Richard Heinberg's Peak Everything - Part 1

[MrMick73]

im glad the ignorant masses are off watching Beiber. If you want to truly discover more information, Go YOUTUBE , Money as Debt .

[chadberry75]

FUCK..NEVER A GOOD TIME..4 BAD NEWS.

[Standuble]

I really fear peak oil, I think the biggest reason is too many variables. Nobody knows how humanity will act in essentially losing something it really cherishes therefore they can't assess the consequences and plan accordingly. This is what I think will be the biggest blow, long term planning becomes difficult, you can only rely on your skills at improvising in tough situations or survival skills.

The pre-oil world had 1.5 billion so death needs to be accounted for as a possible consequence.

[basmikiemike]

he says it takes energy to to get energy............this guy takes shit to give shit.....

[basmikiemike]

does anyone realize that oil is dead plankton??????.........so easy to make.....we have catlle don't we????

[HorseCents]

Just another reedy-voiced cashmere liberal telling sneaky lies about God's Bounty.

See my video series for the RealTruth(tm) of the matter.

[selvmordspilot]

Watch "Zeitgeist: Addendum", before you panic. There's no reason we should just give up - peak oil etc. is just a challenge, and there are sollutions.

[Guaporense1]

Peak oil is one of the most stupid ideas ever. People that think that modern civilization will collapse from lack of natural resources are people that are extremely arrogant and at the same time, extremely ignorant of real social science.

Energy resources are the least problematic area of modern human society. The greatest problem facing humanity today is the fact that governments all over the world are fiscally imbalanced.

[simplyjbr]

@Guaporense1

People like you won't survive long enough for people like me to say I told you so. You live in a fantasy land; a place where real resources are magically provided, waste is magically vanished, and money is magically made real. If you cannot heed the wake up call, you will not be here in twenty years. Luck favors the prepared.

[T1Brit]

@simplyjbr Real resources such as plants do seem to spring magically from the ground. And the Sun covers the earth in unlimited power all day long. The minerals that we dig from the ground have not vanished - they are still around. The problem is totally solvable. The apocalypse might come - but it will mean lots of people starving - not the end of the earth. The earth will still be here no matter what. UNLESS there is a massive nuclear war, the human race will survive.

[linghun]

This guy is completely wrong. This video is religious paranoia. We have barely scratched the resources available to us in the Solar System.

[yourmajezty]

slaves was a form of energy

[MrEnergyCzar]

Great book...it takes cheap oil to mine just about everything and cheap oil has peaked.....

[SpikenAL]

Hemp = Fuel, Paper, Fiber, Food, Medicine... Look it up...

[misterfunnybones]

@SpikenAL peak weed....nooooooooooooooooo

[therookiecynic]

Exponential growth of debt requires exponential growth of GDP. Denial of this fact will result in an epic fail.  Exponential growth cannot go on forever. It’s a finite planet, with finite resources. Economics, as presently practiced by the Keynesian maniacs, is unsustainable. Unfortunately, the only alternatives at this point are 1) radical change or 2) collapse

[linghun]

@therookiecynic No, there is space resources, which are virtually infinite.

[Guaporense1]

@therookiecynic Exponential growth will go forever. Yes. It will. Though probably at reduced rates. And that's nothing to do with energy supply. Energy is only 1 resource, today the world's most scarce resource is knowledge and labor. Energy is the least problematic resource and we still use oil for a single reason: it is cheaper than other types of energy. When oil becomes sufficiently expensive, oil will be substituted.

[ThatDifferentGuy]

We need to kill off useless people. E.g. The retarded, terminally ill, criminals and psychopaths. Anyone else that would prove as a liability.

[MC2233z]

The problems with the 1. Awarness of Scarcity and 2. Scarcity ~ is to have more babies. think of a lower form of life on a planet IN PANIC for survival. This IS why you see 3rd world countries.... fighting for water.... having more children. LAW Two child Laws, One child Policy . NO CHILD REWARD. is the only answer.  HERES the troubling DATA.. READY? ~ we dont have the largest water shed, Oil, or natural reserves to keep us *U.S.* going. Cut a deal NOW! or Never!

[durgaaa]

@MC2233z --I've been thinking and talking like this for more than 30 years. In fact, seeing that people do not regulate their births, I have imagined mass sterilizations. The masses are ignorant and they move as one blob of madness. They need to be nipped in the bud. Tubal ligations for all. Then we can wind down this mess we are in and maintain just enough child births to keep one billion population operating and try to get back to sustainable life on Earth.

[MC2233z]

@durgaaa tubal ligations? I didnt even type this post. 30 years? Im not old.

[durgaaa]

@MC2233z --are you not seeing the forest for the trees ?

[MC2233z]

@durgaaa seriously? "Durgaaa" I didn't type this post. sounds close to something I would say. I have no idea what a tubal ligations would be. Could you please remove the post. Yes I understand population "growth" is OUR problem.

[MC2233z]

@durgaaa tubal ligations? I didnt even type this post. 30 years? Im not old. remove this post

[linghun]

@durgaaa Life is never sustainable. Nature is unsustainable.

[durgaaa]

@linghun -what is your definition of "sustainable"?

[linghun]

@durgaaa A system in balance forever. Nature has caused mass extinction millions of times and eventually the Sun will go supernova or an asteroid will come and wipe all traces of life from earth. Nothing is sustainable (even though some things are less unsustainable than others).

[MC2233z]

HE TOTALLY FORGOT TO ADD_ WE ONLY HAVE 50 years LEFT OF DRINKING WATER- there is NO ANSWER EXCEPT ONE CHILD- (LAWS) NO CHILD REWARDS.

[imskin]

@MC2233z Most of our water use is tied up in unsustainable industrial and agricultural processes that can't be continued without fossil fuels anyways, so while there is a shortage of drinking water, it doesn't stem from a material shortage, but from a political shortage.

[MC2233z]

imskin - exactly - until I hear a politician say - "we will reward you for NOT having children - if you have them now - okay - but from here on out - Rewards- then I can still see everything he says Valid - and many jobs opening up. But population growing - Totaly apathy - point blank - Every one Knows this! and is really the problem - We need a new Flow toward Population reduction - and then have leverage on all of these things - not apathy, and Tradgic endings.

[linghun]

@imskin The number of industrial and agricultural processes that cannot continue without fossil fues is exactly zero.

[SketchyBack]

@MC2233z

You are ridiculous. Drinking water is a renewable resource, and while supplies of ground water are strained in many parts of the world and water problems will arise, to say that we have an X years of water left is just stupid. You can always desalinate ocean water if you have the money.

The answer is contraception and reproductive rights and economic development, which naturally lower birth rates. Another answer is migratory freedom, which equalizes incomes.

[MC2233z]

@SketchyBack Desalinazation takes TREMENOUS amounts of fossil fuel - and GBush Sr. bought a water sourse in South America - Im talking One child /no Child rewards - before Laws. and B. set the example of exactly WHO we really are as a country. Some of your ideas are workable/ doable and certainly allowed.. but My Idea is the Only Answer if you want life to be anything NEAR what it is now - in 20 years (not 50).

[SketchyBack]

@MC2233z

Maybe H. W. Bush is stupid ;-)? The alleged actions of famous people are a poor compass to guide your understanding of economics by.

And I'm sorry, but your inconsistent spelling, random capitalization, and claims about having the "only answer" don't make you seem like a rational interlocutor.

Imposing birth rules would work, but it's far easier to solve this economically without forcing people into something.

[MC2233z]

@Sketch - people hate the truth. Now what you propose , or atleast what I am sensing is YOU need to stay in "present time" "denial" "good spirits" "seek green alternatives -or even a Green Job - that pays off " (clap clap) good for you. Im using simple math. and data that has nothing to do with your posted ICONS. The stuff will be gone in (THAT) amount of time with (THIS )amount of people if we dont do (THAT) (THIS) will happen. I'm not knocking your variable ways to decieve yourself.

[MC2233z]

@MC2233z PS.. you think BUSH or FAMOUS PEOPLE WOULD PROPOSE ONE CHILD LAWS - ahh No. only people with facts pertaining to conservation of a life style (similar) to one you live now - in 39 years.

[MC2233z]

@SketchyBack (in Green Camp) you and I need to come to some agreement quick - meet in the middle - or let each other go. Your not worth my time , nor I yours.

[MC2233z]

@SketchyBack LOL - rational interlocutor - at the Brookings institute.. they "throw out the rational" and go with most or some DO NOT agree with.

[THEFRANKLINFILM]

Really, and are you going to be the one to implement this law, are you the world government?

[MC2233z]

in England/France/ (those countries) - - they have 2.8 children - Muslims are immigrating into "those" countries with an average of 8.1 children- also immigration is loose in the US. In short - when the 2 child law is inacted - there will be "nothing" for those who have exceeded their limitations. - they will need to migrate again... and defeated by what they thought was their greatest weapon - population growth. Enacting 2 child laws now.. Just keeps them out by an act of law.

[THEFRANKLINFILM]

There will be no 2 child law enacted, put the sci fi playbook away.

[MC2233z]

getting population abusers into Educated lands right now - is method of control - eventually they could be controlled and "different" cultures will have to abide to (child bearing laws) - the bottom line will always be Overpopulation. One could debate the solution for years - when there are few years to dicuss it - the message is clear to the educated - dont have over 2 children. Even if "they are doing it"

[linghun]

@MC2233z Only material prosperity will guarantee a one-child or less humanity. That already happens in middle classes world wide. It is poverty that causes pop growth. If industrial civilization goes away, no birth control pill, no sex education = pop growth. BTW water is renewable and can last forever. 50 years of water is bullshit, please research.

[MC2233z]

@linghun Yes - spanning the globe to control population growth with "material" perks ? (correct) Yes - Water could be plentiful - We can dig Ditches, lakes .. all possible... by rain water... pumping it- from A to B - Problems. (sorry) and YES! - Scarcity mentality creates more babies.... the person or civilations that believes survival is in peril create more of themselves..*not less* however current energy systems or water solutions are not working fast enough. (sorry)...

[linghun]

@MC2233z Complicated case to analyze - but ww electrical production doubled since 1985 and extreme poverty fell by 70% since 1970. Prosperity is on the rise - if u want to prophesize doom, do it, but I prefer to look for solutions. And a more prosperous humanity = more science, education = more solutions. Eco-doomers fail to understand exponential function in solutions developed by humanity - not only tech, but attitudes too. Mentality.

[MC2233z]

@linghun Trust me when I say I know all to well of Exponential funtions. Trust me when I say - Gloom and doomers or religious zealots are not welcome in my "crawl but are also best friends... Why allow them to menace." - We are not on a different page except... I ask your help. A Movie with positive events that are taking place currently - not some time in the near future... are what "I NEED" not some bickering or decieving myself with a like mind.

[MC2233z]

@linghun I have researched. and Live as you wish - exponentially. Ive come to accept this. 1. passive agressive holocost of populations (IE: Health care fall out where NEW drs from OLD holocausts are now running the death squad in ever elusive ways. Also consider diabetes, and toxins. vs. ME:  2. Real solution. Population control by sterlization. Most get a gut wrenching feeling when we say sterlization. Would you rather Holocaust? Beaches of Normandy? Morbid vile death?

[MC2233z]

One child Laws.. and NO CHILD rewards (free housing vouchers) will solve and resolve nearly 80 percent of this HARD WORK beyond what you do already. For another 30 years. Then of course if These Laws HOLD - there are tremendous loads of Hope and "getting along with each generation".

[MC2233z]

This seems like a solution Video.. it really a corporate HYPE -- to sell you more until what hes talking about IS ALL GONE. ONE CHILD - NO CHILD laws or rewards are the ONLY ANSWER. think about that.

[thedevil1938]

The USA will be toast very soon the new fascists are already on the rise here in the USA we will see a new type of totalitarian regime that will make the ones in Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark look like a joke 45 U S presidents and then there will be no more. thanks to Obama and the DNC

[ShaolinHero1]

What is this planet of the apes? I was interested until I saw that stupidity.

[MonteCristoRecords]

Maybe a little off topic but time and time again you will hear very smart people like Mr. Heinberg make statements to the effect that man was an ape-like savage at around 8000 BC and that he somehow has evolved almost linearly into his current very advanced position. This needs to be questioned. Is it possible that man goes back hundreds of thousands of years into a past that was much more advanced on all levels? Something has gotten buried and only remains in myths of a long gone golden age.

[andy765gtr]

there is no evidence for pre agricultural civilizations 'lost in time'. and those pictures of 'savages' were inappropriate and looked pre human. pre agricultural humans were very much modern humans with sophisticated technologies and knowledge of their own. they were more like amazonian indians, or Eskimo, not grunting 'cave men'. hunter gatherer is actually a sophisticated lifestyle.

[imskin]

he is not saying that at all, he says time and time again that the smartest forms of culture are the neolithic hunter-gatherers because their energy returns were so high. He refers to MODERN people as viewing technology as being somehow "magical" and able to solve all our problems.

[WolYou]

An energy profit is not necessary. Break even is necessary. Most people can't cope with balance (means zero). We must start thinking towards break-even and abandon the destructive profit-oriented idea.

[Thimmet]

Stop consumerism.

[trippticket]

Polyzygote,

Great comments. Permaculture is indeed the way of the future. Everyone is so busy trying to figure out how to keep this high-energy way of life going that they haven't stopped to think about whether we even should. Permaculture is a powerful and empowering system of thought for energy descent. I can tell you first hand that I've never been involved in anything more rewarding.

[linghun]

@trippticket Yeh until that shovel breaks and there is no steel industry to make a new one so permaculturists will have to dig their own grave with their bare hands. That is after their population grows exponentially since birth control pill industries are gone too.

[dmoitoza]

The fuel supply for nuclear power is unlimited using Integral Fast Reactors, a nuclear reactor 100 to 300 times as efficient. It can accept low-grade ores, like uranium in granite or seawater since it is so efficient.

[danbuck333]

Can you please show a link that explains your unlimited nuclear fuel supply?  thanks

[linghun]

@dmoitoza Please don't say "nuclear" to enviro-death cultists, its the spawn of Satan didn't you know? Nuclear power represents the zenith of human achievement, and green anti-humanists hate it. Fast breeder reactors CANNOT exist, it's as impossibles as the Moons of Jupiter!

[666satanicgoth666]

1.copy and paste

2.send this to 2 other videos.

3.hold your breath for 10 seconds

4.press refresh twice

3.LOOK AT YOUR HANDS

[bobbygnosis]

Yeah.

We're all gonna die.

[peakmoment]

If you'd like to hear a full-length presentation, it's on google video (title: Peak Everything: Waking Up in a Century of Declines). If you want a DVD of the talk, go to the peakmoment-dot-tv website.

[bergermon]

Thank you for these videos. Very important stuff.

[xenix2012]

Uranium is only produced in supernovae explosions. It's far, far rarer than oil. If humans die out, 250 million years from now the earth will produce hundreds of cubic miles of oil for the next civilization. But it will not be producing any more uranium. That's a one time shopping experience in the life of the universe. Keep it in perspective.

[TyGarber]

What about on the scale of the universe? I could certainly argue that there is more uranium than there is life based oil. Furthermore, uranium has a MUCH higher energy content than crude (Atomic bomb vs. Malatov cocktail), requiring less of it. More bang for the buck.

[LastReplaySC]

so your gonna keep the nuclear waste in your back garden? can you plan 1 million years in advance of where to put the waste? ..... wake up it only an option but not the global solution

[polyzygote]

there is also a very limited supply of uranium. fusion when it comes will be interesting, but then again we already have fusion every day direct from the sun. what is needed is very smart design choices to use what we have now and use it much more intelligently, which is why permaculture, transition towns, and cradle to cradle is very interesting.

[pohjalo]

Fusion, IF it comes. All technology will not advance simply because we believe so. Not even money will solve, if the bottleneck is a limited resource.

[linghun]

@xenix2012 Uranium is trillions of times more common than oil in the Solar System, but not on earth.

[T1Brit]

@xenix2012 Supernovae as common in the Universe - many stars go nova. But life may be very rare indeed. And oil is produced by living organisms. On the cosmic scale you are wrong - Uranium is everywhere - oil is not.

[yogiudo]

Great work on Peak OIL.

However, Richard, you are making a rather large jump to implying we're peaking everything at the same time. "If the shoe fits wear it"

I believe you have not examined the facts clearly enough to come to the conclusion that all things are "peaking". Uranium is highly abundant on earth and your assumption that we've hit peak Uranium is not well backed up with facts.

Please consider that what you really mean, is "Peak most things"

[milofonbil]

Yogiudo, peak is not a quantity problem, it's a rate problem. With peak oil, there is plenty of oil left in the ground. The problem is that it cannot be discovered, drilled and pumped into the growing number of gas tanks fast enough. It's the same with uranium. During the cold war, it was not possible to extract uranium faster to build max number of bombs. Peak uranium already hit in 1980 at 69,683 tonnes per year. Current production is less and not enough to meet the current demand.

[milofonbil]

Only 36,000 tonnes per year of uranium comes from primary sources (mining). The rest is made up from drawing down on reserves and disassembling nuclear weapons. The plutonium from nuclear weapons ends in 2013. The secondary reserves will be depleted in 2012. With new nuclear power plants fueling up soon, there will be a panic on uranium soon. The price of uranium has already gone up 10-fold since uranium bottomed out at $6.50 per lb.

[yogiudo]

milofon, I understand what a "peak" is. I understand it is a rate problem. What I am saying FLAT OUT - is that once it becomes clear that OIL is not going to meet the grade, and people are forced to use electric cars, scooters, and other forms of conveyance that do not require OIL, we will see a surge in Uranium prices.

Furthermore, the rate of Uranium extraction will increase, and will FAR by pass the 1980 peak set it place.

[yogiudo]

Furthermore, uranium / thorium can easily go to say $10,000 per ounce and still be a viable energy source. When Uranium is $10,000 per ounce it will create a rush into Uranium which will unlock the abundant reserves of U on earth. We will see electric / hydrogen powered mining equipment, and a renaissance in industrial society going from a low energy world (OIL) to a high energy world (nuclear).

The trend is your friend.

I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your world view.

[yogiudo]

Human beings arn't going to settle for anything less.

I also believe we're going to have learned our lessons on consumption and efficiency and being aware of the natural world will become paramount.

Not all things will end and stay in depression. We're going to have a depression, but the nuclear age will be upon us.

[milofonbil]

Loads of people will run to nuclear (uranium and thorium) without understanding that quantity in the ground does not equal rate produced. Also, be aware that the world is really in a once-through nuclear cycle. The capacity of breeders and reprocessing facilities is really not there to "close" the cycle.

[milofonbil]

All in time ... we'll see how much nuclear fuel will be able to be mined when the price goes up that high. There's lots of quantity, but I don't think the production *rates* will be there.

[milofonbil]

It is clear that oil has peaked. For the last 18 months OPEC's production has decreased. Uranium prices have peaked last summer at $130 or so. I just don't see the increase in production that you are predicting. I'm not sure that production can really be increased like you would like. The only country that is really able to really increase production since the uranium price has surged is Kazakhstan. The US has increased production a bit, but it's a long way before the world hits 1980 levels

[yogiudo]

I completely agree with you that OIL has peaked.

However, I am completely in disagreement with you on Uranium / Thorium.

It is purely a situation of supply and demand. Why would anyone put in a big effort to find uranium at a few hundred dollars per pound? The margin is so small. Esspically when there is so little demand. As demand increases and the price of uranium goes through the roof, you will see people chasing uranium.

Seawater extraction will be viable after 700 dollars a pound.

[milofonbil]

The demand at 70,000 tonnes per year is not small. In fact, the demand is almost twice what is being mined (36,000 tonnes / yr).

Even when Uranium hits $700 a pound, I'm still not sure if it will be possible to produce uranium from sea water at a rate sufficient to feed the growing number of n-reactors. It takes 240 days to harvest just 1 kg with what the Japanese demonstrated.

[yogiudo]

Like the Model-T

[milofonbil]

The concept of harvesting uranium from the sea has been around since the 1950's. In fact, Hubbert talks about it in his paper. They have not produced a few tons yet, but just a few kilograms and now just about every pro-nuke is pinning their hopes on this technology even though it has not scaled beyond a laboratory experiment.  They predict that a small extraction facility will cost tens of billions of dollars and no one has talked about the environmental aspects or the rate it can produce.

[yogiudo]

You're missing the point.

We will use uranium because its easy. And we'll do that until it isnt easy anymore. And then we'll use whatever is available - maybe fusion power - the point is - we're NOT going backwards. We're going to improve efficiency, we're going to do all the things that we should have done, but now we will do them because we have to.

[milofonbil]

Nuclear power is incredibly complicated. In fact, most of the accidents happen because the machinery is so complicated, it cannot be operated by a single person. We can invest a lot of money into a technology which does not have a closed cycle that leaves no waste behind, or we can invest in technologies that are completely renewable. Electricity produced by wind is now cheaper than by nuclear power. Solar Thermal Energy is well on its way and will provide the baseload

[yogiudo]

What about peak Gallium?

Wind won't do it.

You can't prove that disrupting normal wind patterns won't have unexpected effects on the environment - possibly negative.

[milofonbil]

Gallium is not necessary for Solar-Thermal. (I'm not talking about Photo-Voltaic. It's still very inefficient)

Renewables certainly can do it. In 2006, nuclear provided 19.3% of the electrical load and renewables are already at 2.4%. Wind power grew 45% in 2007 If wind capacity doubles every two and a half years for a while, wind will have the same capacity as nuclear power before the first Gen IV reactor gets built.

[moreaudan]

On April 17, 2008, AP News reported that a new study released by the RAND Corporation concludes that "some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries."

[gregjalbert]

Grow food. Study permaculture. Edible forests. Plant orchards and gardens. Full employment.

[adamdm87]

gregjalbert ... we share the exact same plan.

I'm currently working on inner-city / rooftop gardening initiatives in Toronto. But would love to have some more space for a food forest.

[Kafwood]

Continuing your denial through ad hominem (shot the messenger) attacks won't help you or your family escape the reality of the planetary transition underway...neither will distraction or avoidance. Get involved, get local.

[ZeketheSwede]

Don't exaggerate the problems! We don't need doomsday prophets. This guy has personal problems, and therefore he wants to get famous, sell books and earn a lot of money.

[TheNewmatics]

He gives a series of solutions at the end of the

last part. You may wish to watch that.

[ZeketheSwede]

I have already seen it. He's well educated and experienced, but he goes too far in his conclusions. Things look bad, but not that bad!

[bearsagainstevil]

Ive met him and I think hes far to optimistic

[Weaseldog2001]

Nor do we need signs on the road that proclaim, "Bridge Out Ahead", Or "Dip".

People like to be surprised by bad news. They don't want to be informed. They like to run head long into trouble without a clue that it is coming.

[ddviolinist]

I know him personally. Believe me, he doesn't do this for the money. He doesn't earn much money for what he does, and lives very minimally. Again, I know him personally, for over 10 years now. So please, get your facts straight.

[ZeketheSwede]

OK, my original comment was unfair and stupid (after four beers, I may add). But nevertheless, I think his standpoint in part reflects his own character, and that results in a somewhat flawed analysis. For instance, he arrives at the conclusion that we are probably heading for "peak coal" too shortly, despite the fact that there are really vast amounts left of the stuff. So no peak there this century, yet very bad for the climate change!

[KiltedGreen]

Read the German Energy Watch report on Coal and you'll see that things don't look so rosy as you'd imagine. There's further information on David Strahan's web site.

[ZeketheSwede]

I have read a lot on their site. What strikes me is that all their reports are always gloomy, no matter what the subject is. I agree that things look bad for oil and that energy prices will rise in the future, but the result will be a lower economic growth world-wide (down from 5 % to maybe 2 % within a decade), not a global collapse.

[adamdm87]

You have to consider, we may not just be facing SLOWER GROWTH... but rather a shrinkage in economic activity

[ZeketheSwede]

But just for a short time period then. A permanent recession is not possible, since the monetary system would collapse. It's based on eternal growth, except for shorter periods. Otherwise we would end up in something worse than the depression of the thirties.

[adamdm87]

But see, Our notion of eternal growth is not sustainable (unless we colonize other planets). Our monetary system does not reflect physical reality - life support systems (clean air, water, healthy soil, biodiversity) are hardly counted for. All human economic activity first and foremost requies a stable food source.

What Heinburg is talking about is that industrialism (human life as we know it now) depends on certain non-renewable resources... that there is a very real physical limit.

[ZeketheSwede]

You may be right. But there are two ways to attain economic growth: Either add in more work and energy, or do things in a smarter way! Most systems we apply today world-wide are so ineffective, a lot of energy is just wasted for nothing. At least theoretically it's possible to reduce the consumption of energy (and other resources) and still have an economic growth, at least in the OECD-countries.

[adamdm87]

I think that we are indeed heading for a depression of something like the 1930s. Our global economic system is highly complex, but is not very resilient to stress. I live in a city of 5 million people which only has three days of food in it at nay given moment.

In the depression we may face soon, there are three times as many mouths to feed as the 30s

; the ecosystem services human life depends on are in bad shape; and fewer people (proportionately) have the skills to sustain themselves.

[ZeketheSwede]

But availability of food is not a problem actually. If your electric grid is cut off for a longer time it will be, particularly in a major city. But most food production is related to the meat industry - if less meat is produced, then vast amounts of cereals will be over to feed humans. FAO has some good reports on this issue.

[adamdm87]

Plus it is very possible for our monetay system to collapse. There is no universal law that upholds our money as sacred and infallible.

Look at the finanicial crisis developing in the states - - this could be the beginning of something.

I would love to be wrong, though. I've been fed by the teet of our modern global economic system...

[ZeketheSwede]

Indeed it's possible. The monetary system has changed from time to time, and the gold standard has come back in one way or the other. But not since 1971. And there is certainly no guarantee that the current system will hold forever! And then we will be in trouble. But still, it's not the end of the world, hyperinflation has occurred before, some people lose their money, others profit from it.....

[sysFail81]

Growth IS the problem. Growth in population and Growth in Energy consumption per capita. So guess what happens if there is a natural-lead shrink on both...

[jpbeer]

so what? start fucking

[tomasleeman]

Peak Human look at the chart of human population and the rise of energy consumption, rise of food production all that will change over the next 100 years the height that something rises is proportional to its fall You will see a huge crash in population at some time

[UnderseaCaveman]

YES...Peak Human is the basic upshot of all that is peak!

[linghun]

@UnderseaCaveman yes especially Peak Environmentalism, Peak Doomism, Peak Green Arrogance!

[UnderseaCaveman]

@linghun uh....that's supposed to be sarcasm......so you think +6 Billion is ok??? A six fold increase in one century is OK after millenia of fractional population growth??? And you don't think this has an impact on quality of life???

the environment is your living room, what kinda pig-stie do you prefer to live in???

[linghun]

@UnderseaCaveman Yes it had a positive impact on quality of life, since today infant mortality, nutrition and life expectancy are WAAAY better than 100 years ago. A large population means more brains to find solutions, and once prosperity kicks in people naturally stop having many children... in the 60s growth was 2.1% a year, today is 1.3% a year and falling. The only solution is to urbanize and enrich people, that's what stops expolsive pop growth.

[UnderseaCaveman]

@linghun ---You list the POSITIVES of Technology....one result is Population Growth.

Ironically, the more people there are the more problems, hence more problem solving required, so I think that effect sort of cancels itself.

How do you enrich 6 billion people??? If all the wealth was evenly distributed to everyone, we'd all be Poor+$8.46....which is still poor!! Thus, only nature's means will be available kull the "herd".

[linghun]

@UnderseaCaveman So you are willing to back a program to kill 90% of humanity to save the planet

[UnderseaCaveman]

@linghun What Program???

Mother Nature 1.0????

Does it matter whether you back it or not.....???

I think it's more important for individuals with sense to realize the potential and "brace for shock" and try to survive....I think that's the program I am talking about ... it ain't a human made program, we're talking Mother Nature doing her thing without care or regard.. "Nature is red-toothed and clawed" (Darwin).

[linghun]

@UnderseaCaveman So you basically think we will see a massive die-off of several billion in the next decades and we should just let it happen.

[UnderseaCaveman]

@linghun "we should just let it happen".....

How do you stop a Volcano or a Hurricane??? Lots of people perish when Mother Nature does her thing, are we morally responsible for stopping a Volcano???

I am being very patient answering your questions.....don't you think its getting a little naive now?

What are you gonna do when the sun explodes....."what just gonna let it happen"??