[americandream]

Maybe a return to the sort of central planning they had in the Soviet Union and China (before these guys got an attack of Quarter-Pounders and Big Macs) may help to deal with the problems of resource allocation. May give us some time in which to devise strategies for the long term as we scale back consumption.

May be a little difficult to cope with as we have grown accustomed to our comforts, but I would hate to lose all we have achieved and would be prepared to make some sacrifices for the long term.

[tdrive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe a return to the sort of central planning they had in the Soviet Union and China

[Tank]

Amazing how many people want to be taken care of by a substitute daddy and opt for slavery, which is what you are suggesting. Just what we need, tweedle dum or tweedle dee deciding what scarce resources should go to whom, and for what purpose.

Resources have always been scarce and history has shown that freedom and free markets do the best job of allocating these scarce resources. Just when the going is to get really tough we need the system that will produce the least human suffering and you are suggesting that we select the system that has proven throughout history to produce the most human suffering. What we need is to return to freedom and abandon the monsterous governments around the world that produce resource wasting debacles like Viet Nam and Iraq and which spend the majority of their domestic effort in shifting wealth out of the hands of the average man into the hands of the rulers and their cronies.

[americandream]

Mmmm....I understand your reservations for old style central planning...but when you look at some of the posts on peak oil recommening taking to arms to protect your family in a "mad Max" type world, I feel that surely our kids deserve better than an abrogation of responsibility on the part of us as adults to provide some form of effective government within which they can at least plan the next phase.

No government in an anarchistic vacuum is not an option except for those who relish the prospect of a society with no rules and ample opportunity to indulge ones baser instincts. The jungle is not an option. Order has to be preserved at all cost as once lost, it will be hard to retrieve.

[chris-h]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'M')aybe a return to the sort of central planning they had in the Soviet Union and China (before these guys got an attack of Quarter-Pounders and Big Macs) may help to deal with the problems of resource allocation. May give us some time in which to devise strategies for the long term as we scale back consumption.

[Specop_007]

"Central planning" = Communism.

It doesnt work. Period. If you dont believe me, look at those Communist countries. It was a failure, both socially and economically. It will NEVER work in the real world because of the inherent greed of humankind.

[americandream]

The scenarios I am overwhelmingly reading is we are kaput - democracy, the whole kit and kaboodle as a consequence of peak oil. We are consigned to a latter day "Mad Max" world.

If thats the case, then I reckon a strong police state globally with central planning ala Soviet style is a preferable option to chaos. Instead I get people coming back telling me that democracy is the best option. I am not talking of solutions where we have a viable future. I am talking about solutions where we are facing armageddon. Can you understand that.

Chaos is not an option and we should not even be contemplating sliding into chaos. If chaos is imminent, then it is incumbent on us to devise a system that can retain order, and in a society with minimal resources, it is fairly evident to me that we will have to devise some rational method for the allocation of those resources via some method that enables us to cling to civilised values, even if tenouously, so that we may live to fight another day. National socialism is of little use as it is, quite frankly, wired to the moon with its racist nonsense. In any event, national socialism encouraged consumerism and wastefulness - wasn't it our good friend Hitler who devised the people's wagon and autobahns. The only other option is Soviet style government.

What good is the human race, fragmented and in chaos. I ask you, what good is it.

[tmazanec1]

Well, the human race, by present day standards, has been "fragmented and in chaos" for about 99% of recorded history, and been living in peverty for 98% of recorded history.

[Falconoffury]

I think there are good points from both Communism and Capitalism that are needed for a new world government. The key is to not grow, which is ironically the hardest part. It would require a simultaneous change in economy, society, and human nature.

[Grasshopper]

NO CENTRAL PLANNING!

Co-operation of business and government, as during the second world war, is about as far towards central planning as most Americans, Canadians and anyone else who has lived in democracy could be persuaded to go.
The US election is coming up soon, voter turnout is probably going to be higher than 4 years ago, but still fairly low. If someone advocated central planning, they would get no votes.
The only way that type of government would get into power is through a coup (or by stealth, telling everyonethat these are temporary measures to deal with the emergency), and Americans have the right to bear arms in order to prevent such a thing happening.
I have to object strenuously when this kind of thing is suggested.

[Kingcoal]

Americandream: The american capitalistic system responds to change better than any other on the face of the earth. You are going to see a lot of pain, but we will adjust. The US will do what it has always done: adapt. And we will come out stronger than before, just as we always have.

[americandream]

I like the system we have - the lifestyle and freedoms we take for granted. I do not like armageddon and chaos - I do not like having to protect my family from the losers who will be let loose in such an event. Losers I would not pass the time of day with. If it needs a police state to keep them where they belong, then so be it. I for one will vote for order when the time comes.

[Grasshopper]

After global oil production starts to decline, there will be economic adjustments as the price rises, and availability dwindles. I know many people who post here do not believe there is much hope, but I think our inventiveness will manage to bring us back from the brink. I think the "Mad Max" or "Olduvai" scenarios, or even a return to 18th century type technology are most unlikely. Oil companies will find ways to extract higher amounts from most reservoirs because there will be a strong incentive. The reserves of oil wells are calculated to an economic limit, which will be extended as the price rises (to close to the energy return; the ultimate limit). In the meantime, the effect of oil prices will encourage use of alternative fuels or sources of energy (and our present economic system will give us a better chance of success at this than any centrally planned one).
Most importantly, people will be inclined to use less. As long as oil is cheap, it will be wasted, the time is coming when people will think twice about driving anywhere, and eventually probably not think of driving at all, but take mass transport instead (this is where planning has to take place - making urban and intercity transit a low energy per person proposition). Intercontinental travel would become very expensive, and might revert to surface rather than air. I think people who believe that oil will peak, and who do not want chaos, should be investing in renewable energy infrastructure, or in ways to extend ultimate oil extraction so that disruption is minimized.
Possibly law enforcement will be more important during the first shock because some will believe they are being gouged, and that it's all a big lie. Punishments for rioting and murder might revert to execution or become much harsher than now if lawlessness threatened to endanger a lot of people. I think you have a right to protect yourself from losers.
I hope no big wars erupt (fighting over the scraps, so to speak), but by that point it should be apparent to world leaders that the dwindling return would not be worth the awful waste that is the result of all-out war (not to mention small wars).
Buckminster Fuller said many years ago, that we were endowed with our fossil fuel reserves so we could build a technology that could supersede our need for them. I believe he was an optimist, but I guess I am too. I think innovation in the democracies will help us get past the oil peak safely. If you don't think so, you're welcome to dream of your own future, but in the meantime appreciate the benefits of ridiculously cheap oil.