If people in the rich world party like it's 1999 and do not conserve even a little, then the price will remain high and go much higher which will not be a problem for those who still have the cash but what about those who don't? What about those who 'need' oil just as much as you do but who will not be able to buy it because you can't even tighten your belt even a little? What about the idea behind the Uppsala protocol? Just think of Richard Heinberg working his ass off to make this idea work...no you just do what YOU want. Never mind anyone else. Fucking selfish and really sad.
A bit of hi-falutin morality here.  Nobody's forcing YOU to take vacations - we're each just voicing an opinion about how WE individually think about it.

I don't think shaming people for voicing an opinion is a big seller on this site.  You can try though.

Agreed. I think the environmental movement is starting to learn this. I personally don't use planes, but my parents do when they come to visit me at college (I guess I could develop a preemtive strike policy where I come home so they don't have the option of flying!).

If/When I do a semester/year or two abroad (in India, Australia, New Zealand, maybe somewhere in Africa or just SOUTH) I will likely take a plane. If I could book passage on an old school sailing ship I would, but the difference in price there as well as risks/time involved might be even too much for even me.

But I understand where that sentiment for Party like its 1999 comes from. I just hope you arn't complaining to people about the amount of driving they're doing, etc.

As Gandhi said,

Be the change you wish to see in the world

And as Nader said,

Less bad isn't good

(although, in that regard, I would rather have a less incompetent dem in 2008 then a raving mad neocon). I just interpret this to mean that one should not compromise one's principles generally, but when a clear strategic advantage is afforded one should. Is a presidential election, likely partly rigged anyway, a time to compromise? I still don't really know.

Wow...you would never guess Peak Oil is a problem for the rest of the world too. So let's get this straight... possibly the premier and certainly most informative Peak Oil website is read by people who want to alert others to the problem and then what? Carry on as normal? And the moralizing? As if everyone doesn't do this everyday? As if voicing an opinion against the behaviour criticized here day after day is suddenly a crime? Have you all just let your guard drop?
I know a few of us here talk about our lifestyle changes, but this thread did start off more "hat" than "cattle" if you know what I mean.

Actually thinking about it now, I'm kind of surprised that (a) I am one of those with the changed lifestyle, and (b) I am one of those pessimistic about society as a whole responding to any message other than "price."

I think I've seen discussions here about how the word has to be gotten out.  Why?  So everybody can party?

I think I'll continue with gentle suggestions that we can find happy, energy efficient, and environmentally friendly lifestyles ... but we can treat this thread as a test tube.  We see that "peak oil awareness" does not necessarily reduce oil consumption.