That dude is smoking crack. First of all, there is a lot of oil that is expensive to extract, but as the price of oil rises more difficult reserves will start to be tapped. Second, there is still a lot of coal, not very environmental, but there is a lot of it still. Third, just like your DH said, there is a lot of untapped solar, wind, and tidal energy that can be tapped into and will become more popular. There is also the slow progress in fusion power that may someday yield a new source of power.

So I was just reminded of NationStates, which I'd had a nation on years ago but forgotten about. Anyone else still playing there? It just occurred to me to root around for a Buffista Island region, but alas, no such luck.

If you want an opinion pulled out of my ass? The "we're running out of oil, we're all gonna diiiiiiie" scenario is certanly a possibility, but I'm inclined to agree with Dylan -- we'll find workarounds when/if the crisis becomes real. It may mean a simpler life in some ways, but I don't think we'll go back to 1800 or that there will be massive war/genocide.

Oz was right about the monkey pants.

But then we already knew this.

DH thinks he's wrong--that once oil hits $200/barrel, solar and wind power will be a lot more popular, and nuclear power won't skeeve people anywhere near so much, etc.

Yeah, there's oil located where the benefits of drilling and refining don't justify the cost. But at $200 a barrel it does. Not that oil is infinite, but there are energy technologies that are simply too costly now while we have cheap oil, and become more attractive when oil is expensive.

I guess you could put it down because any assumption that is premised on an 80% reduction in the world's population and a retardation of 200 years of technology is far-fetched. But I haven't read the book.

xpost.

Most food grown nearby, heavily agricultural workforce, etc. Lots of famine, disease, and war to get rid of the extra 5-6 billion.

Nah. There are other ways to power vehicles and agricultural equipment. Lack of fresh water will be the bigger problem of the future. OTOH, maybe global warming will lead to a huge release of methane from the seas and we'll all just get wiped out.

I guess you could put it down because any assumption that is premised on an 80% reduction in the world's population and a retardation of 200 years of technology is far-fetched. But I haven't read the book.

He wasn't saying technology, to my reading of what Susan said. Primarily population and supply-system patterns

Susan, there's an article in last month's National Geographic that talks about what we're going to do after oil. It's alarmist, but in that measured National Geographic way, and it presents a lot of possibilities/alternatives that we can pursue and that some places are implementing now. They don't buy the 80% reduction/1800's technology reversion theory - not really. They do think we're headed for disaster if we don't find something to replace oil, but that's nothing new.

ita, insent to profile addy.

My personal favourite disaster scenario is another flu pandemic. We cosy first-worlders will probably be spared the worst of it, but up to 5% of the world's population died in the 1918 outbreak, and we're more overpopulated now than then. Even if the disease itself didn't do so much damage, the economic impact would be pretty severe.

Yes, I was one of those kids who cried themselves to sleep at night convinced I was going to wake up to a nuclear holocaust, why do you ask?