[stu]

We've done this before but seeing as the site seems to be growing rapidly I thought we should do another poll to see how many optimists and doomers we have.

These choices are based on www.oilscenarios.info

Cast your vote and then give a short explanation as to why you chose that one.

[JudoCow09]

I feel this board on occasion is too overly pessimistic. Why don't you guys go out and try to stop something bad that might happen instead of sitting in your homes learning how to make a fire in 599 different ways. You know, just in case wood isn't available, you know how to light cow pies. You people are really smart. REALLY SMART. Sometimes I feel facts and theories keep you from having any hope for mankind. Well, mostly theories.

Shoot. Now someone is going to argue about that last sentence.

[Sencha]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy don't you guys go out and try to stop something bad that might happen instead of sitting in your homes learning how to make a fire in 599 different ways.

[JudoCow09]

No, but YOU may have a mind capable of thinking of new ideas that one may be able to compinsate for oil. Which reminds me, did anyone ever think the moon or mars had oil. I mean it would probably be pointless even if there was since all the energy to get it there and back would make a horrible EROEI. But some theories say that another cellestial body recked into Earth and resulting in this might have been a chunk that became the moon. Maybe there was some life on earth then, and oil had been created under the earth's crust?

[Free]

I chose pessimistic, although I think we will have a bumpy plateau in the next 10 - 20 years, but followed by an inevitable slow painful transition in the century afterwards.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JudoCow09', 'I') feel this board on occasion is too overly pessimistic.

[MicroHydro]

With world peace and co-operation, the pessimistic scenario could be achieved. However, since all the great powers are ruled by murderers and thieves, I vote for heading for the hills. The nukes will eventually come out, as will the viruses.

[Z]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'i')t is certainly a necessary counterweight to the big media who don't even acknowledge that there could be a problem.

[Jack]

I chose the "head for the hills" option.

People are tempted to suggest that some as yet unproven new technology will solve the energy problem; so far, this must be regarded as pure speculation.

Fixing the problem with technology demands the discovery of new knowledge; and that's unpredictable. Perhaps Einstein's successor is preparing to publish his paper on practical use of energy fairies; but I wouldn't bet on it.

Until I see something definite, I have no basis to assume a miraculous event that will replace oil.

[k_semler]

I think it's going go be like a swift kick to the nuts with steel toe boots versus a knife to the heart. You probably won't die, but you will want to for a while, and after regaining your footing, you will still be wobbily kneed, and wanting to puke. But you will recover eventually. That is how I see Post PO society. For a while, it will fall flat on its face, (20-50 years), but then it will slowly get to its feet, and get rid of the sickness caused by the swift blow, (10-30 years). After that, it will be hell bent on getting even with the petrolium that hurt him so bad, and manage to live without it, (20-50 years). I expect that a maximum of 150 years will pass until civilisation is re-established to be a comfortable level, and a minimum of 60 years.

[Blueberry]

I was at my xbf's dad's death. It took several minutes before anyone could conclusively say that he was gone. So, I'm voting for plateau for the simple reason that perception IS reality, at least for a bit.

*ya I could be wrong*

ps thanks for the link...

[Macsporan]

I believe that while PO will be the worst thing to happen to the world since the Second World War, that none of its problems are insoluble and that the human and social qualities necessary for that solution, despite appearances, will be available.

I do not believe that two generations of decadence have entirely ruined the human race (the majority of humanity have not had the chance for one thing) and that our ability to co-operate and help each other out will be found to be largely intact.

There are still inspired statesmen to preside over, clever bureaucrats to plan, talented engineers to organise and hundreds of thousands of dedicated and willing workers to execute the changes needed to power-down society into a sustainable mode.

Of these last there will be no shortage, since for the most part all people do these days is decorate each other's Christmas trees and take in each other's washing.

Many people across the spectrum find today's world to be unsatisfactory. This is because, I believe, it has no purpose. Greed might or might not be good, but it is no substitute for a Cause. Man does not live by bread alone. People will shed this retarded, nasty way of life with greater ease and eagerness than we think.

Things only change when they have to. TS hasn't HTF yet. When it does we will all be quite surprised about how things previously impossible will but suddenly not merely possible, but done. TPWTB who lead us into this mess will be discredited and new, more intelligent, clear-sighted and robust leaders will come to power. Some of us POers will be among them.

Thus I look forward with guarded optimism. I will not be easy, it will require the recasting of society such as we have not seen since the Industrial Revolution, but it must be done, it can be done, and it will be done.

[Liamj]

I voted pessimist, cos we're past conv.oil peak and still too-few even know, never mind think it matters. How much longer before the economy & culture are re-engineered to conserve rather than consume, and how much will be left then?
Didn't vote head-for-hills cos hills will be a bitch to live up in without oil.

[EnergySpin]

Plateau .... technology is already here. Problem is that political decisions and societal inertia will not allow the optimal solutions to be established.
(Note : none of the technologies currently available will allow the current system to grow in a quantitative manner; qualitative development is possible)
K_semler seems to be right about the time horizon .. my impression is that a couple of centuries will be required to "clean" the mess i.e. environmental, cultural, societal .
Edit
-----
The Polyanna scenario is impossible unless ITER ignites on the first attempt.

[Ludi]

Definitely "Head for the Hills."

Mainly because of what I see on this board with people like JudoCow who bitch about other people "not doing anything"and being "too pessimistic" while they (the JudoCows) almost certainly sit on their butts not doing anything. A lot of the people "not doing anything" (in the opinion of the JudoCows) are actually doing a lot - powering down their own lives, investing large amounts of their personal money in alternative energy systems, and exploring new social arrangements and economies. Because the JudoCows want someone else to "do something" but probably aren't doing anything themselves except bitching about other people, and since the JudoCows almost certainly represent the largest percentage of the population, little will be done and the crash will be horrendous. In my opinion.

[Tyler_JC]

The Optimistic Scenario is utter nonsense.

Pollyanna?

Even the Plateau Scenario is based on maintaining current oil production out to 2025.

If you understand Peak Oil, you have to vote between Pessimistic or Head For The Hills.

Personally I think Pessimistic model is nonsense too. Our total energy use will not grow after Peak Oil/Gas. Our population will fall resulting in less need for more energy.

I was forced to vote for Head For The Hills.

Before voting, go to the website that explains each choice. Otherwise you can't make a fair vote.

These are the assumptions of the Pessimistic Model:

Assumptions:

No large oil fields are likely to be found in the future
Although market forces will encourage increased spending, new oil put into production will not be able to compensate for the depletion of old oil fields

New technology allows more rapid extraction of oil but will not substantially increase the total recoverable oil from a field
Stated reserves, especially in the middle east are overestimates of actual recoverable oil

Non-conventional oil and alternative energy sources will not be able to completely fill the gap left by oil depletion after peak oil has occurred because the technologies will take too long to fully implement and none replace all the benefits of oil without their own risks.

And the HFTH Model:

No large oil fields are likely to be found in the future
Although market forces will encourage increased spending, new oil put into production will not be able to compensate for the depletion of old oil fields

New technology allows more rapid extraction of oil but will not substantially increase the total recoverable oil from a field
Stated reserves, especially in the middle east are overestimates of actual recoverable oil

Non-conventional oil and alternative energy sources will not be able to completely fill the gap left by oil depletion after peak oil has occurred

A sociological assumption is that individuals and governments will act out of self-preservation in attempting secure energy sources for themselves.

^that is the key line that seperates the 2 models. Governments and people act out of self-preservation. (and why shouldn't they??).

The optimists/landers on the board can't disagree with the Pessimistic model but they can disagree with the HFTH model.

The "doomers" will automatically vote for HFTH (regardless of viewing the site or not).

For the few of you who voted for something other than HFTH or Pessimistic Scenario, read the website. If you still think the Optimistic Scenario is likely, .

[whiteknight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 'I') think it's going go be like a swift kick to the nuts with steel toe boots versus a knife to the heart. You probably won't die, but you will want to for a while, and after regaining your footing, you will still be wobbily kneed, and wanting to puke. But you will recover eventually.

[Tyler_JC]

If you did not read the website, your vote should not count.

And I can't believe that people who read that site would side with the insane plateau scenario.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
In late January, Brexit minister Steve Baker suggested the Treasury had put together 15-year economic projections designed to show “all options other than staying in the customs union were bad.” Though he later walked the statement back, to some, it supported suspicions of government agencies’ complicity in “Project Fear”—an effort to scare Brits out of voting to leave the EU. In our view, though, whether or not civil servants monkeyed with the math is secondary. Even long-term forecasts (of the economy or equities) conducted in good faith usually err for a simple reason: The near future is difficult to predict, but the longer out you go, the more variables enter the equation. Moreover, we believe long-term forecasts aren’t actionable for investors, as markets generally don’t look further than 3 – 30 months ahead. Economic and market analysis is not a hard science.