[jmnemonic]

Mmm, I dunno about that, Ibon. In a perfect world, maybe we could wind down our population to 1 billion sanely, with no disruptions to food supplies or electricity or pensions. I think the odds of that are about zero, personally. If we were going to wind things down sanely, we'd already be doing it.

Plus, we doomers have the reality of climate change going for us too. Look at this chart from the Svalbard monitoring station:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/gr ... gg&type=ts

Notice anything, oh, I dunno, ODD about the recent data points? The methane bomb is beginning to detonate now. Mother Earth is going to fart us into doomsday.

[Ibon]

Mother Earth is going to fart us into doomsday.

Most likely descending down to a billion will be slow and gradual but punctuated by some whopping farts along the way as you so eloquently put it.

I was in Peru during the worst moments of the Sendero Luminoso setting off bombs in downtown Lima where whole city blocks lost all their windows. I was installing forensic equipment at that time in the building that held the city morgue. I traveled the streets with my representative. In the midst of all that chaos all the Peruvians where just going about their normal lives and these bombs going off actually became "normative" for them.

You will find this again and again in areas of war and where chaos reins.

I can assure you that there will be overshoot deniers still preaching their shit amidst upcoming chaos. Just as there will be doomers still blowing in their horns as people coping with their daily lives continue to ignore them.

That is my most humble opinion from life experiences I have gone through.

[Ibon]

There is are no more techno-efficiency gains to be had.

I agree somewhat but I do not see us near any end point in terms of efficiency gains. We still have a lot of efficiency to harness on the way down that will interact in a very dynamic way with the consequences of overshoot. From our shifting culture, behavior and forced new relationship with energy as it becomes expensive. I actually expect still some remarkable ingenuity coming from technology. Where I remain convinced however that we are deep in overshoot comes more from the convergence of ecological collapse that we see together with the collapse of the unsustainable modern human consumer culture and entrenched economic model that will remain stubborn deep into the descent. these ecological convergences are stresses to our marine ecosystems, biodiversity collapse of terrestrial ecosystems, consequences of climate change, fresh water depletion, destruction of arable land from industrial agricultural practices, etc.

We are going to see humans stepping up to the plate with heroic attempts at responding to this correction but it will be a tragic heroism that will chase symptoms deep down the descent since there is too much cultural and physical inertia to respond with mitigation that addresses the greater systemic flaws. Chaos will have us mitigating by putting out one fire after the next where the systemic origins of the problem will always remain just ahead of the smoke and ashes.

No lemmings. We will remain humans through the whole process........

[TheDude]

I know it hurts but it's good for you. Groupthink is bad...very, very bad.

Troll go walkies? Troll want nice fresh snausage?



Is a nice happy troll! Troll want excerpts from his shaman of choice?

The 2010 Scenario. Computers arriving at the beginning of the next decade will become essentially invisible: woven into our clothing, embedded in our furniture and environment. They will tap into the worldwide mesh (what the World Wide Web will become once all of its linked devices become communicating Web servers, thereby forming vast supercomputers and memory banks) of high-speed communications and computational resources. We'll have very high-bandwidth, wireless communication to the Internet at all times. Displays will be built into our eyeglasses and contact lenses and images projected directly onto our retinas.

Troll would belong to groupthink himself but hasn't got any colleagues here to soak in the smug with! Sad troll!

[americandream]

The problem with doomerism and anti-doomerism is that both sets of proponents have seldom thought through the essential core characteristic of capitalism. They haven't contemplated its causes and effects (it's fundamentals), it's resilience and adaptability...

Well I've never doubted the power and resiliency of market forces. When I've brought it up from time to time, just even mentioning the word market caused some folks to jump on me like I'm a cornucopian.

You can't deny basic market forces, it's like denying gravity. Even if every last drop of oil runs out that doesn't mean capitalism stops -- even the ancient Greeks and Romans had basic capitalism.

Now that doesn't mean that the status quo is just fine; we don't really have a free market, we're drifting more toward a command economy. And things could be a lot more equitable -- adopting socialism wouldn't mean getting rid of capitalism.

But this core recognition of market forces, the idea that necessity is the mother of ivention and that the market drives solutions to problems as they arise, is what keeps me from ever being an uber doomer.

You missed my point entirely. Capitalism is a culture of salesmen. It's pinnacle is the snake oil salesman. In other words, in a world devoid of oil, there will still be someone trying to sell you something, hence it's adaptive robustness.

However, like all forms of delusional maladly, the endless urge to profit from selling things that are no longer here will ultimately be dealt with by being rooted out from our global culture by a reversion to COMMUNISM.

[Perfecto]

I read or saw something recently by, I think, Dmitry Orlov, talking about the stages of collapse. You start to realise you're in financial distress, and then you realise there are lots of others in the same situation. Or vice-versa. And on it goes. Well, we are in real trouble financially as our recruitment business has been dying away. We work in exec recruitment for the oil industry. Ironic isn't it. Anyway, in just the last 10 days, two other small businesses here, in this small town, owned by friends, in operation for twenty or so years, that like us work nation-wide in the UK, have gone under.

[mos6507]

And 20% of the population that was working is now permanently unemployed.

But that's not peak oil doom.

[kildred590]

* JIT delivery to supermarkets and big-box retailers is still humming
* Chain restaurants are still packed
* highways are packed
* gas is still $3/gallon nationwide average

keep it up doomers, PURE entertainment

But it used to be only $1.50 a gallon not cery long ago.

The fact that the economy is growing will lead to higher petrol prices.

[Plantagenet]

And 20% of the population that was working is now permanently unemployed.

But that's not peak oil doom.

Yes it is.

Global oil production peaked in 2005-6. The rise in energy costs from 2005-8 and the spike in energy prices in late 2008 crashed the global economy. When the global economy crashed oil prices went down in 2009, but now that the economy is recovering oil prices are going back up. Eventually oil prices get high enough that they will inevitably crash the economy again so they will go down again...before going back up when the economy tries to get going again and oil shortages return.

This IS peak oil doom....and with every future boom and bust cycle the global economy just going to get worse and worse.

[DoomersUnite]

Global oil production peaked in 2005-6. The rise in energy costs from 2005-8 and the spike in energy prices in late 2008 crashed the global economy. When the global economy crashed oil prices went down in 2009, but now that the economy is recovering oil prices are going back up. Eventually oil prices get high enough that they will inevitably crash the economy again so they will go down again...before going back up when the economy tries to get going again and oil shortages return.

This IS peak oil doom....and with every future boom and bust cycle the global economy just going to get worse and worse.

So peak oil caused the real estate bubble to deflate....followed by the corresponding crash...and now the corresponding recovery except....we don't have a real estate bubble operating in conjunction with it. So...without the corresponding real estate bubble....why would oil prices by themselves cause another crash? They required a different mechanism the last time...what's the mechanism this time? With a recovering economy people can take mitigating steps so the higher fuel prices don't bother them, including selling one house and buying another one closer to work, shifting their transportation means, stuff like that.

[mos6507]

I'm surprised Planty didn't say Obama caused the crash, but to raise the whole "peak oil caused the credit crisis" meme again? Please...

Listen, this oil spike has something in common with 2008. You know what it is? It isn't geology. It's SPECULATION. Just like the 60-minutes piece that was put out there in the fall of 2008 which was grossly ignored by peakers, we're going through this again. Attempts to reign in speculators have largely failed. Money is rushing into commodities again and today's oil prices are colored (at least party) by speculator frenzy. Look at oil inventories. They aren't tight enough to justify prices at this level purely based on supply and demand. Open your eyes to the facts and you'll see it.

Oil should probably still be trading in the high 70s or low 80s range if not for speculation.

[Plantagenet]

Global oil production peaked in 2005-6. The rise in energy costs from 2005-8 and the spike in energy prices in late 2008 crashed the global economy. When the global economy crashed oil prices went down in 2009, but now that the economy is recovering oil prices are going back up. Eventually oil prices get high enough that they will inevitably crash the economy again so they will go down again...before going back up when the economy tries to get going again and oil shortages return.

This IS peak oil doom....and with every future boom and bust cycle the global economy just going to get worse and worse.

So peak oil caused the real estate bubble to deflate....followed by the corresponding crash...and now the corresponding recovery except....we don't have a real estate bubble operating in conjunction with it. So...without the corresponding real estate bubble....why would oil prices by themselves cause another crash?

Thats obvious.

I guess you haven't noticed that governments have been trying to pump money into the economy through tax cuts and stimulus spending and gimmicks like "quantitative easing" to get the economy going again. Higher oil prices act like a tax increase. They suck money out of the economy, from both consumers AND from businesses.

When oil prices get too high, the economy struggles and contracts and goes into recession, just as it did in 2008 and just as it has done time after time as a result of prior spikes in oil prices through the 20th century.

Peak Oil will inevitably produce multiple cycles of high oil prices followed by recession. The 2008 spike in oil prices and the current "great recession" is just the first one.

[DoomersUnite]

Peak Oil will inevitably produce multiple cycles of high oil prices followed by recession. The 2008 spike in oil prices and the current "great recession" is just the first one.

Anyway, last I looked we're at nearly $100 oil, the great recession has moved into the past, replaced by the anemic recovery, and has been looking better as of late, rather than worse, even with the current oil prices.

Interestingly, someone appears to be calling for "global recessions" when in fact no such recessions happened. Certainly growth rates weren't as high as previously, but recessions involve contracting economic activity. Here is a snapshot of the same time period from the perspective of GDP....which isn't shrinking...and therefore isn't a recession.



I think anyone calling for a "global recession" because of cratering oil prices in 99 might need a new theory.

[Revi]

I'm surprised Planty didn't say Obama caused the crash, but to raise the whole "peak oil caused the credit crisis" meme again? Please...

Listen, this oil spike has something in common with 2008. You know what it is? It isn't geology. It's SPECULATION. Just like the 60-minutes piece that was put out there in the fall of 2008 which was grossly ignored by peakers, we're going through this again. Attempts to reign in speculators have largely failed. Money is rushing into commodities again and today's oil prices are colored (at least party) by speculator frenzy. Look at oil inventories. They aren't tight enough to justify prices at this level purely based on supply and demand. Open your eyes to the facts and you'll see it.

Oil should probably still be trading in the high 70s or low 80s range if not for speculation.

Speculation is what keeps the oil market going. That's the reason the supply stays constant. Speculators bet that the price will hit a certain number and they either win or lose big. If the market will bear a price of $100 a barrel that means there is enough of a pinch in supply to warrant that price. The speculators will drive the price up, but then they will eat it when it goes down too. I think the price of oil is too low now, because all that cheap oil needs to be replaced by more expensive stuff, like deepwater or tar sands that cost more to extract. When the price of a barrel of oil goes up the price at the pump immediately reflects that, because the next load of gas that the gas station owner has to buy is going to cost more. If you have a cord of wood in your yard you bought for $100 and the price of a cord goes up to $200 would you sell it for $100? If you did you would have to buy another for $200, so you'd be out a hundred.

[Plantagenet]

Here is a snapshot of the same time period from the perspective of GDP....which isn't shrinking...and therefore isn't a recession.

I think anyone who believes there was never a recession at any time between 1980 and 2000 might need a new theory.

[eXpat]

Interestingly, someone appears to be calling for "global recessions" when in fact no such recessions happened.

Well, the IMF for one is calling it "global recession"
IMF says financial stability still at risk

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Economic growth in developing countries will expand at more than double the rate elsewhere but financial stability is still at risk, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday in its latest assessment in the wake of the global recession.

The IMF raised its projections for overall global economic output to an increase of 4.4 percent in 2011, slightly higher than the 4.2 percent anticipated in the Washington-based institution's October report, but slower than the 5.0 percent achieved in 2010.

However, IMF Financial Counselor Jose Vinals cautioned that the risk of volatility remains because of the failure to push through reforms, and address fiscal and banking problems that led to the worst crisis since the Great Depression

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_efueR3Vs535KWhWWao8TxLU97g?docId=e25f78c0692148f197e443ec8bdbde47
BTW Shorty, is that you???

[DoomersUnite]

Here is a snapshot of the same time period from the perspective of GDP....which isn't shrinking...and therefore isn't a recession.

I think anyone who believes there was never a recession at any time between 1980 and 2000 might need a new theory.

I pulled my graph from an australian government website.

Here is one from google from the World Bank for a longer period of time. The only global contraction since 1960 was the 2008/2009 financial mess.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... =world+gdp

Accepting reality is a difficult thing sometimes. But manipulated graphs showing recessions which didn't exist...why would you defend such a thing?

[DoomersUnite]

Interestingly, someone appears to be calling for "global recessions" when in fact no such recessions happened.

Well, the IMF for one is calling it "global recession"

People SAY all sorts of things. And the World Bank doesn't disagree that the most recent mess was a global recession, just not all those other ones. I was simply using information to comment on the validity of the original graph, which appears to show recessions which don't exist.

[Plantagenet]

graph from.... the World Bank for a longer period of time. The only global contraction since 1960 was the 2008/2009 financial mess.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... =world+gdp

Look again at the graph from the World Bank in your link. It shows clear, short-lived declines in global GDP in 2001 and 1996 (LOOK! The GPD line stops going up and goes down), and also a broader period of decline in 1981-82 (LOOK! The GDP line stops going up and goes down again). And, of course, it also shows the 2008 global GDP decline that is the most recent example of the economic consequences of large jumps in oil prices (LOOK! LOOK! The GDP line is going down again after a global recession triggered by the 2008 global spike in oil prices).

Accepting reality is a difficult thing sometimes. But I'm still puzzled by your misrepresentation of the data in this graph so you can pretend that large spikes in oil prices don't have significant effects on the global economy...why would you do such a thing?