[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', 'O')ne of my beefs with the doomers is they don’t recognize that in order for the doom scenario to truly materialize, the entire world would have to instantaneously encounter a rapid, systemic decline in oil extraction due solely to geological forces, and that the world would react to this realization in a non-constructive manor. Both of those must happen for the doom scenario to take hold.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', 'O')ne of my beefs with the doomers is they don’t recognize that in order for the doom scenario to truly materialize, the entire world would have to instantaneously encounter a rapid, systemic decline in oil extraction due solely to geological forces, and that the world would react to this realization in a non-constructive manor. Both of those must happen for the doom scenario to take hold.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')Is there any example of "the world" reacting to a crisis in a constructive manner?

[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'T')hank you but I have read the Hirsch report ....
For the reasons I mentioned earlier ... I do not think the Hirsch report is relevant because we have to phase the hydrocarbons out ASAP and this will essentially cause "peak oil" in the sense that hydrocarbon use will decline. The only sensible way to respond to that economic crisis (which is necessary) is through macro-economical measures ala New Deal .
To sum it up for you .... we have to walk away of hydrocarbons no matter what.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')s there any example of "the world" reacting to a crisis in a constructive manner?

[OneLoneClone]

Well, Porter Goss(current CIA director) is the SCARIEST doomer. His 'sustainable organic farming' hobby sure is consistant with the doomer peak oil scenario. Ready to laugh at him? Silly nutty survivalist Goss?

Maybe not, especially when former CIA Director Woolsey was just in Italy warning of global economic recession as a result of peak oil.

And another former CIA director (Bush I) started the first gulf war, to get the war machine in place for the endgame.

Silly doomer CIA directors! They are just projecting their New Age commie fantasies onto the Peak Oil idea. They watched Mad Max and Soylent Green too much when they were kids! Losers!

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Are you daring to suggest that a couple of "CIA Directors" know more about world affairs and energy issues than some of our resident keyboard warriors?!

[cornholio]

Ok, I'll bite... It is a stretch to say that being a farmer implies he expects a collapse of all agriculture to the point where if he doesnt grow food himself in a sustainable way he will starve and die... Without supporting evidence that could be interpreted as scaremongering and innuendo. ?Did he grow up on a farm. Is farming a logical activity for him because of his past interests? It is discribed as a family farm... how many generations? I cant find the answers to these questions.

Anyway, it is one thing to recognize the peaking of oil, and to say there will be a recession/depression and conflict (most here agree with that, I think). It is quite another thing to say that agriculture is doomed, that 3/4 of the population must die, that industrial activity will grind to a halt in the near future... Those are possible conclusions, but are they inevitable or even likely? Doomers would say yes, its obvious and even desirable. Others see a different possibility...

We can all agree that things are going to suck (not sure when) and that there will be huge economic upheaval and a need to switch to more sustainable activities... Doomers aren't content with that assesment and want to add that peaking oil means that any transition will not be possible and that starvation, riots, and a return to the farm for survivors is inevitable. They argue against our ability to maintain an electric grid (nuclear), international trade/shipping, and modern agriculture on a scale/efficiency that would keep bread and basic staples available... For that reason Doomers are a unique breed. To the extent that that vision is debatable "soft landing" and "cornucopian visions" are reasonable...

[Ludi]

Cornholio, I think you may misunderstand the "doomers" reasons for believing things are going to be especially crappy. You give the example of the electric grid and say "nuclear." Doomers don't see much, if any, evidence that nuclear will take up the slack from oil depletion anytime soon. Doomers base a lot of their opinion on evidence and they don't see evidence that things will be anything but crappy.

[OneLoneClone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cornholio', 'O')k, I'll bite... It is a stretch to say that being a farmer implies he expects a collapse of all agriculture to the point where if he doesnt grow food himself in a sustainable way he will starve and die...

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', '
')You know this a fact? How? Been to the future lately? Or are you just assuming this? Too many 'must' and 'will' and 'shall' in many posts around here.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', '
')
The primary plan of attack in the Hirsch report is conservation. If we had started this 25 years ago, maybe it could be your path. Do you think that everyone on the planet should get anti-hydrocarbon religion or something? Sane mitigation is about holding it together while it is being done. We still have not started. The new deal has nothing to do with this. It was deficit spending until the war came along and demand for oil went through the roof. There was no energy crisis as a basis of the depression. We had all the energy we wanted.

[DefiledEngine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If we still have 10-20 years of plentiful, yet more expensive oil (and the price of that oil is high enough to truly spur the expansion of solar, wind and nuclear) then there is no way that the end of cheap oil=doom.

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', 'O')ne of my beefs with the doomers is they don’t recognize that in order for the doom scenario to truly materialize, the entire world would have to instantaneously encounter a rapid, systemic decline in oil extraction due solely to geological forces, and that the world would react to this realization in a non-constructive manor. Both of those must happen for the doom scenario to take hold.

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If we still have 10-20 years of plentiful, yet more expensive oil (and the price of that oil is high enough to truly spur the expansion of solar, wind and nuclear) then there is no way that the end of cheap oil=doom.

[Ludi]

FoT, it seems to me you're just arguing the other side of the coin. You're convinced doom will be avoided. The doomers, if they exist, argue it won't. Neither can see into the future, both are evaluating the same information and coming to opposite conclusions.

I'm not seeing how the anti-doomer position is any more convincing than the doomer position.

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'F')oT, it seems to me you're just arguing the other side of the coin. You're convinced doom will be avoided. The doomers, if they exist, argue it won't. Neither can see into the future, both are evaluating the same information and coming to opposite conclusions.

I'm not seeing how the anti-doomer position is any more convincing than the doomer position.

[Ibon]

We go round and round in this same discussion, myself included. Here we have a group of people who by and large all recognize the severity of the problem and who recognize we are in trouble but argue endlessly over how serious is it. We should take a moment and ask ourselves why we need to fix ourselves so firmly to a particular opinion as to the results. IS this some need to find some solid ground in what we all see as an upcoming destabilizing reality. I think an open fluid mind conscious of all the possibilities, from doom to transformation, is the safest and most adaptive attitude going forward. There are well thought out probabilities from doom to a steady transition to alternatives none of which can be really discounted with the exception of complacent cornucopian denial.

This is all symptomatic that we are all dissecting this to death because we are waiting for events to unfold. It is at times burdensome to have the knowledge of what is before us while life continues to go on the same waiting for events that get this whole transition moving. Building consensus and coalitions with others seems a more fruitful way to spend your time leading up to the crisis rather than fine tuned arguments over what exact degree of doom or hardship awaits us.

I don't feel compelled to run to the hills. I feel drawn more into the process of how to wake up the masses still in denial or ignorant of whats happening. Facilitating and witnessing this process seems so much more creative and constructive than just building life boats. Having said that I too have my focus on land and growing food as an integral part of my future plans if only to satisfy the doomer in me that knows we could really spiral into chaos even though I feel more aligned to Father of Two's forecast!

[Ludi]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Just good to know you're basing this on belief and not on "facts."

[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')I think I was not quite clear there so I will restate my position.
1) Coservation has to be done regardless of whether peak oil is peaking or not. Even if we had 10trillion barrels somewhere , we cannot / should not burn them. Therefore whether Hirsh is saying we should conserve or not is irrelevant because there are overriding reasons to conserve (and conserve at a far greater level than 5-7% decline per year