[Pops]

Again, "slow crash" assumes there is no make/break point in either production or price or real world return on investment.

[Newfie]

Good point Pops, all Armageddon is local and temporal.

So the answer is different in Liberia, Ukraine, California, and Ferguson.

[Ibon]

Desu,

Your generation is now arriving at a consensus that our global civilization offers no guarantee to sustaining you in your future. Your finding out about peak oil was no accident, you were already suspecting this weakness even though you did not know the facts. Kind of like a mushroom bud just waiting for the rain to swell. I can imagine when you read about peak oil you immediately understood the implications. That ability to immediately understand it is exactly because your intuition was already suspecting the systemic weaknesses in our global civilization. Your second video was about over population which is really the source of the problem, peak oil is really only a symptom actually of the underlying problem of too many people consuming too much resources.

So just keep allowing your intuition to follow the logical conclusions. We are going back to basics, discretionary use of fossil fuels and many other resources will be constricted severely this century.

Your future is aligning yourself to this truth. What Ghung wrote is worth repeating:

Ghung wrote:

Better, IMO, to make one's own set of arrangements, at least for the essentials. The less reliant one is on complex failing systems, the less likely it is that one will be competing for the remnants of that system

[DesuMaiden]

Desu,

Your generation is now arriving at a consensus that our global civilization offers no guarantee to sustaining you in your future. Your finding out about peak oil was no accident, you were already suspecting this weakness even though you did not know the facts. Kind of like a mushroom bud just waiting for the rain to swell. I can imagine when you read about peak oil you immediately understood the implications. That ability to immediately understand it is exactly because your intuition was already suspecting the systemic weaknesses in our global civilization. Your second video was about over population which is really the source of the problem, peak oil is really only a symptom actually of the underlying problem of too many people consuming too much resources.

So just keep allowing your intuition to follow the logical conclusions. We are going back to basics, discretionary use of fossil fuels and many other resources will be constricted severely this century.

Your future is aligning yourself to this truth. What Ghung wrote is worth repeating:

Ghung wrote:

Better, IMO, to make one's own set of arrangements, at least for the essentials. The less reliant one is on complex failing systems, the less likely it is that one will be competing for the remnants of that system

I realized a few years ago that the Earth was indeed overpopulated and that we are running out of resources. I found peak oil mostly by accident, but I was already doing research on the world's main crises. Before discovering about peak oil, I learned that the USA dollar will most likely collapse and lose all of its value due to the petrodollar no longer being the reserve currency of the world. And then someone mentioned peak oil in relationship to the petrodollar, and that's how I found out about peak oil.

[dinopello]

There's a good chance that the worst place to live when we run out of oil is the same as the worst place to live before we run out of oil.

[sparky]

.
The worst place to be when we run out of oil is the best place to be when oil is plentiful
Think ! what was made last is what will be unmade first

[dinopello]

.
The worst place to be when we run out of oil is the best place to be when oil is plentiful
Think ! what was made last is what will be unmade first

I always say to each's own. I think now with plentiful oil, a small fishing village on the Italian Riviera would be one of the best places to live - I think I'd still pick it after the oil. Or maybe some nice small city in the mountains of Switzerland.

The worst places to live now would be some ebola-infested village in west Africa or some other place (Iraq/syria) where they are chopping off peoples limbs - you think these places will be better than the Italian riviera ?

[Tanada]

There's a good chance that the worst place to live when we run out of oil is the same as the worst place to live before we run out of oil.

I think there is a lot of truth in this statement. Take Florida as an example, it had very modest population until air conditioning technology and cheap transportation made it the retirement/vacation mecca it is today.

On the other hand look at Anchorage, Alaska, until the mid 1970's it was a very small city of under 50,000 people. Now it is six times that size with complete city services, fully modern architecture yadda yadda yadda. The combination of oil money and modern insulation/heating made it into a rather pleasant place to live despite heavy winter snows.

I wouldn't have wanted to live in Detroit even in its heyday back in 1960, but I was raised on a small farm so I just do not like cities in general. Detroit in 2014 is a disaster zone, and has been in severe decline for 40 years. Toledo is not much better. I certainly do not want to live in either one as things decline after oil shortfalls start setting in.

[Newfie]

Without ff heat is a problem, unless you have a really big wood lot and lots of human energy to cut wood. Ever try to cut a cord of wood by hand? Sucks!

[Tanada]

Without ff heat is a problem, unless you have a really big wood lot and lots of human energy to cut wood. Ever try to cut a cord of wood by hand? Sucks!

Oh I dunno, the northern peoples in places like Siberia and Alaska seem to have done alright by actually dressing in very warm clothing and using body heat as their main way of getting through the winter. We are incredibly spoiled by modern heating and cooling systems, when I was a teen my bedroom was routinely around 50 degrees in the winter time and in really cold weather the pipes in the bathroom would freeze if you didn't leave them running a trickle. It wasn't what I would have chosen mind you, but my parents paid the bills and set the thermostat accordingly.

[sparky]

.
@ Tanada , I have a personal experience of Switzerland ,last century, people were poor ,very poor
the winter weather can be quite gloomy ,
an Italian fishing village certainly does not have this problem but Italian fishermen have been emigrating in their millions looking for a decent living ,

some places are now full of strife , certainly but there is no place I can think which did not receive the visit of the four horsemen at some time ,
high energy consumption make us all live better than wealthy people during the steam age or kings in pre-Fossil Fuel age

[Newfie]

My parents house didn't have heat on the second floor. Yeah, we were poor.

I have had water freeze on my night table.

Try making that the norm in Boston, Chicago, or NYC.

and we DID have heat downstairs. Try living without, you need to also give up running water.

[Revi]

The worst place is where some kind of war is going on, and the best place to be when we run out may be some small town with a farmer's market and a library.

[dolanbaker]

I would simply say anywhere that is sparsely populated and where all the people have to drive long distances to work and do all the usual social & domestic activities that is expected.

Not that I ever expect oil to "run out!", but I do expect that its price will eventually make it too expensive for such a lifestyle to continue indefinitely. Most of these semi-rural areas will simply become abandoned as people migrate to towns and villages over the next few decades.

[inglorious]

@dolanbaker

I think there will be phases of migration. In the first few decades people will migrate to the cities as society will be maintaining some semblance of normality, food deliveries will be made, water will still be running, economies will still be functioning, protection from the zombies etc.

I think cities will start to fail with time. Their populations will be too large, food and water supplies (which are already threatened) will begin to fail, poverty will be rampant resulting in social disorder. People will begin to migrate back to the countryside IMO.

A city is too complex an organism to maintain when there is a myriad of external pressures, some will survive but not cities of millions, likely hundreds of thousands.

I think finding a place quite a way from a major population center but close enough to maintain some form of economic normalcy is the best. Whilst we live as things are it's almost an obligation to engage in society, making adjustments so that we don't rely on that society is a wise move though.

[dolanbaker]

It's important to remember that "Oil isn't the only fuel" and the fact that civilizations thrived before oil.
There will certainly be an element of power down as available energy from whatever source becomes more valuable, don't forget that the industrial revolution was initially water powered.

Everything that can be done today, could be done in the future with much less energy but it will take longer! Much of the third world works that way now.

[DesuMaiden]

It's important to remember that "Oil isn't the only fuel" and the fact that civilizations thrived before oil.
There will certainly be an element of power down as available energy from whatever source becomes more valuable, don't forget that the industrial revolution was initially water powered.

Everything that can be done today, could be done in the future with much less energy but it will take longer! Much of the third world works that way now.

I believe human civilization will survive after the end of oil, but we will have to change our life styles drastically. For starters, we would need to have a far smaller population. I don't believe we can support the current population without the use of petrochemicals.

[Quinny]

Having relocated to somewhere I believe will be 'better' and suffered my own 'peak wealth' I thought I'd just share some points:

1. I believe there is a certain amount of optimism re the impact -or lack of - of PO on the green revolution. IMHO it's not just about getting to work etc, but the maintenance of the oil based food production which could be likened to a body - builder not being able to afford his daily intake of steroids.

2. Despite living in a temperate climate with relatively mild winters, I have found that heating fuel makes up a large share of downsized living costs. Having visited Canada, I would be scared to death of my winter fuel bills. I realise there is plenty of wood, there is near me as well, but it still comes at a cost!

3. Travel to work costs are also significant though I would always choose rural v city, despite city probably winning out in this category. The thinking being that work is would be more difficult to find in any 'collapse' scenario, so getting there might be a bit irrelevant!

4. Although overnight Armageddon is not what I'm expecting, I believe there will be sharp downturns which will throw more and more people into a 'Peak Wealth' scenario. There are political choices to be made in these scenarios that need careful consideration. I believe community is key and working together is the only way forward. 6ft chopsticks in heaven - and hell - spring to mind!

4. Although

[DesuMaiden]

Anywhere with a high population density would be a bad place to live I.e. China because places with high population densities have less space for growing food