by EnergyUnlimited » Tue 14 Nov 2006, 10:29:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '.')..I personally am not gonna debunk anything (at all). But I tend to think that reallife will debunk something... right on its own, w/o any help.
I think, that beliefs in "no notice catastrophic collapse of civilization", rampant die-off and uncontrollable disease spread in first world are those most prone for debunking by empirical evidence which will come pretty soon.
Civilization, even if it is going to collapse, will take few decades
at least to get there (sparing WW III etc), but most likely it will be a long process lasting for many centuries or so.
Die-off (in first world) will take a shape of shortening of life expectancy say from 78 or 80 to 71 or 73, lowering of fertility - already observed in first world, and of slight increase of mortality due to disease and accidents. No more, no less.
Nothing like mass starvation, pandemic disease etc is going to be a significant factor, with few very local exceptions perhaps.
Population will fall to sustainable levels and noone with exception of statisticians, state pension and social security managers will take much notice of it.
Rampnt disease? There will be plenty of SARS or bird flu alike scaremongering around.
There may even be pandemic comparable to Spanish flue - it will come in, go out and get forgotten.
To summarise all of that:
It is "hard landing" theory, what is going to be debunked.
All, what doomers may hope for is "long emergency".
Importance of oil to our civilization is probably overestimated by many members of this forum. PO will really start to hurt badly, once 30 or 50% of production is gone and will not be noticed by public at large until first 10% is gone.
This arguments are only relevant to first world countries.