I agree that things can change in suprising and disruptive ways and that reality rarely conforms with theory. It is to avoid being suprised by errors in conventional wisdom that you have to take a step back and question your assumptions in an "academic" way. Creating a simplified model may not give accurate results but it often can help elucidate the possible interactions of the significant variables.

Well, objective, or sterile analysis has its advantages. Like expecting post peak oil depletion to bite in 2008 or 2010 is simply not realistic either. It is an over-reaction to the long-term problems facing us.

One way of looking at it is to plan for the 'long-emergency' if I can borrow the term from another Chicken Little, Jim Kunstler, but identfiy the red-flags, or tipping points as you mentioned, that could be disruptive.

Some of them off-hand would be a nuclear accident or confrontation; a closing of the Straits of Hormuz; a worldwide pandemic of human to human avian influenza; or a major terrorist attack against Saudi Arabia's oil infractructure and/or another major western city. A sudden dollar crash might also be a major factor. They are certainly all plausible and there is a mathmetical probability of them happening. But we can not estimate it with any precision.

So we are somewhat stuck with planning for a long, drawn-out drop in standards of living with the realization that things might get a lot worse sooner if everyone does not agree to die-off on schedule. But the devil is always in the details.

I know it goes both ways too. On the one hand there are things which can make the problem uglier and quicker while there may also be things which can mitigate the timeline or provide us with an alternative form of energy which could possibly supplant oil.

I would think that If quantam physics can solve the "thoery of everything" soon, than what is to stop us from harnessing the power of gravity?

Im not saying its a solution thats likely, but who on this planet thought we would be traveling every day to work in our own personal vehicles at almost 80 miles an hour 200 years ago?

Just look at the airplane. No one alive during the early part of the last century thought we would be doing with it what we are today.
Food for thought I guess.

What makes me a doomer is the fact that we as a species seem to always choose the viloent course of action. Reminds me of the line from the movie Terminator II when John Connor makes the observation "we're not going to make it are we? Humans I mean" and the Terminator replies "Its in your nature to destroy yourselves" I actually find some truth to that and it worries me.

I think the phrase "money sink" would be much more appropriate then "investment".

An investment is suppose to MAKE you money not LOSE it. When a person thinks about investing they think about getting richer not poorer. But you said it yourself Nero, "people will not feel wealthier"......

Lets rephrase this,

"As the EROEI for oil declines it is leading to a massive MONEY SINK in technologies that mitigate the effects of the decline in energy availability."

there that sounds much better

I had thought for quite a while that the conditions in Mad Max were just not possible. Now I feel while not neccesarily likely, it decidedly looks like we COULD go there if things don't break our way in some areas.

I actually think it's plausible in our lifetimes, even though I realize that a lot of really bad things would have to happen for us to go there. If you think about those movies carefully they just aren't so far fetched.

I believe that very, very few folks can make that connection right now and once enough can see it, it will be too late. I see this as probably THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM involving PO and how we as humans handle it.

In spite of that Calis voted for him BIG time

Im a Sci FI nut and as movies go, it was decent sci-fi flick. As great movies go its not that good. That particular exchange in the movie was very powerful and telling though. I also believe its not far off the mark either.

I like Arnold, but I dont think he was that good an actor. A decent action type, and when one needs a big guy to foot the bill it worked. But I wouldnt place him that high on the ability list as far as acting goes. I really did like the Conan pics.

De Caprio is 'a girlie man' as Arnold would say. He plays good 'boy' roles. A great actor? So many like him. Jack Nicholson? He only plays one role. If you like that role, you think he is a good actor. Personally, I cannot stand Meryl Streep. Not since Kramer versus Kramer. In Deer Hunter she spoke her parts like she had down syndrome. And that was a good movie she was in.

I think that one problem that we all have is talking about post peak oil depletion like it is Hollywood. We have all been influenced by it, but reality is not likely to look like anything we have seen in the movies.

If we talk euphemistically about 'thinking outside the box', so to speak, then frames of reference like movies may actually be holding us back. How many references have we seen to Mad Max?

I am NOT a big fan of Kunstler, but I read him anyway. This is actually one of the best posts he managed to pen in 2006.

Not so wonderful. December 18, 2006

I think it was well thought out. Maybe I just liked the movie? ; - )

I agree with you 100% on this one. We should stop thinking that peak oil is going to go like some Hollywood movie or other.

Instead, we should be doing some careful study of where things are going, with the facts in hand. I've been trying to do something of the sort for the last two years.

You can all find a first draft of my scenario in my website (press the www button below and go to "Resources"). I'm working into a more complete study. And I'm trying to get the local council in Brighton to look into this.

That is far more useful than talking about Mad Max.

Thanks very much for the link, Doly. Going there now. Cheers.

Yeah, Peak Oil isn't "like the movies". Maybe society is too numbed with neon lights (technology). But still, "we don't know how the monkeys will react".

Thanks for the link!

I am wondering what will happen to oil in a recession now with the world riding on the plateau or post peak as many of us think it is now. Unlike before when there was a recession we have places like Chindia who have started to consume a lot more oil. I seriously wonder if they will be able to reduce their need for oil even in a global recession.

The other thing that I think that has been increasingly obvious is that oil production and exploration is becoming ever more expensive. What is going to happen to the economics of oil prodcution once when we enter a global recession?

The projects that we need to embark on to make up the continual losses around the globe are huge and expensive. If I am the head of an Oil company and I see everything is headed down the crapper as far gdp is concerned I am going to think twice before spending multi billions on that latest mega project.

The net effect could end up meaning that we are still at peak or facing down the barrel of it again very quickly because the necessary investment was not made.