted 6, but I may have been a little hasty, 5 actually would be more accurate I guess. But what the hell is the difference really? I expect my life to change radically and then there is the strong liklihood that it will be cut shorter than I'd like, and I just turned 54. Either way, 5 or 6, it's so bad that it's hard to even think about the possibility that it'll really happen, even though I "know" it has to. At some point.
At various levels, I've sort of known for decades that this whole civilization thing was a house of cards. The 90's lulled me into thinking that at least I'd grow old before it all started hitting the fan. I never had much faith in things by, say, 2100. Not my problem, really. But now I know that the bottom row of that house of cards is where the fossil fuel cards are, and removing the bottom cards always creates problems quickly.