[DesuMaiden]

It is simple. Peak oil and its consequences are too dire for most people to accept. Most people are unable to accept the fact that peak oil (along with other factors like population overshoot, resource depletion (of resources other than oil), and climate change) will led to the collapse of this civilization. It is just too difficult to accept.

Add to the fact that a significant portion (or the majority of) humanity will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil. And if you take the oil away, these 5 billion plus people will also cease to exist. When you reach these conclusions, it will, of course, be very difficult for the average person to accept the reality of the situation. The average person will deny peak oil. They will come up with the most pathetic reasons for denying peak oil like "peak oil isn't real. Oil is a renewable resource which we have a plenty of left". "We can always invent something to replace oil" (Even though all evidence shows to the contrary). Or "it is still a few generations away, and we still have plenty of oil left. We don't need to worry about it right now". But none of these excuses change the fact that peak oil is pretty much eminent it is happening right now, or it will happen in the very near future. And once our oil production declines, there is nothing to prevent the global economy and food system from collapsing. Quiet literally peak oil will cause the collapse of THE global economy and result in food shortages around the world. The average person is just unable to accept the grim reality that lies ahead in a few more years. Of course, they are going to believe in the nonsense that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS FINE. WE CAN CONTINUE CONSUMING RECKLESSLY INFINITELY.

The average person denies peak oil no matter how much evidence you present to them because they are too afraid to deal with the grim reality that lies ahead. They will just put their heads in the sand like Ostriches to avoid having to accept the reality that peak oil = the death of modern civilization. They will deny the consequences of peak oil regardless of how strong the evidence you present to them is.

Getting people to accept peak oil and its consequences are real is a difficult thing. The only thing you can do is show them the videos, movies, books, articles and other media that proves that the collapse of industrial civilization is eminent. And they will need to absorb the information themselves, and accept that information themselves. You can't force someone to believe something, no matter how good your evidence is. If they continue to deny this reality, then screw them. Let them die when the collapse happens.

I am certain many people will continue to deny the collapse of this civilization even after it happens. These people will be saying ridiculous nonsense like "peak oil isn't real. Alternative energy sources can still save us" or "these collapse wouldn't have happened if oil companies didn't suppress research towards alternative energy sources" or "if we drill in ANWR, this problem will be solved" and etc in abandoned gas stations after the post peak oil collapse happens. You just can't reason with people who will deny reality even when it is obvious they are wrong.

Peak oil and its consequences is something virtually everyone will deny especially at first. But most people will even deny it even if you present to them overwhelming evidence. This evidence can be overwhelming, but their denial mechanisms will override any logical thinking facilities. And they will just deny it. These people are clearly not worth saving. Their denial for peak oil is frustrating, because it is virtually impossible to convince some people that this civilization is soon going to be toast. But you can't argue with stupid people. Don't argue with stupid people. Just let these people perish when the collapse happens.

The bottom line is simple. Denying peak oil is very easy, and the overwhelming majority of people will deny it until it is too late.

[sunweb]

I think it is incredibly difficult to wrap our heart, mind and spirit around the massive changes facing us. It is indeed traumatic for what it might (probably) means not just for us but for our love ones, children, grandchildren. Our hearts break. We want to fix it. So we do more technology and more ultimate harm.

It is comforting to prefer the noise of delusional magical thinking and pretending that the system of perpetual growth can work forever. There is just too much tied up with it and any unraveling would be far too chaotic and unpredictable. Wrapping our heads around the eventualities of global warming; of overshoot; of the desecration of world wildlife; of the acidification of the oceans; of the poisoning of pollinators stymies. A world no longer powered by fossil fuels, no matter what incarnation, is almost inconceivable and for many terrifying.
It is like a person diagnosed with lung cancer saying he/she will just smoke these organic, non sprayed cigarettes for a little bit longer instead of facing the reality of the situation, quitting and having the operation.

[JuanP]

Desu, I gave up trying to talk about things like overpopulation and Peak Oil with normal people a very long time ago. For almost two decades I kept these things mostly to myself and dumped them on my poor wife. Now, I come here to PO and dump my doomerism regarding these kind of issues here.

Talking to normal people about these things is a waste of time and energy, IMHO, but I don't discourage others that do so from doing it, to each their own. I am only responsible for my words and my actions, what other people do is their responsibility, as far as I am concerned. You can only save yourself and a few close ones, if you are lucky. You can't save all mankind, because they don't want to be saved, and, IMO, most of them are not woth saving.

[Rod_Cloutier]

If you have been following the thread 'South American city on verge of collapse', as I have been, about the water crisis, you will see what will happen with the mainstream when peak oil arrives.

People will blame the government, utilities, and so forth for incompetence and mismanagement. There will be people fired, new governments elected, a change in the management. When this fails there will be strikes, additional changes in management/ government, and more calls about corruption and incompetence. When this strategy fails..... let us follow the thread and see history unfold, about the next stage of denial.

The same thing will/is happening with peak oil and catastrophic climate change. I don't know what the tipping point will be before people realize that it's not just mismanagement, corruption, governance, ect, and people have to face the reality that there are real issues, with no clear solution, and many problems demanding lifestyle adjustments, relocations, ect, ect.

When people face reality, that's the moment to watch for!

[DesuMaiden]

Desu, I gave up trying to talk about things like overpopulation and Peak Oil with normal people a very long time ago. For almost two decades I kept these things mostly to myself and dumped them on my poor wife. Now, I come here to PO and dump my doomerism regarding these kind of issues here.

Talking to normal people about these things is a waste of time and energy, IMHO, but I don't discourage others that do so from doing it, to each their own. I am only responsible for my words and my actions, what other people do is their responsibility, as far as I am concerned. You can only save yourself and a few close ones, if you are lucky. You can't save all mankind, because they don't want to be saved, and, IMO, most of them are not woth saving.

The excuses they come up for denying peak oil is laughable like "peak oil is not real because oil is abiotic, and it magically replenishes itself" or "peak oil is not an issue because we will always invent new technology to replace oil" (even though the so-called alternatives to oil have all been proven to be insufficient to replace oil), or they say "peak oil might be an issue, but it will not affect us until another 100 years or more" (they basically say the issue is real, but it is not going to happen soon. And by then, we would have developed alternatives to oil to fully replace oil). All of these points are just nonsense because

a) Peak oil is happening right now. The peaking of oil production worldwide is eminent if not happening right now. We don't have another century to prepare for peak oi. It is happening in another couple of years at most.

When oil production begins to decline, our monetary system will collapse because it is based on infinite growth. We will gradually experience food/fuel shortages and economic collapse once oil production starts to gradually decline because food production/distribution and all economic activities depend on oil. Virtually everything in the modern world depends on oil, so when you take the oil away, the modern way of life completely collapses.

b) There are currently no substitutes for oil that are reliable. Yes there are alternative energy sources, but when you critically examine them, all of them fall short of being able to anywhere near fully replace oil. And we are unlikely to develop alternatives to oil that might actually work. And even if we somehow, by some miracle, work out an alternative to oil that works, it will make little difference because mankind will be unable to responsibly use this new energy source. We will likely end up destroying ourselves with an alternative to oil because we are already destroying ourselves with oil, which is powerful source of energy.

c) It takes an enormous amount of oil and other natural resources to build alternatives to oil. When we don't have enough oil left to build alternatives to oil, we are screwed. And we are very close to collapsing already, so we probably don't have enough oil left to develop and distribute alternative energy sources to oil.

Bottom line is we are screwed no matter how you look at it, and yet most people are in denial of this. They come up with lame excuses, and they clearly haven't done any research on why alternative energy sources will most likely not replace oil. And even if somehow we discover something that replaces oil, we will most likely end up destroying ourselves with an energy source that powerful. So we are screwed regardless. If there are reliable substitutes to oil, we are just screwed a little later when we destroyed ourselves with irresponsible usage of the said resource.

They got no good arguments against peak oil and its consequences, so the best they can do is throw childish ad hominem attacks at the authors of peak oil whom they don't agree with. They say Matt Savinar is wrong about peak oil because he is a lawyer, has a BA in Political Science and he does astrology now. And they just call Michael Ruppert a batshit insane doomer. But they have nothing but childish ad hominem attacks. They can't refute any of the points these people make because these people are right (for the most part). These people are idiots and simpletons. It is that simple.

[Logic]

Actually, I believe people deny peak oil because they continually hear extreme predictions, which don't come about, and they go on with heir lives.

Desu, you are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf.

The fact that we are running out of oil is self evident. The radical prediction of dark ages are what turn people away from your entire message.

[DesuMaiden]

Actually, I believe people deny peak oil because they continually hear extreme predictions, which don't come about, and they go on with heir lives.

Desu, you are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf.

The fact that we are running out of oil is self evident. The radical prediction of dark ages are what turn people away from your entire message.

Actually going back to the Middle Ages and dark ages is not a radical prediction. It is pretty much axiomatic we will return back to an agrarian society at the end of the oil age. Oil is what made industrial civilization possible. Oil is what made 7 billion plus people possible. Take the oil away, and the population will contract back to what it was before the oil age. And also the dark ages, and middle ages is pretty much all we can achieve without oil. Just some simple stone and iron tools like people did during the middle ages. There is no way we can have airplanes, cars, or rockets without oil.

Without oil, modern civilization will quiet literally come to an end. And a significant portion of the population must also cease to exist since the population bubble of the 20th/21st century was enabled almost solely because of oil.

It is not extreme or illogical. The collapse and back to the dark ages is pretty much a given. But the dark ages weren't that bad. They still had metals and other cool things.

[GHung]

In short, cognitive dissonance; the same reason we haven't dealt with climate change. Just thinking about these things make folks uncomfortable. They have enough to deal with in their complex little lives, and most folks don't have much capacity for change anyway. They're fully invested in things as they are; all in for BAU. Those who have wiggle room, the most capacity to change, have the least incentive to do so. They like things pretty much the way they are.

Reality be damned, eh?

[dolanbaker]

Desu, it is important to remember that the world isn't Black & white as you are implying by saying doomer or cornie. There is in reality (at least) 50 shades of grey and the vast majority of people are "grey", peak oil means that the way most of the population lives will change as they have to work around a diminishing fuel supply. For many, this will mean that they'll have to move to a city from the suburbs, just like millions have already done so in developing countries (sometimes with disastrous results like the impending unfolding water crisis in Sao Paulo). A badly managed post peak oil landscape could be a very dangerous place to be, but most places should be able to transition with relatively little trouble apart from the feeling that many people will feel as they take a "drop in living standard".

[DesuMaiden]

Desu, it is important to remember that the world isn't Black & white as you are implying by saying doomer or cornie. There is in reality (at least) 50 shades of grey and the vast majority of people are "grey", peak oil means that the way most of the population lives will change as they have to work around a diminishing fuel supply. For many, this will mean that they'll have to move to a city from the suburbs, just like millions have already done so in developing countries (sometimes with disastrous results like the impending unfolding water crisis in Sao Paulo). A badly managed post peak oil landscape could be a very dangerous place to be, but most places should be able to transition with relatively little trouble apart from the feeling that many people will feel as they take a "drop in living standard".

Those life adjustment changes will do little to mitigate the serious side-effects of peak oil such as fuel and food shortages. It would only work while the economic consequences of peak oil are still relatively minor. Once the consequences of peak oil become more severe, the food shortages and economic collapse (unemployment and astronomically high price of everything) will led to widespread social unrest, rioting, looting, violence and a Mad Max like world.

And the civilization that emerges from a post peak oil collapse world would have to wait at least 50 to 100 years after the collapse because it can only form after everything has settled down. There will be a lot of civil unrest and deaths until enough people have died. And then we can restore equilibrium again in order to form a new post oil civilization. But that's only after enough people have died from famine, war and disease. The population will have to be reduced back down to no more than the carrying capacity, which we have now exceeded thanks to oil.

No it isn't going to be a peaceful transition to a post carbon world. It will be messy and violent. But once the chaos goes away and everything settles down, then we can form a new civilization whatever it maybe like is anyone's guess. But it will probably resemble a medieval feudalistic system or a barter trade economy.

I seriously doubt people will be peaceful and rational when they don't have anymore food to eat. That's all I am saying. You are being too optimistic with what a post peak oil world will be like. No way in hell are people going to just die without a fight.

[tom_s2]

Hi Desu,

Most people are unable to accept the fact that peak oil will led to the collapse of this civilization.

How do you know they're in denial? Maybe they know something you don't. Maybe you're wrong, or not convincing.

Add to the fact that a significant portion (or the majority of) humanity will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil.

The "end of the oil age" is at least 120 years away if we assume a symmetric Hubbert curve of all oil extraction. In the mean time, how do you know people won't invent some alternative, like artificial photosynthesis? Or build windmills to generate anhydrous ammonia which is a liquid and a suitable fuel for internal combustion engines? Or learn to extract methane hydrates? Or switch to electrified transport?

"We can always invent something to replace oil" (Even though all evidence shows to the contrary).

You have evidence that something won't be invented in the next 120 years? What kind of evidence?

peak oil will cause the collapse of THE global economy and result in food shortages around the world

Why would peak oil cause food shortages? Wouldn't people sacrifice food last? Won't they divert the remaining oil to food production, first and foremost?

But most people will even deny it even if you present to them overwhelming evidence. This evidence can be overwhelming

Which evidence have you ever presented? Every time I post an objection to what you say, you offer no evidence or response whatsoever. The others (Davy and such) just post their weird pop psychoanalysis, over and over again, without even addressing the objection. How is that evidence?

When oil production begins to decline, our monetary system will collapse because it is based on infinite growth.

Our monetary system is based on infinite growth? Did you read that in an actual textbook about our monetary system, or did you get it from Richard Heinberg? How did civilizations such as the Byzantine empire last for millenia while loaning money at interest? Why didn't the USA collapse during the Great Depression when there was contraction for a decade straight?

Peak oil is happening right now. The peaking of oil production worldwide is eminent if not happening right now.

How do you know peak oil is happening right now? Hubbert curves have been just totally wrong in predicting oil production for the last ten years. Hubbert curves haven't even successfully predicted regular, conventional oil which was supposed to have declined 2-4% per YEAR for the last 10 years.

If those techniques didn't work before, why would they work now? Do you have some other reason to believe oil declines are imminent? I'm not saying you're wrong (I have no idea when oil will peak) but I'm wondering if you have any reason other than these techniques which have already failed.

It takes an enormous amount of oil and other natural resources to build alternatives to oil.

Why don't we divert some of the oil we use for discretionary travel, and use it to build alternatives instead?

They got no good arguments against peak oil and its consequences, so the best they can do is throw childish ad hominem attacks

Who's the one using ad hominem attacks here? Isn't your main argument an ad hominem attack ("these people are stupid and in denial")?

But you can't argue with stupid people. Don't argue with stupid people. Just let these people perish when the collapse happens.

Why does every single expert in the relevant fields just dismiss this stuff? Are you really smarter and more knowledgeable than them?

-Tom S

[Strummer]

The "end of the oil age" is at least 120 years away if we assume a symmetric Hubbert curve of all oil extraction.

Have you looked at the costs of extraction recently? Those paint a picture very different from a symmetric curve.

How did civilizations such as the Byzantine empire last for millenia while loaning money at interest?

Exploitation of external sources of wealth and resources, mostly. When you have an influx of external wealth, this external wealth fuels your growth. This can be many different things: exploitation of provinces or colonies, transaction fees from trade passing through your territory, creating a war industry for a war outside of your own territory (as was the case for the US in the 40s), etc... In every case, the wealth fueling the growth comes from outside of the economy.

The problem with the current situation is that, for the first time in human history, there is no "outside" to be exploited. There is only one global economy covering the whole planet and when it runs out of resources, it begins to cannibalize itself.

[ralfy]

Hi Desu,

How do you know they're in denial? Maybe they know something you don't. Maybe you're wrong, or not convincing.

And what is that "something"?

The "end of the oil age" is at least 120 years away if we assume a symmetric Hubbert curve of all oil extraction. In the mean time, how do you know people won't invent some alternative, like artificial photosynthesis? Or build windmills to generate anhydrous ammonia which is a liquid and a suitable fuel for internal combustion engines? Or learn to extract methane hydrates? Or switch to electrified transport?

The problem isn't the end of oil but production not meeting demand, which has to keep rising to maintain economic growth, and production eventually dropping.

You have evidence that something won't be invented in the next 120 years? What kind of evidence?

And evidence that there will?

Why would peak oil cause food shortages? Wouldn't people sacrifice food last? Won't they divert the remaining oil to food production, first and foremost?

They should, but that's not what we are seeing.

Which evidence have you ever presented? Every time I post an objection to what you say, you offer no evidence or response whatsoever. The others (Davy and such) just post their weird pop psychoanalysis, over and over again, without even addressing the objection. How is that evidence?

Lots of evidence has been presented in various threads in the forum.

Our monetary system is based on infinite growth? Did you read that in an actual textbook about our monetary system, or did you get it from Richard Heinberg? How did civilizations such as the Byzantine empire last for millenia while loaning money at interest? Why didn't the USA collapse during the Great Depression when there was contraction for a decade straight?

Actually, it is, because the global economy is capitalist.

Previous empires lasted for thousands of years because the type of technologies employed did not allow for the level of production and consumption that we see today. Not even close.

The U.S. didn't collapse because there was a surplus of energy and material resources coupled with a small population. That is no longer the case for the global economy.

How do you know peak oil is happening right now? Hubbert curves have been just totally wrong in predicting oil production for the last ten years. Hubbert curves haven't even successfully predicted regular, conventional oil which was supposed to have declined 2-4% per YEAR for the last 10 years.

Hubbert's model uses math formulas and will thus not be able to map actual production. But it did predict a peak for global conventional production, which the IEA confirmed in 2010. The fact that we are now resorting to U.S. shale oil confirms this further.

If those techniques didn't work before, why would they work now? Do you have some other reason to believe oil declines are imminent? I'm not saying you're wrong (I have no idea when oil will peak) but I'm wondering if you have any reason other than these techniques which have already failed.

Oil decline is imminent because oil is a finite resource.

According to the IEA, conventional production peaked in 2005. Recent EIA data appears to confirm this, plus reliance on shale oil.

Also, oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.

Why don't we divert some of the oil we use for discretionary travel, and use it to build alternatives instead?

Because the global economy involves markets that use price mechanisms. That explains why preparations for peak oil have not taken place.

Who's the one using ad hominem attacks here? Isn't your main argument an ad hominem attack ("these people are stupid and in denial")?

Agreed. Also, why "weird pop psychoanalysis"?

Why does every single expert in the relevant fields just dismiss this stuff? Are you really smarter and more knowledgeable than them?

-Tom S

Actually, they have not. Check my signature for a list of reports from multiple sources, from energy agencies to oil companies to banks to insurance companies to military forces, etc.

[tom_s2]

Hi ralfy,

And what is that "something"

It could be anything. What I'm saying here is there could be multiple reasons for disagreement other than just denial. Perhaps people think that the failures of prediction, over and over again, calls this stuff into question. Maybe they wonder why it's such a fringe thing if the laws of physics so plainly imply it. That's not denial; that's doubt.

The problem isn't the end of oil but production not meeting demand

That's not what Desu said. He said "a significant portion ... will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil."

If the problem is only supply not meeting demand, then why don't people just take fewer discretionary road trips?

And you have evidence that there will (be inventions in the next 120 years)?

You're answering a question with a question. Desu was the one making claims here. He claimed that "all evidence" indicated that no inventions can be made. I am wondering what that evidence is.

If there is no evidence, one way or another, about what will be invented in the next 120 years, then there's just no way of knowing what the consequences of peak oil will be. The best we can say is "we don't know what will happen because of peak oil. Maybe it will be a problem, maybe not."

If other unconventional sources of oil come on line (like shale did) then there could be a lot more time until methane hydrates etc can be extracted. Who knows. That's what's happened so far; tight oil was brought online just when it was needed to keep increasing supply.

Personally, I would guess there will be significant inventions over the next 120 years. There have been significant inventions over the last 120 years. I don't see any reason why invention would suddenly and totally stop, especially if transportation becomes such a pressing issue. But who knows.

They should (sacrifice discrentionary travel for food), but that's not what we are seeing.

Really? We are seeing widespread starvation in industrial countries because people couldn't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food? Where are we seeing that?

The USA saw its oil supplies drop absolutely for 20 years, starting in 1979. How many people starved because of that? Why did the population increase?

Oil decline is imminent because oil is a finite resource.

That just doesn't follow at all. Even if oil is finite, declines could start 200 years from now. 200 years is still finite. For that matter, oil was finite 100 years ago, but it did not imply an imminent peak.

Hubbert's model uses math formulas and will thus not be able to map actual production.

Then what reason do you have to think that oil declines are imminent? If Hubbert's formulas can't predict declines, then what other formulas are you relying upon?

Also, oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.

That seems to pose a severe problem for your point of view. If food is dependent on oil, and people can't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel for food, then why didn't calories per capita decrease along with oil per capita? Why has world population continued increasing?

Previous empires lasted for thousands of years because the type of technologies employed did not allow for the level of production and consumption that we see today. Not even close.

Fine, but that's just beside the point. Desu was making the claim often found in peak oil circles that our monetary system requires infinite growth or it will collapse, because of debt. However, other civilizations had massive debt, high interest rates, and no growth for millennia before collapsing. How?

Because the global economy involves markets that use price mechanisms. That explains why preparations for peak oil have not taken place.

But the price mechanism implies the opposite of what you are saying. The price mechanism assures that money and resources are devoted to the most important uses, not the least, according to people who are experts on it (economists).

Also, have there really been no preparations for peak oil? Almost every major car manufacturer started designing electric cars many years before any actual declines began. Fuel economy has been increasing every year as prices increased, until recently. Ships built today are twice as fuel efficient as those of 20 years ago. The entire trans siberian railway has now been electrified, and many other railways too. Some delivery services are switching to natural gas for their trucks. Perhaps these things could even be accelerated once oil starts declining.

What reason do you have to believe that preparations thus far have been inadequate or that adjustments will be insufficient to offset declines?

Lots of evidence has been presented in various threads in the forum.

I was saying that whenever anyone posts any objection, Desu and other simply don't respond to it or post pop psychoanalysis. We'll see what happens this time.

Check my signature for a list of reports from multiple sources, from energy agencies to oil companies to banks to insurance companies to military forces, etc.

Most of your sources are from the IEA, the EIA, Exxon-Mobil, Citigroup, etc. Those sources do not support what you are saying. Not one of those sources which I've read predicts a near-term collapse of civilization. Most of them do not even predict a near-term peak of oil, much less collapse. That is what I mean by "no experts support this".

I haven't read all your sources. Perhaps you can be specific and point out something.

-Tom S

[ralfy]

It could be anything. What I'm saying here is there could be multiple reasons for disagreement other than just denial. Perhaps people think that the failures of prediction, over and over again, calls this stuff into question. Maybe they wonder why it's such a fringe thing if the laws of physics so plainly imply it. That's not denial; that's doubt.

Keep in mind that doubt works both ways, such that it could be "anything" or "nothing." In which case, this point is not worth pursuing. One is better off presenting technology that is currently being developed and show how its advantageous and limitations. More details in other threads of this forum.

That's not what Desu said. He said "a significant portion ... will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil."

Perhaps the argument is based on the premise that the population boomed during the twentieth century because of oil (energy and petrochemicals) used extensively for manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, both of which provided components and infrastructure needed for sanitation systems, health care and medicine, and increased food production.

That population is expected to increase further. In addition, resource and energy demand per capita has to keep rising because both manufacturing and mechanized agriculture are based on global capitalism, which requires continuous economic growth.

For me, multiple problems have to be considered, and not just peak oil.

If the problem is only supply not meeting demand, then why don't people just take fewer discretionary road trips?

That's because the global economy in which they thrive is based on markets driven by price mechanisms and profit, which explains why resource and energy use overall have been rising for decades. This is discussed in several threads in the forum.

You're answering a question with a question. Desu was the one making claims here. He claimed that "all evidence" indicated that no inventions can be made. I am wondering what that evidence is.

Any inventions will have to appear immediately as implementation may take decades. There is a study related to that discussed in several threads.

If there is no evidence, one way or another, about what will be invented in the next 120 years, then there's just no way of knowing what the consequences of peak oil will be. The best we can say is "we don't know what will happen because of peak oil. Maybe it will be a problem, maybe not."

It will obviously be a problem. Otherwise, why would "inventions" be needed to solve it?

What needs to be shown are these "inventions."

If other unconventional sources of oil come on line (like shale did) then there could be a lot more time until methane hydrates etc can be extracted. Who knows. That's what's happened so far; tight oil was brought online just when it was needed to keep increasing supply.

Unconventional sources require high prices and will peak earlier because they involve low energy returns. Meanwhile, conventional production on which total production rests may start dropping. At the same time, demand has to keep rising, unless lowering demand is seen as a "solution" when it is actually the result of peak oil.

Personally, I would guess there will be significant inventions over the next 120 years. There have been significant inventions over the last 120 years. I don't see any reason why invention would suddenly and totally stop, especially if transportation becomes such a pressing issue. But who knows.

But those inventions from the past led to more problems (such as the use of oil which led to a global population increase, environmental damage, and global warming).

It should be noted that Hubbert referred to nuclear power as a solution to peak oil. That topic is discussed in other threads in this forum.

Finally, the issue involves more than just transportation. More details in other threads.

Really? We are seeing widespread starvation in industrial countries because people couldn't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food? Where are we seeing that?

Most human beings earn only a few dollars a day and lack access to one or more basic needs. Only a fraction of the world's population has been responsible for the bulk of personal consumption.

The USA saw its oil supplies drop absolutely for 20 years, starting in 1979. How many people starved because of that? Why did the population increase?

The U.S. had been buying oil from other countries. It requires up to a quarter of world oil production to provide for the middle class conveniences of less than 5 pct of the world's population.

That just doesn't follow at all. Even if oil is finite, declines could start 200 years from now. 200 years is still finite. For that matter, oil was finite 100 years ago, but it did not imply an imminent peak.

Unfortunately, much of that finite oil is difficult to access.

Then what reason do you have to think that oil declines are imminent? If Hubbert's formulas can't predict declines, then what other formulas are you relying upon?

Declines have already been taking place, which explains why we are now relying on U.S. shale oil to meet increasing demand. The EIA forecasts that U.S. shale oil will also peak after only a few years. There are more details on that in other threads.

That seems to pose a severe problem for your point of view. If food is dependent on oil, and people can't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel for food, then why didn't calories per capita decrease along with oil per capita? Why has world population continued increasing?

That's because the oil was sufficient to meet global food needs plus the wants of a small global middle class. However, the latter has been growing. That's why even as oil consumption dropped in the U.S., EU, and Japan due to financial crises, that drop was negated by increases for the rest of the world. That's also why we are now relying on U.S. shale oil as conventional production can barely meet global demand.

Fine, but that's just beside the point. Desu was making the claim often found in peak oil circles that our monetary system requires infinite growth or it will collapse, because of debt. However, other civilizations had massive debt, high interest rates, and no growth for millennia before collapsing. How?

That's because previous civilizations are far removed from the global capitalist system that we have today.

Also, we may be facing not just one but multiple problems. That might explain what happened to those civilizations.

But the price mechanism implies the opposite of what you are saying. The price mechanism assures that money and resources are devoted to the most important uses, not the least, according to people who are experts on it (economists).

Actually, it doesn't. It assumes that resources and money are used to what provides maximum profits.

Also, have there really been no preparations for peak oil? Almost every major car manufacturer started designing electric cars many years before any actual declines began. Fuel economy has been increasing every year as prices increased, until recently. Ships built today are twice as fuel efficient as those of 20 years ago. The entire trans siberian railway has now been electrified, and many other railways too. Some delivery services are switching to natural gas for their trucks. Perhaps these things could even be accelerated once oil starts declining.

Electric cars, ships, etc., require oil for manufacturing, shipping, etc. More efficiency in a global capitalist system means more consumption. Natural gas, etc., have low energy returns.

All of these points are discussed in other threads in this forum.

What reason do you have to believe that preparations thus far have been inadequate or that adjustments will be insufficient to offset declines?

Because the IEA and other sources argued in a 2010 Catalyst feature that preparations should have started at least a decade ago. Also, one study argues that will take decades for full transition to take place, but oil production is expected to peak earlier. More details in other threads in this forum.

I was saying that whenever anyone posts any objection, Desu and other simply don't respond to it or post pop psychoanalysis. We'll see what happens this time.

Objections have been addressed in various threads in this forum.

Most of your sources are from the IEA, the EIA, Exxon-Mobil, Citigroup, etc. Those sources do not support what you are saying. Not one of those sources which I've read predicts a near-term collapse of civilization. Most of them do not even predict a near-term peak of oil, much less collapse. That is what I mean by "no experts support this".

I haven't read all your sources. Perhaps you can be specific and point out something.

-Tom S

The papers were written by combinations of experts. Obviously, they will not talk about a "near-term collapse of civilization" as they only refer to peak oil.

In order to understand the idea of a collapse, one can consider a recent study that looks at historical data compared to forecasts made in Limits to Growth. An article about the study was shared several times in various threads in this forum.

[sparky]

.
"Why people deny Peak Oil "
Simple , because it hasn't happened yet ,
peak oil will be an accepted fact , and its precise timing , about one hundred years after it has occurred
In fact , the exact timing will still be argued over then !

[tom_s2]

Hi ralfy,

I think his argument is based on the premise that the population boomed during the twentieth century because of oil (energy and petrochemicals) used extensively for manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, both of which provided components and infrastructure needed for sanitation systems,

That's just repeating his claim without answering the objection. I was asking why people do not sacrifice discretionary travel and switch to alternatives. You've not answered the question.

But those inventions from the past led to more problems (such as the use of oil which led to a global population increase, environmental damage, and global warming).

You're changing the topic again, and not addressing the objection. Even if some new invention leads to more problems (like further pollution), that's not relevant to the energy-collapse and die-off scenario which Desu was postulating.

If the problem is only supply not meeting demand, then why don't people just take fewer discretionary road trips?

That's because the global economy in which they thrive is based on markets driven by price mechanisms and profit, which explains why resource and energy use overall have been rising for decades.

What? That's just changing the topic. I was asking WHY people don't just take fewer discretionary road trips. You changed the topic entirely and started talking about something else without answering the objection.

We are seeing widespread starvation in industrial countries because people couldn't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food? Where are we seeing that?

Most human beings earn only a few dollars a day and lack access to one or more basic needs. Only a fraction of the world's population has been responsible for the bulk of personal consumption.

That's just totally changing the topic. That not even addressing the question which was asked. I was asking why people in industrial societies won't sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food. You claimed they would not, and I asked why. You are not answering the question.

It requires up to a quarter of world oil production to provide for the middle class conveniences of less than 5 pct of the world's population.

So? That's just not related to the question being asked. I was asking how it was possible that absolute declines in oil consumption in the USA could correspond with increasing food production there. You've not answered the question.

Electric cars, ships, etc., require oil for manufacturing, shipping, etc.

That does not answer the objection. You and he were claiming that no preparations had been made. Although a ship which gets twice the fuel economy still requires oil for its manufacture, it obviously uses far less oil during its lifetime. That is a reduction in oil usage (although not to zero).

I was asking you why you think such a preparation is insufficient. It's no answer to say "oil is required for its construction". You would need answer why the reductions being made are not enough to avert collapse.

Actually, it doesn't. It assumes that resources and money are used to what provides maximum profits.

Yes, it really does. Here is a basic slideshow about the price mechanism:

http://www.slideshare.net/onlineassignm ... -mechanism

From the first paragraph: "[He] described how the invisible hand of the market operated...to allocate resources in society's best interest".

Profits are obtained by providing something which is scarce. Food would be the most profitable thing of all, if there weren't enough of it. In that case profits and consumer need are aligned.

Finally, the issue involves more than just transportation.

That argument is even weaker. I picked transportation because it was strongest for your case. Electricity generation already has widely deployed alternatives to fossil fuels.

Objections have been addressed in various threads in this forum.

No, objections have not been addressed in other threads in this forum. Every time an objection is posed, there is either: 1) incessant pop psychoanalysis of the author; 2) total silence; 3) rapid topic-changing. None of those are answers to any objections. I almost never see any objections answered in this forum.

The papers were written by combinations of experts. Obviously, they will not talk about a "near-term collapse of civilization" as they only refer to peak oil.

You would need to show where those papers support what you are saying, which is what I asked for.

If you just bring up the Hirsch report and the Limits to Growth paper again, then that is just cherry-picking the two fringe papers which are always used here. That supports my claim that virtually no experts believe this stuff.

-Tom S

[tom_s2]

Ralfy,

I just don't see any legitimate responses to any of the questions I asked. Desu has just not responded at all, to any objections, despite claiming these things are science. You are just using the well-worn tactic of rapid topic-changing to avoid all objections.

You also claim repeatedly that scientific papers support your position, but when I asked for references, you provided none. You also claimed repeatedly that these objections were answered elsewhere on this forum, but you have provided no links, no references, and no quotations.

It is simply not legitimate to provide vague pseudo-references such as "my point is supported in some paper or comment somewhere" without being more specific than that. That is not valid. You are responsible for providing references for your own point.

These are basic questions I'm asking. These are basic objections. There has never been any answer to these questions on this forum.

-Tom S

[ralfy]

Hi ralfy,

That's just repeating his claim without answering the objection. I was asking why people do not sacrifice discretionary travel and switch to alternatives. You've not answered the question.

They don't because of several reasons: markets operate using price mechanisms that emphasize profits, increased credit levels, and low energy returns from alternatives.

That's why even when oil prices tripled global oil consumption still continued to rise.

You're changing the topic again, and not addressing the objection. Even if some new invention leads to more problems (like further pollution), that's not relevant to the energy-collapse and die-off scenario which Desu was postulating.

Actually, it is, as more problems make matters worse. That's why current predicaments do not only involve peak oil.

What? That's just changing the topic. I was asking WHY people don't just take fewer discretionary road trips. You changed the topic entirely and started talking about something else without answering the objection.

They do, but if credit levels are too high, demand destruction in industrialized countries may be negated by increases elsewhere. That's why not just oil consumption but material resources and energy consumption continued to rise globally even after oil prices tripled.

That's just totally changing the topic. That not even addressing the question which was asked. I was asking why people in industrial societies won't sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food. You claimed they would not, and I asked why. You are not answering the question.

The problem is that you are looking at only industrialized countries. You need to look at the global economy, and figure out why even as demand destruction took place for the U.S., EU, and Japan oil consumption rose for the rest of the world.

So? That's just not related to the question being asked. I was asking how it was possible that absolute declines in oil consumption in the USA could correspond with increasing food production there. You've not answered the question.

No, that's not what you asked. This is what you wrote:

The USA saw its oil supplies drop absolutely for 20 years, starting in 1979. How many people starved because of that? Why did the population increase?

In short, the U.S. bought oil from other countries. Of course, if you can show that U.S. oil consumption has dropped significantly (i.e., to levels proportionate to that of world production given its small population), let me know.

That does not answer the objection. You and he were claiming that no preparations had been made. Although a ship which gets twice the fuel economy still requires oil for its manufacture, it obviously uses far less oil during its lifetime. That is a reduction in oil usage (although not to zero).

Yes, it does, unless you can claim that electric cars, etc., can be manufactured easily without using oil, that efficiency in capitalist systems don't lead to more consumption, and that alternatives have high energy returns. If you can, then consider doing so in other threads where these topics have been discussed readily.

I was asking you why you think such a preparation is insufficient. It's no answer to say "oil is required for its construction". You would need answer why the reductions being made are not enough to avert collapse.

Because the transition takes several decades, the IEA argues that it should have started more then a decade ago, and conventional production will face production issues unless strong regulation takes place.

I discussed all of these points in greater detail in other threads.

Yes, it really does. Here is a basic slideshow about the price mechanism:

http://www.slideshare.net/onlineassignm ... -mechanism

From the first paragraph: "[He] described how the invisible hand of the market operated...to allocate resources in society's best interest".

Profits are obtained by providing something which is scarce. Food would be the most profitable thing of all, if there weren't enough of it. In that case profits and consumer need are aligned.

Your evidence counters your argument and supports mine. See for yourself: read Point 12 of the transcript.

That argument is even weaker. I picked transportation because it was strongest for your case. Electricity generation already has widely deployed alternatives to fossil fuels.

No, it's not. Mining, manufacturing, and shipping (not transport) are actually the strongest arguments for my case, not to mention petrochemicals.

In fact, the very components needed to generate, distribute, and even use electricity require oil.

No, objections have not been addressed in other threads in this forum. Every time an objection is posed, there is either: 1) incessant pop psychoanalysis of the author; 2) total silence; 3) rapid topic-changing. None of those are answers to any objections. I almost never see any objections answered in this forum.

Yes, they have, and many times. In fact, every point I raised above has been discussed in other threads.

There is no total silence on the issue. In contrast, there are numerous sets of evidence and discussion on peak oil and its effects in this forum. Go over the various threads and see for yourself.

There is no "topic changing" involved. What there is, though, are questionable arguments. Examples include equating industrialized countries with the global economy, equating civilizations in the past with the present, etc.

You would need to show where those papers support what you are saying, which is what I asked for.

Several of these papers (such as various IEA and EIA reports, the Citigroup report, several from the IMF) have already been discussed in this forum.

If you just bring up the Hirsch report and the Limits to Growth paper again, then that is just cherry-picking the two fringe papers which are always used here. That supports my claim that virtually no experts believe this stuff.

-Tom S

I didn't mention the Hirsch report. I did mention the IEA 2010 report in other threads.

The Limits to Growth forecasts have been studied by Melbourne scientists. Read the article shared in various threads and the study.

Finally, I don't see the latter as an example of cherry-picking. If any, it's the complete opposite as it looks at multiple factors and not just peak oil.

[ralfy]

Ralfy,

I just don't see any legitimate responses to any of the questions I asked. Desu has just not responded at all, to any objections, despite claiming these things are science. You are just using the well-worn tactic of rapid topic-changing to avoid all objections.

You probably have to wait for him and for others to respond. Meanwhile, feel free to look at the other threads of this forum, where all of these objections have been addressed, some several times.

Also, I don't see "rapid topic-changing."

You also claim repeatedly that scientific papers support your position, but when I asked for references, you provided none. You also claimed repeatedly that these objections were answered elsewhere on this forum, but you have provided no links, no references, and no quotations.

I gave links, references, and quotations in messages spread across various threads. Consider the one where I shared an article about Limits to Growth. Use the search facilities of the forum to find it.

It is simply not legitimate to provide vague pseudo-references such as "my point is supported in some paper or comment somewhere" without being more specific than that. That is not valid. You are responsible for providing references for your own point.

I and others have discussed the IEA 2010 report and others in various threads. The search box should help you find them.

Given that, for me this topic thread is based on a view given all those discussions and presentation of evidence. Basic questions have been answered in other threads.

These are basic questions I'm asking. These are basic objections. There has never been any answer to these questions on this forum.

-Tom S

You need to go over the threads in the peak oil discussion section to find answers to your questions:

peak-oil-discussion-f1.html

If, after reading them, you did not see answers to your questions, then please post them in the appropriate threads.