[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'C')ornholio, I missed your reply to my question:

In your scenario, what will the majority of people do for a living? How will they pay for food and shelter?

[Heineken]

It will indeed "work," Cornholio, but only after the population declines to match the true (as opposed to cheap-energy-inflated) carrying capacity of the earth, adjusted for massive damage to and depletion of the earth's natural capital. Authoritative sources, such as the Club of Rome and its successors, put this number around 2 billion. That means "doom" for 4.4 billion or so.

We can't get from here to there without some form of collapse.

[Ludi]

I'm sorry, Cornholio, I know I'm an idiot, but where is the money coming from to pay for the oatmeal and the house?

I don't have cable TV - who will buy it for me?

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnLudi', 'T')he American economy...and now much of the global economy, is predicated on the notion of constant expansion...it is not a maintenance economy, its health...and some would argue its very existence, is based upon a certain dependable level of expansion.

[Ludi]

But what sort of an "economy" will we have if most people are unemployed?

I'm just not seeing it, I must be missing osmething here, Cornholio...

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')'m sorry, Cornholio, I know I'm an idiot, but where is the money coming from to pay for the oatmeal and the house?

I don't have cable TV - who will buy it for me?

[Byron100]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'B')ut what sort of an "economy" will we have if most people are unemployed?

I'm just not seeing it, I must be missing osmething here, Cornholio...

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'B')ut what sort of an "economy" will we have if most people are unemployed?

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnLudi', 'T')he American economy...and now much of the global economy, is predicated on the notion of constant expansion...it is not a maintenance economy, its health...and some would argue its very existence, is based upon a certain dependable level of expansion.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')'m sorry, Cornholio, I know I'm an idiot, but where is the money coming from to pay for the oatmeal and the house?

I don't have cable TV - who will buy it for me?

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', 'T')he problem with Doomers...

1) They ignore timeframe... Yes, peak oil may be now or soon, but that just means a gradual decline in oil production. Assuming a bell-shaped curve in 30 years oil will be produced at a rate similar to that of 1975. There will be time and energy to power industry during the transition years...

2) Accepting that PO will cause an economic downturn, they equate recession/depression as an end of economic activity. PO may very well cause the stock market to tank, but people will work, industry will "do things" and resources will be used. Economic upheaval will redirect resources to essential (food, shelter, transportation, transport) and energy efficient (affordable) activities.

3) They lump the peaking of oil, gas, coal and nuclear into one immediate innevitable catastrophe. Coal will not peak anytime soon (and can be used to produce diesel), and nuclear (uranium and thorium) can provide electricity for hundreds of years.

4) They underestimate ability to compensate for increasing prices and shortage by decreasing use... Turning down thermostats to 65, buying only cars that get 50mpg (Honda Fit), decreasing air travel, carpooling... This will offset some of the declining availability, and these things will all happen naturally when energy prices increase but not a moment sooner (unfortunately). When cost increases energy will be directed to its most valuable uses as determined by what people will buy (food, energy for heat, shelter) and sustainable energy sources.

5) They (correctly) point out that there will be no single replacement as plentiful and cheap as oil... but imply that that means that a patchwork of more expensive, less energy dense solutions coupled with conservation (driven by economic necessity) is not worth the trouble and can not be successful.

6) They discount technology's potential impact on energy availability and storage... Beyond nuclear (uranium and thorium breeder technology) which is deployable now, and is for comming generations essentially sustainable) there are important steps being made in nanotechnology to improve batteries (making electric vehicles viable or hybrids more efficient), reduce the energy cost of creating hydrogen, and improving the efficiency of solar (for production of electricity or hydrogen). Genetic engineering may someday be able to incorporate nitrogen fixation into common crop plants (beyond legumes) to reduce need for fertilizers. Both nanotechnology are biotech have the potential to amplify the efficiency of industry and farming in the near future while reducing energy use.

7) They too easily accept the notion that the US economy/industry is without value and that the US dollar will fall to zero value easily... In fact the US population (highly educated), natural resources, infrastructure (highly efficient) and industry (highly mechanized) will continue to be valuable and necessary to the world economy. And if/when the US economy suffers a recession/depression so will the economies of asia and europe... To the extent that labor remains cheaper in other countries manufacturing jobs will remain overseas. To the extent that the us worker is willing to work for less industrial jobs will return to the US. To the extent that the dollar falls in value our nation can return to exporting products...

They use arguements based on efficiency and EROI to discount viable projects... Coal (now abundant) can and will be converted to diesel (as it was in WWII) if needed to supply the liquid fuels needed to keep farm equipment and heavy transport moving (EROI 5:1). It might have been more efficient to use the coal to produce electricity (EROI 20:1), but if liquid fuel shortage is needed to prevent starvation and keep trucks on the road then that is how coal will be used. Decades from now, as liquid fuels become more scarce/valuable/necessary using more exotic sources of electric energy (nuclear) to produce liquid fuel (cooking shale/tarsands/releasing hydrogen from water) may become justified if that liquid fuel remains necessary for food production and heavy transportation. A negative EROI just means you have chosen to spend more energy of an abundant type to get less energy stored in a more valuable fuel type... As long as the net EROI for the entire chain is positive the negative EROI fuel can be produced if needed.

Just a few thoughts I wanted to get off my chest... I'm a pessimist by nature, but after a month or two of grappling with the concept of PO Ive sided with the hard landers (rather than doomers) for my lifespan. I accept the probability of a recession/depression in our near future, and see some chaos in our future as the need to reorganize (demand destruction) under a more efficient model becomes obvious. Still, doomers as a group accept a lot of assumptions that just don't seem inevitable. Population growth and economic growth as we know it will have to be curtailed for environmental reasons... but Peak Oil induced zombie and die offs in the comming 2-3 decades seem unlikely.

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'I')t will indeed "work," Cornholio, but only after the population declines to match the true (as opposed to cheap-energy-inflated) carrying capacity of the earth, adjusted for massive damage to and depletion of the earth's natural capital..

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', ' ')I'm not saying there aren't problems, or that I'm not buying gold and stopping payments into my retirement fund. I'm just saying that it is not a certainty that the "house of cards" economy will come unglued completely even in hard times...

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')You really think the government will retain its resources and organizing powers and legitimacy under such a scenario? Katrina was something of a test case. Now imagine a "Katrina" that affects whole countries.

What does happen is that a lot of people die until the amount of stuff left is sufficient to sustain a much smaller number. That's exactly what happened to previous civilizations. Our civilization, of course, is immune, right?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', ' ')If shelter, food and cable TV are provided then what economy is needed? Most work now (beyond essentials) is involved in creating and exchanging decadance/luxury and unnecessary complexity. If simple needs are met for all (with work done by the able and willing) then what is the consequence of being unemployed?

[Byron100]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is the question, isn't it... Would the goverment let large portions of it's population starve in the name of protecting property rights of the owners of factories and land (farmers), or would it step in and "borrow" resources needed to keep the bulk of the population fed. While I think today's politics is all about serving the rich, I think in an extreme circumstance resources would be taken to feed the people. I could be wrong there, but I dont think voters would allow mass starvation in a developed nation without embracing a little socialism (they wouldn't call it that, of course).

[DamienJasper]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 1930s Depression was the end of economic activity

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', ' ')If shelter, food and cable TV are provided then what economy is needed? Most work now (beyond essentials) is involved in creating and exchanging decadance/luxury and unnecessary complexity. If simple needs are met for all (with work done by the able and willing) then what is the consequence of being unemployed?

[Trab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'B')ut what sort of an "economy" will we have if most people are unemployed?

[cornholio]

MonteQuest... I'm just getting bogged down in my prognosticating (so the answers are a little flippant). I just think the complexity builds upon complexity (as you combine technology, macro-economics and trade, resource depletion and the fact that humans have the potential to be intelligent animals) to the point where I dont know with certainty what will happen in 20 or 50 years...

Questions:
1) When is peak? (2005, 2013, 2020)... it makes a difference to me, if not for humanity.
2) What happens when the public first faces scarcity and recognizes it for what it is? (embrace efficiency with public transport/nuclear, or resource war)
3) How long will the peak last (bumpy ceiling for years) and how steep will the decline be?
4) How high can oil prices rise before demand destruction (elsewhere : ) brings price down... Is 5$ gas sustainable now... Is 7$ gas sustainable now? Will it jump to 15$/gallon?
5) As prices increase how much can decreased demand (through conservation, carpooling, efficienct choices of autos, and skipped travel) decrease oil consumption and therefore prices.
6) In the face of increasing poverty/joblessness will the public a)riot b) adjust and keep working c) a little of both
7) In the face of massive poverty/joblessness will the government a)fall back to it's well stocked bunkers guarded by blackwater security agents and let 50% starve b) provide basic food and supplies through seizure if necessary

I'm sure you feel certain about your conclusions (and that you've spent quite a lot of effor in research) but given the complexity and the unknowns all guesses will carry some bias. I am not so certain. Worried, but not certain. I guess we'll know soon enough how it plays out.

I don't accept Doomerism as a certainty because I think there remains room for things to turn out a little better than that... And, there is a cost to assuming the worst (in terms of stress, hopelessness, fatalism and lost opportunity) that is not counterbalanced by the benefit of the possible preparations for the "doom scenario" that I would make. Anyway... I am aware of the possibilities, am living frugally and planning with PO in the back of my mind. That is the most that I can do...