[I_Like_Plants]

I'm a 3, if we conserve the hell out of what we have, yes by government edict, we've have that in the depression and WWII and went along with it ok, we can keep ourselves in food and it won't hurt the vast majority of Americans to walk or bike a bit. We'll also have to encourage a low birthrate although that may not need government enforcement since in the US birthrate has been pretty low, and will become lower.

Here's an interesting idea that just came to me - nuclear family on a farm, you need a bunch of kids for farm labor all right. But, if people set up in "clusters" like they do at Dancing Rabbit, you have say a group of 5-7 adults and a kid or two maybe three, and they farm their land and work in looser cooperation with other "clusters", from what I skimmed on their site that's how Dancing Rabbit is set up. This I think is also how a lot of sustainable societies have worked, like the forest pygmies studied by Trumbull (great book! The Forest People) and the plains indians etc. It comes down to that old "it takes a village.." thing

[Tapas]

I voted for scenario 5.

This is the most likely outcome based on ecological principles - carrying capacity, ecological limits, overshoot, resource depletion and die-off. This cycle has been repeated several times in the past amongst other species. The only difference is that we humans are now the subject and the scope is global. The stark reality is too ugly for most of us to fathom.

Without oil, the carrying capacity of the planet is 1 to 2 billion. It is simply a matter of mathematics to grasp that our numbers will decrease as the oil depletes.

Scenario 4, which gives hopes that most of us will survive is an optimistic goal. We should all strive towards it. It has been calculated the population will continue to rise to 9 billion. Then we would see a rapid die-off. We are talking of 7 billion humans perishing of famine, starvation, diseases, pandemics, natural disasters and local warfare.

The next 50 to 100 years are going to be ugly.

I am leaving out option 6, because I believe that after the population stabilizes, the survivors will be able to pick up the threads and charter humanity on a solar based civilization. It would be very different from ours, maybe better in certain respects.

If the survivors learn from the hard lesson, and unite to embark on a new journey in tune with natural laws and limits, I believe we would see a new millenium of peace, cooperation, and social kinship.

In short, a paradigm shift from greed, gluttony, and over consumption to sustainability, moderation, symbiotic relationships and a spiritual awakening.

Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to catalyze a change.

[Doly]

I'm between 3 and 4. It really depends on how things go. 3 would be my best case scenario and 4 my worst case.

The wording for scenario 2 is vague, but it must mean something less than 3, that is, an economic catastrophe. I don't think it's possible to avoid an economic catastrophe taking into account peak oil, the level of debt of the average person, the housing bubble, and the twin deficits of the USA. It's too many tickets not to win the raffle, like we say in Spain.

I don't think there will be a massive dieoff, like in scenario 5, because I believe things will develop slowly enough to give people time to adapt and survive even in the worst case scenario. A moderate dieoff is possible, but in developed countries this will be a result of lower birthrate and higher mortality among the old. I don't think people will drop like flies, because that implies serious famine or nuclear war. I don't think nuclear war will happen because it's extremely foolish, though a nuke or two may be dropped on countries without no nuclear. As for serious famine, there are a lot of things we can give up before we run out of food. I know some of you say the carrying capacity of the planet is a lot less people, but Europe somehow managed to survive WWII with very little imports, and a war going on at the same time.

[spearGR]

Between 3 and 4 for southern Europe.
An economic catastrophe, but MORE than twenty years to recover.
A global calamity with huge population shifts and all which that implies.
A global die off? I really dont want to believe it but if one thing leads to the other........ anything can happen.
I think the Med is going to be fine in any scenario.We been here 20 THOUSAND years.we go nowhere.

[sjn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') know some of you say the carrying capacity of the planet is a lot less people, but Europe somehow managed to survive WWII with very little imports, and a war going on at the same time.

[The_Toecutter]

I'm somewhere between a 4 or 5, but there is a potential to bring the scenario to a 2 or 3. The problem is that we're out of time to begin the change to alternatives. America will probably be a 4, as will most of the 1st world(Western Europe, Australia, Japan), everyone else a 5 or 6...

[Jaymax]

Looked back at this to count the number of 'optimists' voting - I count 12 I guess, with a doomerosity of 2 or less.

I'm intrigued by the few posters who think the US will be better off than the rest of the world - surely, those most dependant on fossil energy will suffer the most. I believe Peak Oil will be a great leveller, and that Africa will cope much better than the US (of course, Africa has it's own HIV dieoff to worry about, even without thinking about energy issues)

Also, perhaps some of those who said they were between 4 & 5 (or between other numbers) could offer a short description of what they perceive - similar to the poll answers - and I'll try broadening the scale a bit...

--J

[khebab]

Between 2 and 3, depends on the day. I used to be around 5 but I think fossil fuel depletion will be slow enough to be manageable.

I wonder if there is a correlation with the age of the posters (see Your Age).

[johnmarkos]

I'm between 2 and 3 too, with the caveat that . . . well, who the hell knows? Anything could happen. That's the fun of trying to figure out what's going to happen in the future. But over a year on this forum has convinced me that PO is just a small piece of the sustainability puzzle. We tend to perceive the problem of the moment as larger than it actually is. And we perceive the problem of the century as smaller than it actually is.

Here's a good slogan I just thought of: everyone's talking about peak oil when really they should be worrying about peak soil.

Soil conservation is an overlooked but necessary condition for sustainability. We forget about it because it's not glamorous or capital-intensive like energy.

[Novus]

I have been a solid 5 for a very long time now. Even if peak oil itself only pulls us into a 4 then human nature being what it is will add to the problem and make it a 5 along the lines of how the difficulties of the depression paved the way for the even greater horors of WWII.

[PenultimateManStanding]

5) ... the cause of massive human dieoff, society as we know it will not exist within decades
34% [ 47 ]
6) ... the end of everything, welcome to the stone age
3% [ 5 ]

Lots of votes for 5, but very few for 6. This is interesting, I think. What substantial dirfference is there between these two options? About the only thing I can see to distinguish these are the words "as we know it". That allows for the existence of some new kind of society presumably. But is it realistic to think that billions of people will die and this global society collapses and then we just pick up the pieces and build a whole new society in ths ashes of the old one? I could see us going to something like a 3 or 4 and making it through the tough times, but if it slips down to 5, then I think its likely, as I said earlier, that its kaput. Survivors will be living in very primitive conditions, i.e. 'Stone Age'.

[Jaymax]

The intent with 6 was to go 'off the scale' - think more stone age rather than iron age - more small clusters of surviving groups than a reversion to primitive society.

[agmart]

oil price spike causes recession, recovery leeds to new spike, rince, repeat, eventually leading to depression, slow descent over decades to 4, unless future arab israeli war goes nuclear then quickly to 5

[Free]

I voted 4.

It's interesting that there basically seems to be a 50/50 split between 4 and 5. So obviously most people here think PO will have serious consequences. But from 4 to 5 it is not a gradual difference, but a huge gap, between doomers and optimists, basically...

[EnergySpin]

Doomerosity Level 3 ...
But who the hell voted for $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'r')evealed as a myth or conspiracy / alternatively "peak what?"

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'D')oomerosity Level 3 ...
There seems to be 1 vote ..... WHO IS IT?

[EnergySpin]

I thought it was BiGG.
Do you think Lynch was scared away of this forum?
In the last week ... it has been getting spookier and spookier.
And there seem to be many of short fuses around here

[Jaymax]

BiGG was a 1

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut from 4 to 5 it is not a gradual difference, but a huge gap, between doomers and optimists, basically...

[Novus]

The difference between a 4 and a 5 is that a 4 is really a cornicopian who thinks we can go though a generation of adjustments and still get to keep our industrial economy. A 5 five on the other hand beleives the industrial age is only as finate as the oil in the ground.

Now the difference between a 5 and a 6 is that a 5 beleives humanity will be given a second chance to create a Camelot, Atlantis, or Shang Ra-la because the human spirt will not die with the industrial dream. A 6 on the other hand is really a disbelief in the resiliance of the human spirit. It is the difference between going back to the farm or going back to the trees.