I just learned about peak oil two weeks ago and since then I have been completely consumed by the subject. I just got through The Party's Over and now I'm really concerned.
Anyway, there's a part of the book that attempts to explain how money is essentially just a concept based on debt and the assumption of unlimited economic expansion.
It goes on to explain that resources are really the things of value. Can someone break down the conflict between economics and physical science in regard to peak oil?
It seems to me that pretty much no one disputes that peak oil is inevitable and will occur within a relatively narrow range of years. However, the real conflict arises when discussing the impacts. Economists generally believe that the market will adjust and replacements will be provided. Scientists generally believe that oil becomes harder to extract as the tipping point is reached, and less cost effective.
Can the argument over peak oil be broken down as economic versus scientific reasoning? Are these schools of thought mutually exclusive?