What if Peak Oil never happens?

[RobintheDruid]

Well if the question is more about Peak Oilers than Peak Oil, I suggest that we all learn from the discussion thats taking place already and go to doing sustainable community with organic veg plot anyway. Besides, its not just PO is it? After that theres global warming, ozone depletion, water depletion, pollution, avian flu, terrorism - I mean take your pick!

[Ryan]

It wouldn't change much for me. I don't consider myself a 'Peak Oil’er' having only really become aware of the issue recently. Long before reading about Peak Oil I had already chosen not to buy a car, to start moving away from a consumer lifestyle to something more sustainable. I'm still working on that. Learning about Peak Oil has made me feel increased urgency for getting things done because I do think things are going to start slipping down that slope. I'm not convinced it's going to be an easy smooth 2-3% decrease each year either. Probably more like an avalanche. I'm just trying to get out of the way if I can.

So, to answer the original post, if it doesn't happen (soon, I don't believe never) then I'll have a chance to do the things I was going to do anyway.

[JoeW]

Since we live on a finite planet, the answer is obviously that something else would peak. Water, space, food, whatever.

I would really like it if I were proven wrong, it would make me more relaxed and confident in my future.

Maybe this will make you feel better. Solving the energy problem solves any potential water problems. Remember that water is not "used up" the way that fossil fuels are. 3/4 of the planet is covered in water. It takes energy to make that water potable and bring it to the masses. Solve the energy problem, and there is no need for anyone to go without water.

And as far as space is concerned, we have a lot of room to grow if we solve the energy problem. We have two largely unpopulated polar regions. Plus, I have driven through Nebraska and Iowa. Living space is not going to be a problem.

Food could be a problem, even if the energy deal gets figured out. But right now, most of us reading this could probably stand to miss a couple meals. So let's not worry about that and just focus on the problem at hand--PEAK OIL!

[Keith_McClary]

Solving the energy problem solves any potential water problems.
...
And as far as space is concerned, we have a lot of room to grow if we solve the energy problem.

What do you mean by "solve the energy problem"? Scientists have known for decades what the possible energy sources are: oil/gas/coal, fission, fusion, tidal, wind, geothermal, biomass, solar.
Barring a fundamental scientific "breakthrough" (these don't happen very often, few scientists are expecting it) these are all we have to work with.

All of the alternatives to oil&gas will be much more expensive and will take a long time to "ramp up" to satisfy current global consumption increases of 2-3%/year.

[OilyMon]

Peak Oil is only the most urgent part of the problem with the most easily realizable affects on the economy. Many people consider that peaking oil and less use of oil is a good thing in the long run because of the effect fossil fuel emissions are having on the climate and atmosphere on which we depend for life. Al Bartlett's video is also a good critique of modern society and the direction it is taking, although I've heard population is actually decreasing from some other scientists (Nobel Prize for nano-tech? Columbia University - Who is he...?) so exponential population growth doesn't seem to be a global problem (although it may be locally).

I think the most urgent problem is civilization complexity, and the possibilities for growth that exist. It's like trying to speed something up to the speed of light. It's relatively easy to get an object moving at a slow speed, but as you approach the speed of light the amount of energy it requires to increase the speed of the object by 1 unit increases exponentially. Our society is the object and the speed is forward progress as defined by our contemporary society.

The rate of growth of anything reaches a maximum, and then declines, either stopping when the growth rate once again reaches zero, or continues to decline becoming negative. There's no such thing as an infinite society.

A good way to illustrate societal complexity is Einstein's general relativity. Who is going to improve on that? Maybe I can't see an improvement because I'm not willing to do the work required to understand what Einstein did 100 years ago. Most people are not willing either. In fact, if you want to fully understand Einsteins work, you would be the first to accomplish the task beside of course Einstein! People spend their lives digesting General Relativity and exploring the framework that it has laid out. If we cannot even come to terms with knowledge that has existed for 100 years, how are we ever going to improve upon it? Have we reached a peak intellectually? Potentially? What are other ideas that follow a similar pattern?

Fundamentally, in order to get a return on the investment made by the society in, say, a physicist, more resources must be invested, and less can be expected from said physicist. Therefore, the return diminishes, as complexity increases and we can only expect to be able to generate more social returns as long as ALL of our resources remain limitless because if they aren't, there comes a time when the return is less than the investment.

[Omnitir]

As has already been pointed out – the question is a hypothetical “what if”, not an opinion on what is definitely going to happen. So ease up people! Some people here seem so insecure, so extreme in their beliefs, that they are incapable of even contemplating any alternative theory to their own beliefs. Open your mind a bit guys, it will serve you well post peak.

The question posed in this thread is:

What if the effects of peak oil aren’t as devastating as many envision, and somehow the developed world as we know it continues?

I think if we found a way to get over our oil addiction but continue on the capitalist path (because of some viable alternative to fossil fuels), we would eventually solve most of the problems we are facing. I think given a plentiful energy source, technological development would continue to grow at an exponential rate, meaning we could overcome many of the problems we now face.

For one thing, because oil would no longer be a problem, the political landscape would dramatically change, and possibly many war torn countries would get a chance at prosperity.

Assuming the new hypothetical technology is low-pollutant, the wide-scale change to the new tech would greatly improve the planets pollution problems, and probably reduce the damage of global warming.

I think if we had this cheap and clean energy and continued to grow and develop technologically, we would indeed expand into space. This is quite a realistic outcome of continued cheap and plentiful energy, as space has much potential (contrary to previous close-minded opinions posted in this thread). We already know we can live is space, and have done so for years, so with continued cheap energy, the process would reach it’s inevitable conclusion of permanent space homes. This really isn’t that improbable, and with continued cheap energy would be a reality in a few short decades.

Most of all, I think if some solution presented itself to the problems associated with the end of cheap oil, most people would be extremely happy. Yes we were wrong, but so what? Now humanity gets to prosper and continue to struggle for a better world. Though of course some of the more extreme peak oil people would be very angry that they missed out on their shoot to kill Mad Max world followed by endless post-industrial stone-age living. But who really cares what the extremists think?

Unfortunately I don’t think there will be any physics defying technology developed in time to save us from our oil addiction. But I enjoyed contemplating what it would be like.

Oh, and to all those who think the idea of humans expanding into space is ridiculous and science fiction: open your eyes, we have been expanding into space quite successfully for over half a century, and have made significant achievements. Or do you believe that that was all a hoax?

[RobintheDruid]

Omnitir. Extremists? Hang on a minute, the scenario you suggest seems to ignore the driving principle of capitalism, that is greed and the burning desire of the rich and powerful to enslave the less powerful and pinch as much stuff as they can from them. You really think that by finding some alternative energy source and thereby keeping capitalism alive you're going to create a better world?

Dream on. Its capitalism thats destroying the world, full stop. Capitalism is like a cancer that has to be cut out, or a parasite that has to be killed off. This whole topic seems to be the preserve of those who don't really want to sacrifice their cosy lifestyles with piles of consumer crap. Its a nonsense that capitalism should be kept alive. Anyway, look at the word - capital-ism, that is a system that is biased in favour of those who have 'capital' i.e. shit loads of money, leaving those who don't scrabbling for scraps at the masters table.

And as for space exploration, what a load of tosh. The only way we've got our piles of junk into orbit is to blast them up there with tons of rocket fuel. Where do you think thats going to come from post-PO? Or are we going to find some secret ingredient presently lost in some South American rainforest somewhere?

And anyway, what gives us the right to colonise space anyway, just because we assume that its just a load of empty space. Thats the same logic as white settlers occupying the Little Big Horn Valley just because its a big space and they assume there's no indians wandering around out there, and look what happened to Custer?

Arrogant sod got what he deserved anyway!
______________________________________________
"If you cut me down Darth I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine"

[MicroHydro]

"Its capitalism thats destroying the world, full stop."

So Easter Island, the classic Mayans, the Anasazi, and North Korea were capitalist?

People are destroying the world, full stop.

[sjn]

And anyway, what gives us the right to colonise space anyway, just because we assume that its just a load of empty space. Thats the same logic as white settlers occupying the Little Big Horn Valley just because its a big space and they assume there's no indians wandering around out there, and look what happened to Custer?

Arrogant sod got what he deserved anyway!

I don't really think it's fair to compare the genocide of the native North Americans to the possiblility of space colonisation. We don't know that there is *any* other life out there, and we certainly won't know unless we go out there and look. My feeling we have a responsiblity to spread "Earthlife" out into the solar system because we can. If Gaia had a plan (which I'm pretty certain it doesn't, but anyway), she evolved us for this very purpose. It isn't without precident either, for example the first incursions onto land from the sea, opened up opportunities for others to follow - and if they hadn't we wouldn't be here today.

[Omnitir]

When I talk about peak oil extremists, I’m talking about those that act like the Mad Max scenario will lead to a better world. Basically people who believe we will suffer a very hard crash, and act like it will be a good thing.

My point in my earlier post was that if some theoretical technological development saved us from the problems of P.O., then given continued cheap and abundant energy we would continue to progress at faster rates, which would eventually solve all of the problems that everyone is so worried about.

Sure capitalism is a parasitic burden on the world, but given free energy, I believe it would get to a point where the world would be a much better place for everyone. It’s certainly improved the quality of life for many people over the past century, regardless of how much they hate waiting in queues and sitting in traffic. And with free energy, it would continue to improve many lives.

As for space exploration, in the scenario of some free energy existing post peak oil, there would be plenty of rocket fuel left for at least the next few decades (because we won’t be burning oil for mass transport). And as I pointed out, with continued free energy input, science will continue to advance and solve many problems. Colonising space would be just a matter of time in a world of continued cheap energy.

“What gives us the right to send life into space?”
What gives us the right not to try? That would be the greatest crime off all. If we are the only intelligent life around here (which looks like the case) then we have a duty to spread life as far as possible. To let that unique flame go out would be the most heinous act of humanity.


Of course we are no longer given plentiful cheap energy, so the point is mute; we must power down our dreams and ambitions and lead a more simple life in the future. We don’t have a choice about it anymore.

[RobintheDruid]

SJN, 'Just because we can'? Just because we can meddle around with cloning does that make it right? Listen to Geoff Goldblum's character in 'Jurassic Park'. 'Just because we can' is not a justification for anything.

And as for having a responsibiliy to explore space, why? I don't see this. Its empire-building which led us to this situation in the first place, and although the Mayas etc weren't capitalist, other societies from the ancient world that disappeared were patriarchal city-states, which basically amounts to the same thing - greed and oppression.

There is a clear lesson from PO which has to be learnt. Greed, exploitation and meddling with nature will finish us all off in the end.

[Omnitir]

I think the fact that because we are fortunate enough to have intelligence capable of studying the universe and developing science, we have a duty to learn what we can.

I believe that the problems with the world don’t lie with science and technological development, but with money. I think that the main cause of our problems have come about because of the antiquated economic system we use based of supply and demand, instead of a more logical and scientific world basing the value of commodities of their true worth (i.e. – energy investment).

Greed, exploitation and meddling with nature will finish us all off in the end.

Perhaps, but you need to realise that it is those things that are the reason any animal species is alive at all. It all comes down to animal instinct, and our natural instinct to take advantage of a situation (which keeps species from extinction). The situation for humanity was cheap energy, and we took advantage of it. I think your right about greed, as in we need to not be so materialistic, but exploitation and meddling with nature is what all life is about.

I think the lesson from PO isn’t to abandon our technological existence (that’s impossible), or scientific advancement (that’s the only worthwhile thing humanity ever does) but to re-evaluate our principles and way of life. IMHO, money is the evil of the world, not technology.




BTW, there is no “nature” in space, just an endless void with a sprinkling of lifeless resources just floating around unused. Wouldn’t it be a noble goal to A) fill the galaxy with life, and B) exploit the resources in the vacuum of space and leave the Earth to nature?

[RobintheDruid]

Omnitir, there are ways and means of meddling with nature. For example, a plant breeding programme will result in lots of lovely new roses or such for your garden (rosa 'gertrude jeckyll' or 'scarlet pimpernel' etc). Genetic modification on the other hand will encourage superweeds, encourage pesticide resistance in bugs thereby creating superbugs, destroy habitats and native species of plants etc etc. Therefore breeding is good, GM is bad.

I can create a liveable shelter in the woods with hazel branches and canvas tarpaulin, install a windmill or a solar panel and live quite comfortably using low-level technology that has been created by 'manipulating' nature.

Or I can choose to build a huge housing estate, with no community facilities and thus is a breeding ground for kids gang crime and drug dealers, and which has completely obliterated the habitat of the last remaining population of 'Joe Bloggs' butterflies.

Yes fine, manipulate nature if you want to, but do it according to sustainable, natural principles, not according to capitalist greed principles.

[sjn]

Omnitir, there are ways and means of meddling with nature. For example, a plant breeding programme will result in lots of lovely new roses or such for your garden (rosa 'gertrude jeckyll' or 'scarlet pimpernel' etc). Genetic modification on the other hand will encourage superweeds, encourage pesticide resistance in bugs thereby creating superbugs, destroy habitats and native species of plants etc etc. Therefore breeding is good, GM is bad.

This isn't true. "Breeding" is just a method of GM, unintended consequences are at least as likely by using this method as with deliberate genetic resequencing. My own opinion is that it can be dangerous producing new varities and introducing them into the "wild" (peoples gardens, agriculture etc), but then nothing is without risk I suppose. I would advocate using natural native species where possible so as to avoid many of the risks, as climate change kicks in though, this may not be possible. Mass cloning of agricultrual produce is extremely stupid anyway for other reasons.

These problems don't exist in the void of space. If we can use GM to create species that can survive and thrive on lifeless bodies in the solar system then I would be absolutely all for it. If we can modify ourselves to be able to adapt to the lower gravity extreme environments, why would this be a bad thing? Over time, evolution would do it's part and life thoughout the solar system would be nature.

I can create a liveable shelter in the woods with hazel branches and canvas tarpaulin, install a windmill or a solar panel and live quite comfortably using low-level technology that has been created by 'manipulating' nature.

And when the solar panels and windmill wear out then what?

Or I can choose to build a huge housing estate, with no community facilities and thus is a breeding ground for kids gang crime and drug dealers, and which has completely obliterated the habitat of the last remaining population of 'Joe Bloggs' butterflies.

I've never been a fan of our modern greed based civilisation, I do however have a great deal of respect for science and nature!

Yes fine, manipulate nature if you want to, but do it according to sustainable, natural principles, not according to capitalist greed principles.

I couldn't agree more!

[RobintheDruid]

sjn wrote:
"These problems don't exist in the void of space. If we can use GM to create species that can survive and thrive on lifeless bodies in the solar system then I would be absolutely all for it."

What you mean like something out of a certain Alan Dean Foster novel?

Anyone know Ripley's telephone number? Yikes!

[PeakKYJelly]

Dream on. Its capitalism thats destroying the world, full stop. Capitalism is like a cancer that has to be cut out, or a parasite that has to be killed off.

I have to agree with you. The most capitalist countries are the ones with the lowest standards of living. Look at America, for instance. The standard of living is so horrible that absolutely no one wants to come here. Especially across the Mexican border; there hasn't been any activity there in decades. Now, the Communist countries, those are paragons of great living for their citizens, and all that high technology coming out of their countries too. Let's see, didn't they invent the light bulb, the airplane, the car, the television, the computer, and the Internet [Al Goresky]. Yes, capitalism is sure one big stinking failure, ain't it?

And anyway, what gives us the right to colonise space anyway

In the future, the sun will expand and engulf the Earth. Unless we have moved off planet, our race will be toast. If you wish to die since you are obviously a self-hating human, you can, but why expect everyone else to follow you lemming-like to their doom?

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

"Now, the Communist countries, those are paragons of great living for their citizens, and all that high technology coming out of their countries too. Let's see, didn't they invent the light bulb, the airplane, the car, the television, the computer, and the Internet [Al Goresky]. Yes, capitalism is sure one big stinking failure, ain't it?"


Wow, talk about miss the point. He wasn't saying that capitalism hasn't built planes, trains and automobiles, or privided its' citizens with good living standards. The problem is the rampant consumption without a care of anything else.

That point went over your head like a 747.

[Phetro]

Dream on. Its capitalism thats destroying the world, full stop. Capitalism is like a cancer that has to be cut out, or a parasite that has to be killed off.

I have to agree with you. The most capitalist countries are the ones with the lowest standards of living. Look at America, for instance. The standard of living is so horrible that absolutely no one wants to come here. Especially across the Mexican border; there hasn't been any activity there in decades. Now, the Communist countries, those are paragons of great living for their citizens, and all that high technology coming out of their countries too. Let's see, didn't they invent the light bulb, the airplane, the car, the television, the computer, and the Internet [Al Goresky]. Yes, capitalism is sure one big stinking failure, ain't it?

And anyway, what gives us the right to colonise space anyway

In the future, the sun will expand and engulf the Earth. Unless we have moved off planet, our race will be toast. If you wish to die since you are obviously a self-hating human, you can, but why expect everyone else to follow you lemming-like to their doom?

While the average citizen in the West does indeed enjoy access to more convenience, comfort, and entertainment, he will suffer ten times more from Peak Oil than his communist/third world counterpart, who will merely continue life as usual, largely free of dependence upon technology and luxury. This is not so much to say that "suffering is bad and pleasure is good" as to say that access to technology and inventions does not a better person make, despite the tremendous effort many people expend glorifying themselves and others for it. As far as viewing suffering objectively, I would go so far as to say that many Western citizens have known material wealth at the expense of so much of the rest of the world's population--the side of capitalism that capitalists so conveniently ignore and deny--that some good old fashioned suffering will balance out their mindsets a bit. The very problem with capitalism is that it has led its people to think they ARE better than everyone else--that somehow they are entitled to whatever comforts they can squeeze out of the earth and the rest of its inhabitants, just because they are able to do so.

The better person, however, is the one who is happy during feast AND famine, and the one who gives instead of taking, not the one who, no matter how much material he has, is insatiable in his quest for more. In light of this, the idea of capitalism as a productive approach to either political or social activities is absurd. Communism would, for its part, work much more effectively were it not corrupted by the petty aspirations of its leaders, who have usually preached equality while living luxury, and exploiting their own people in the process.

In studying "people" rather than "systems," however, one can easily see that on a social scale, both capitalism and communism result in a great many suffering for the comfort and convenience of a few. A fool might look up to these few, might even call them "elite." The biggest fools might aspire to become them, and some do.

The best thing to do is to become free of things of this world, not increasingly attached to them. The latter is the goal of capitalism, the former that of those who, as opposed to the successful capitalists (normally successful due more to a combination of ruthlessness and selfishness than any sort of desirable qualities), actually deserve the title "Elite." To the extent that you can accomplish this freedom of worldliness, you will be unaffected by Peak Oil, or any other technological/economic depression.

[CarnbY]

Well said Phetro, great first post!

[PeakKYJelly]

The best thing to do is to become free of things of this world, not increasingly attached to them. The latter is the goal of capitalism, the former that of those who, as opposed to the successful capitalists (normally successful due more to a combination of ruthlessness and selfishness than any sort of desirable qualities), actually deserve the title "Elite."

I really don't subscribe to the theory that God or whoever our creator is gave us a body, then wants us to completely ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist. Whoever created us wants us to use our bodies to their fullest abilities; the self-delusion that desire causes suffering is not one anyone should yearn for.