A sustainable society to survive beyond PO....

The consensus at the Oil Drum is that we will rationally move to a sustainable society with help of our great scientific (and social?) knowledge. However, my opinion is that a change to a sustainable society can only be accomplished by completely abolishing our current money system. Either by a collapse of the system that was bound to happen anyway or because people choose (or are forced) to switch to local currencies, where money is a utility and is not used as a store of value. (there would actually be a discount on keeping money in your possession, so it makes more sense to invest it in something that would provide a future return).

Our current money system discounts future supplies and leads to ever increasing competition where the natural escalation is war.

For an excellent introduction see:

http://www.transaction.net/press/interviews/lietaer0497.html
http://www.startupjunkies.org/TheEarthPlus5Percent.pdf

A change in the money system is not going to happen voluntarily. Anybody want to float ideas on how to make it happen?

DoubleDutchDoom
I posted a link in a Drumbeat past to a St Louis Fed Report by Lawrence Kutlikoff you may be interested in.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf
I think the price of oil will be impacted by the supply/ demand components that are discussed at TOD and that declines in the value of the US$ will exacerbate those negative effects.
One mans opinion, I don't have any debate killing information or resources to prove my point.
I also don't feel that I can impact fiscal or monetary policy on a macro scale. However, I believe I can do things on a personal level to reduce the potential negative impacts of peak oil and current fiscal policy on my family though.
My micro focus will not help you make changes at the national policy level but I wish you the best of luck.
Human culture, so far as I can understand it, has never been "sustainable."  There has always been "someplace else" to exploit when the local resources have been depleted.  I believe this to be true of "paleolithic" hunter-gatherers who improved their efficiency of extraction of resources by developing "neolithic" agriculture -- but neither was sustainable.

Industrial society is neolithic on steroids, but not fundamentally different.

If humanity is to survive, we need a completely new paradigm.  There is a lot of speculation about that, but truly, it is hard to fathom what such a thing would really look like, given the apparent hard-wired human needs for novelty and acquisitiveness.

Pre-European aboriginal Australians lived on that continent for 50,000 years but only practiced very limited food production. They remained essentailly hunter-gatherers, with very low population growth. If left on their own, they may have developed food production.

As in North America, the arrival of humans in Australia was suspiciously coincidental to extintion of most large land mammals. So possibly they were not sustainable at first, but later arrived at an ecological equilibrium.

Another possible sustainable candidate is Japan, 1603-1867 (Edo Period).
The population remained almost steady at around 30 million for over 250 years.
Wet rice agriculture, soy beans and fishing were the staple means of survival. There was no immigration/emmigration, very little overseas trade, no wars and no epidemics. One could argue that with this population density, deforestation was bound to occur long term, a la Europe. But most of Japan is steep mountains, with much of the population residing in narrow flatish strips. Thus the forests survived in the mountains. Abundant rainfall and a temperate climate also meant the biomass could keep up to a greater extent.

Sustainability surely depends on whether the population can be supported long-term without depleting resources, and on how the society chooses to exploit or protect the resources available to it.

Famine is the arbitrator of sustainability. There were twenty great famines in Japan during the Edo period.
With the advent of birth control, famine is not, in principle, necessary. In developed countries, birth rates have plummeted. Birthrates in developing countries are falling but not nearly enough.
Famine (foodwise) would not be a problem if humans were willing to produce excessive food, and the foodstuffs reaching the end of their storage life turned into a storable energy But that would take peopel not working to maximize their own personal 'universe', but have a working for a common good. Alas, anytime there is a group of people, a few will work to screw the others over to benefit themselves, so I'm not hopful for a famine-free regulated envirnment.
What is regarded as essential depends on the culture. Americans may cancel holidays but I doubt if Eurpeans will especially the French. Here people work only 35 hours a week with a minimum of 6 weeks paid holiday per year, plus 14 public holidays which become 4 day week-ends whenever they land on Tuesday or Thursday. The society has chosen extra leisure instead of more stuff. Crap adverts on crap TVs doesn't affect people who just don't watch any television. We read books. A most important consideration to to minimise your own energy consumption. We have emigrated to live by the Med in a medieval village where the streets are mostly too narrow for horses never mind cars. In summer if it's unusaually hot we might put on a fan at night (60 watt) Summer rarely exceeds 30°C while winter is rarely below 16°C. Wood buners are very common. These houses were built 400 yaers ago before coal fires arrived. The Med is 25°C in peak summer and 17°C in winter and stabilises the narrow coastal strip south of the Alps.
France has lots of railways using all electric trains, 80% nuclear, 19% Hydro.
I really don' see a big problem with peak oil. Global warming is the bigger threat and we know who is mostly to blame.
cheers
Hello TheRedBaron,

I have never been to Europe, so I have a question.  I was reading this A/C article that states that American vehicles burn more energy for A/C alone than all of Indonesia [pop 240 million] uses in its energy entirety.  This 7 billion gallons of gas for A/C is probably due to the fact that it is nearly impossible to buy a vehicle without factory installed A/C.

Do most European cars come without factory A/C? Is it a European mandate by the Govts?  Or is it because European fuel costs are already so high that most consumers prefer a vehicle without A/C to self-limit total car usage?

It would seem obvious as gas prices rise to eliminate A/C in cars.  This reduces the car's intial cost and weight, and simplifies future maintenance, besides increasing the gas mileage.  But most importantly, if no A/C was installed-- people would not be so inclined to drive needlessly wasting fuel.  It would also encourage more people to use A/C mass-transit versus sweating in stalled traffic jams.

The Asphalt Wonderland, here in AZ, is the king of A/C and dark tinted windows--if A/C vehicles were abolished, I bet population would drop 15% in the first year alone.  If most Phoenicians had their windows down they would also be much more likely to see and hear motorcycles and scooters versus having the windows shut tight to ease their ability to ceaselessly yap on their cellphones.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Bob,
It is no mandate, I have been to Europe 3 times and although I haven't been in many cars the ones I have been in at keast had A/C. Generally, it's not needed, although there are probably a lot more cars there that are simply not equipped with it. I saw a lot of people driving around Paris with their windows open. The big difference is simply their cars are all smaller. I saw many American and Japanese cars that you cannot buy here in the states. I assume that they think there is no market for them.
Air conditioning is usually only in more expensive cars which few people own. Standard cars come with fans and windows. Diesel cars have tax advatages as do cars that cost less than 9000 euros about 11 500 dollars
cheers
Hello Totoneilla,

In France it becomes now virtually impossible to buy a car without A/C. Even the cheapest new car has A/C at least as an option. And most models are delivered with standard A/C.

As for diesel cars, the cars are more expensive but it is the fuel that has less taxes than gasoline.

todays prices :

gasoline : 6.15 $/gal
diesel : 5.29 $/gal

with a dollar at 1.26 euros

Bob,

I don't have a car, but from looking around I can not conclude A/C is standard here in Holland. Ofcourse new cars more and more have it, but it's most times offered as an option. At least half of the year our average temperature does not require A/C too.

General public fuel price discussions blame taxes and Shell. "They did it, and we cannot but pay".

The typical beach days we have so much now in july lead to huge traffic jams. On some of these 'sundays' people spend more time in their car then on the beach (voluntary traffic!) I can imagine the extra cost for A/C is easily paid for and we'll have a second ice cream too. Our road services report most of the car problems they have to fix relate to (engine)cooling. But see what fun we have!

All the hospitals specialized in burning wounds make overhours. We're about to close our first electricity plant because the cooling water gets to hot.
Last night on the news it was said electro-technical installers make record business installing home A/Cs in our current month with record temps. As does this entrepreneur importing thermo-cooling-blankets from the US to keep pets cool :)

We're just to confused by this unprecendented heat to worry about it's root causes. In general I think the dire consequences of increased A/C use are easily forgotten in the comfort of cool air...

Keep sweating!

This is perfect - from the Land of Nipple Seekers:

"Here people work only 35 hours a week with a minimum of 6 weeks paid holiday per year, plus 14 public holidays which become 4 day week-ends whenever they land on Tuesday or Thursday."

"I really don' see a big problem with peak oil. "

You probably do not see the problem because you are Naive.  And your Ignorance makes you complacent.  Like a two year-old child, you seem to believe your government will just keep supplying you with Nipplez and, if not, why all you have to do is "Protest!"

By the way, how goes it in your suburbs this year?  

No...
I dont think the French are naive at all. I think they are quite canny. They put French interests first, they have rejected the anglo-american business model of 'work till you drop then get fired'. They protect farmers (this will be useful in localised agriculture). They are highly literate and still produce good engineers and scientists and protect core industries.

They have 80% nuke power, high potential for hydro / tidal and an independent nuclear deterrent.

Right now, if Britain wants to 'nuke up' we will need to import nuke technology, engineers and scientists. Preferably from France since I no longer trust America to act in our interests. Right now, you are busy arresting UK Business men for 'crimes' that are not even crimes in the UK. Your Congress has not even ratified the extradition treaty ('fraid of the Irish caucus when we want our Irish terrorists back for a 'quiet chat'). But poodle Blair wont lift a finger. Chirac would just tell you to sod off over any Frenchmen being extradited.

BTW: We have to get a replacement for our Trident Nukes...
...Not sure the good ole US of A can be trusted not to put in switch - off codes, should they ever need to fly...

Perhaps we should buy French next time. I understand they are slimmer, more stylish and pack an elegant level of va-va-voom.

The French have good food, good wine, a good climate, and they dont give a dingos kidneys about the US/Anglo model, WTO or anything that gets in the way of the way they want to live.

OMG...I am defending the French...

Perhaps what pi**es you off is that these 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' gave your boss-man the finger over Iraq.

Looks like they were right eh?

We will see, in the fullness of time, if their model is better post peak oil.

The only fly in the ointment is water resources on the Mediterranean littoral and in Deep France. That's probably because lots of English have decided to go and live there.

I wonder why...

Hello Mudlogger,

Water shortages are a big problem everywhere, and could possibly be behind the Israeli push to control the geography in the Litani river drainage basin in Lebanon.  If there is ever any justification to going to war, battling for water to survive would be a primary incentive.

Importing a ton of grain is equal to importing a 1,000 tons of water.  If world grains shortages are developing, it would be in a country's strategic interest to grab more water. Consider these links:

http://www.arij.org/pub/corissues/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1654
----------------
Jordan is importing some 91 percent of its grain, Israel 87 percent, Libya 85 percent, Saudi Arabia 50 percent, and Egypt 40 percent.

"As water shortages continue to mount, it is dangerous to presume, as many officials do, that there will be enough exportable grain to meet the import needs of all water-short countries at a price they can afford," said Postel
---------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

also the main reason france has 80% nuclear power is because no one else is using it to that degree(otherwise this site would be the oil & uranium drum ;) ). it's the same with public transit, the only reason it's cheap and esay to maintain is that the majority of people still perfer cars(i know somone will point out the soviets as a counter example but it isn't they subsidized it to the point it was basicly free to everyone who rode it. the government absorbed all the costs which of course was part of the reason they declined as we killed their only income source)
"it's the same with public transit, the only reason it's cheap and esay to maintain is that the majority of people still perfer cars"

This is totally untrue. Public transit (just like nuclear stations) has very high fixed costs because of the massive investments needed to be pyed for in advances and maintained after. COmpared to those the marginal costs per passenger are negligable. If a bus full or half-full the costs for the bus trip are the same - driver salary, diesel etc. As a result mass transit makes sense only when it is really "mass" - that is where people don't prefer cars - in densely populated cities, high gas prices etc. Actually almost the whole world outside US is like that.

ok lets take your bus anaolgy for a spin.
while each rider does increass revenue it also increases weight of the bus, fuel used to move the bus, strain on the bus's axels. while statisticly more fuel efficent when a bus is fully loaded(more people to devide the finite tank volume with)

so basicly the people who run the busses have two choices.

  1. increass fares to cover the new costs which result in less people riding and thus we are back square one.

  2. buy more busses which again results in higher costs because it allows more people to ride. this brings us to point one.

public transport will fail, it's only a matter of time. if we let the market handle it like so many people are fond of it will fall flat on it's face faster then if the government subsidizes it's entire cost.
It is questionable which is subsidized more - mass transit or cars. At least for the mass transit we have clear accounts, while for the cars most of the real huge costs (suburban sprawl, accidents, pollution, highway patrols etc.) are externalised.

FWIW most european capitals have  mass transits which have been operational for more than a century and none of them has collapsed by now. With gas prices going to the sky it will soon become obvious that this long-term investment has been worthed.

and during that century we had a couple of severe energy (oil) crisis.
In France public transport is heavily subsidised by Regional Governments and if you use public transport to commute your employer pays the fare. The maximum bus fare in the Alpes Maritimes is now 1.30 euros, about 1.60 dollars. The cities - Nice, Toulon, Marseilles- are all constructing electric tramways. The transport workers unions are quite militant.
BTW French nukes target the USA. A deal was reached some 10 years ago that the communist party, the last Stalinist party in Europe, would only join the Government if the Soviet Union was not the only target.
The suburbs are quiet right now. It's holiday time. Come autumn we expect the usual rituals of car burnings and attcks on the police. Just a normal part of the culture that causes little local excitement.
it's the same with public transit, the only reason it's cheap and esay to maintain is that the majority of people still perfer cars

Interesting thought. You should come to Japan, explain your idea to the people taking the commute in Shibuya. You can make a lot of money.

I would guess that if a lot of people use public transport, it would get cheaper. But I guess thats just an old hippie dream?

Israel imports 87% and Saudi only imports 50%?
How does Saudi do this with four times the population an
the great desert within which they live? I know
that they are much bigger but have no water?  Desalination?
Hello WhaleOil,

My guess is that the data is old.  From this IECA article: it says that Saudia Arabia imports over 70% of its grains. The CIA Factbook for SA says:
-----------------------------------
Environment - current issues:

desertification; depletion of underground water resources; the lack of perennial rivers or permanent water bodies has prompted the development of extensive seawater desalination facilities; coastal pollution from oil spills.
-------------------------------------
Hopes this helps clear up the issue for you.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?  

Either desalinasation or pumping aquifers dry.. cheap oil, or what did you think? Africa (including North Africa) imports 50%, South America 30%, the Middle East 40% on average. The rest of Asia (excluding Russia)break even more or less. All others export.
There's a region of Saudi that gets pretty green in winter. Enough for one spring harvest.
I was saying the poster was naive, not "France" as a whole necessarily (at least not likely any more naive than any other First world Tribe).

I could not care less that the French Mooned Bush over Iraq  (I doubt many people noticed or cared what the French position was except their Islamic Population), or where they buy their subs, or who they will look to for protection in the next war, etc, etc...

The Socialist French have been conditioned to rely on Government to provide for everything including jobs with multiple weeks of paid holidays etc ... They have become a Nation of Nipple Seekers (a growing problem here in the United States as well - just read the whimpers of the bewildered 'victims' of the power outages in St. Louis and elsewhere.)  

They and the majority of other First Worlder's like them will be very surprised as the symptoms of Peak Oil overwhelm their pansy political and economic systems.

Of course at that TimezUP, the calm, complacent tone of the French poster child above will be long gone and replaced by the Angry, Protesting, Irrational and Very Skeered Nipple Seeker looking for a scapegoat to be punished... see the Recent History of the French Domestic Legion (a.k.a. Nipple-Seekers Brigade) in Action Protesting any change to their beloved Welfare State:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4865034.stm

The current French governement is not socialist and most town councils in the south are right-wing by French standards. But the welfare system is broadly supported by all parties. In France, if you are hungry go to the local restuarants for the homeless. Eat well with free wine. If you want somewhere to live, ask the local council. If you want medical treatment, go to the hospital which is legally ablidged to treat you regardless of nationality or status. These standards are in France regarded as essential for human dignity. One of the Republican values is Fraternity. Liberty and equality are the other two. And these values are as respected as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Vive La France
Read your post here again and notice it supports what I said above:

"The Socialist French have been conditioned to rely on Government to provide for everything ..." - now including, according to you, free wine with meals for the homeless etc, etc

My whole point is people must stop depending on their government for everything.  If you depend on your government you will regret it because the governments will Not Solve this problem (they are stupid humans too).  

The LESS dependence on government the better =  become as energy (and food) self-sufficient as possible or SUFFER with the Mass Herd of Saps who sat around waiting for the Godz of Politics and Technology to show up.

Here, at this point in History we can AFFORD to be humane and generous.  This is PEAK Energy and Matter - this is the Time of Plenty.

But all those nice Luxuries like "Human Dignity" will be quickly tossed aside when the cities can't Afford To Pay for indigents let alone the actual working peoples.

This is not matter of Choice - we would all love to have a world of plenty forever.  But that will not be the case.

By the way, how goes the Tent Cities of Homeless springing up all over Paris - tolerance of the homeless depends on how visible they are, or how inconvenient they become  ... love those desperate poor moozlimz in the suburbs until they "protest" and start burning those suburbs...

Dream your dream as long as you want but when you wake up to the nightmare that is coming you will understand that all your morals and ethics were easy to adhere to During The Time of Plenty... too bad the Time of Plenty is rapidly drawing to a close.

Well, in France the government isn't entirely the corporations' bitch. The French have the odd notion that, being a democracy, it is their government and if it gets out of line, you protest. They also think they are human beings with rights, not throw-away cogs in the economy. If that is the "democracy" that the glorious US Army is purported to bring to the People of Iraq, I'm not surprised that they are reacting a tiny bit pissed. If your style of democracy is laughed at by an ex-KGB-man, you're doubleplusungoodly immersed in doublespeak.
Not just the English. The population of South-east France is increasing by about 40,000 people per year all through emigartion from the north. British, Scandinavians, and Irish are the most common with US citizens next. Canadians come on homiday but are not buying in yet.
Water is not a problem since rainfall is about 30 inches per year almost all in Spring and Autumn. The reservoirs are filled in spring when snow melts in the Alps where population density is nearly zero. Some small villages have restrictions on water use for swimming pools but this is generally due to municipal corruption rather than nature.
Someone accused me of being naive. I don't think so and I'm here enjoying a great civilisation that looks sustainable.

The whole of Europe migth turn out to be a good place to be: It has the least erosion problems of all continents. It's climate is (partly) controlled by the Gulf Stream, which might (again, partly) mitigate the worst effects of global warming. It's ethnical wars are mostly already fought.

I don't agree at all with this view. France is utterly depedant on foreign commerce. It's growth is tiny, about 2%, which means skyrocketing debt. Our economy is dependant as any on oil as people continue to use their cars (look at the A6 next WE), farmers continue to heavily fertilize the soils not to speak of pesticides, chemical industry continuing to prosper, transportation of goods relying mainly on trucks and being totally irrationnal in its planning. I could go on very long. Hydro is at a maximum, Uranium is up and probably past peak.

Our economy is already faltering, poverty increases (which I directly witness every day). People eating one meal or less per day become widespread. Access to social help becomes really difficult for a lot of people.

We will suffer as much as the rest of the world. Haven't you noticed how much stealing of raw materials and gasoline is up ?

I will point out that every French city of over 250,000 that "voted correctly" is getting a new tram line, and those over 500,000 are getting two.

The French are building at least as much Urban Rail as the US.  But French Unions at SCNF seem to be keeping freight on trucks instead of rail.

My old worksheet

City, Date Opened, Metro Population, City Populstion

Nantes (1985)      544,932     277,728
Grenoble (1987)     419,334     156,203

Upgraded established tramways (with original dates)       
Lille (1874)              1,000,900       191,164
Marseille (1876)         1,349,772       807,071
St. Etienne (1881)        291,960       183,552

The new tramways in France are :(from 1990):       
Near Paris        9,644,507  2,147,857 :
T1 (St Denis Bobigny) open : June 30, 1992   
T2 (Issy -La Défebse) open : july 1997.       

Strasbourg : first line open : november 26, 1994;    427,245     267,051
Rouen : first line open : december 17, 1994;    389,862     108,758
Montpellier : first line open : July 1st, 2000    287,981     229,055
Orléans : first line open : november 18, 2000    263,292     116,559
Lyon : first line open : december 8, 2000    1,262,223     453,187
Bordeaux : first line open : december 2003, 21    696,364     218,948

Future opening :       
Mulhouse : december 2005    234,445     112,002
Valenciennes : june 2006      357,395       40,275
Le Mans : 2006                        NA             150,605
Nice : 2006                      888,784          345,892
Marseille : 2007            1,230,936     807,071
Toulon : 2009                    519,640     166,442

Planned :       
Dijon                            236,953      153,813
Tours                               NA           137,046

The EEC wascreated to increase foreign trade in Europe which is why every member state depends upon trade. Not everything is perfect but France is better prepared than other countries. TOD users in other countries are pleading for light rail and tramways mostly in vain. France is getting them. And the TGV (High Speed Train) is superbe. The French elite talk sensibly about fossil fuel shortages abd Global Warming whereas US politicians try  to keep everybody ignorant and happy.
Economic policy is now governed by the wunch of bankers who govern the European Central Bank. Like most other EU governments the national government can only advocate not act. This too was an EEC objective - to undo democratic ideals descended from the French revolution.
Cannibalism?
a change to a sustainable society can only be accomplished by completely abolishing our current money system.

I don't know what your idea of a "sustainable society" is but I am afraid that "completely abolishing our current money system" is absolutely UNREACHABLE.
Because money is not your (or "our") convention, this is also the "other guy" idea about what value is.
By the "other guy" I mean any third party who is not bound by your/our rules, he can choose to hoard any "things" that are of value to YOU and you will be back to consensus rules about the terms of exchange.
Short of a worldwide totalitarian rule (who wants that? some...) neither you nor him are free to choose arbitrary rules no matter how "beneficial" they could be in the long run .
Money has already been invented and it cannot be "unlearned".

Do you get what I am saying?

Our fiat currency system will be abolished if the public loses confidence in it, due to, say, hyperinflation or economic collapse. (Think the Wiemar Republic of Germany after WWI.) What would replace it? A barter system, coins made of precious (or base) metals, currencies backed by physical goods (so they can't become worthless), etc. Hoarding will occur but how does that prevent a monetary collapse? If anything, it would hasten it.
"coins made of precious (or base) metals"

Our coins are made of base metals already. :-)

Yes, and they would be worth more than paper money in an economic collapse. As it is, you can't find pre-1982 pennies because most are 95% copper and the copper content is worth 2.2 cents per penny at today's price of about $3.50 per pound.
1982 pennies are worth saving as well.  1982 included a mix of 95% copper and 2.5% copper, 97.5% zinc pennies.  At a latter date, while you are unemployed, a small file nick can determine which are worth 2 cents and which are worth 7 cents.

Copper pennies are little thinner as well.

I plan to stockpile nickels later.  75% copper, 25% nickel.  Good intrinsic value.

Kevem,

Money in our current system has multiple purposes:

  1. It is used as a medium of exchange (instead of bartering). In that sense it is a utility
  2. It is used a store of value. In that sense it is a resource.

So, the question is do you want to use money or keep money? Keeping money is attractive, since you get interest, so the amount will increase. In resource terms this is ridiculous, since money itself is not productive. (Provide a reward for being lazy!). So it makes more sense to pump out as much oil as possible now, take the money and sit on it than investing in future resources.

This problem can be solved by not using money as a store of value. Get rid of interest, actually charge something for keeping your money current. Then ask the question again: do you want to use the money or keep it? It makes more sense now to invest it in something that will provide a future return, otherwise your money is rotting away.

This is what I mean wit a new money system. Design it such that investing in the future is rewarded. Our current system is the opposite of that. Is promotes short term profits and is designed such that only the rich (or banks) profit from it. They profit either through interest (if interest levels are high) and through rising asset prices (if interest rates are low and borrowing is cheap). You, the community and the future always lose in this system. So, if we want a sustainable society it has to go...

I think your definition of the other guy is probably outside the definition here, since a precondition for a money system is a government providing protection, irrespective of positive or negative interest rates.

I do not think a totalitarion rule is needed to create the change. Exactly the opposite I think. If we continue the current system we will end up with totalitarian rule and a single 'credit' system. We can start by using a local money system in our own communities.

The authors I link can explain it much better than I do and have multiple examples of sustainable money systems and local currencies.

Steven

Aaron Russo is taking a shot at it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198

He's trying to raise enough consciousness leading to a call for national strikes and do away with fractional reserve banking.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198
(The first 20 minutes are skippable)

DoubleDutchDoom has me wondering if there is a consensus at ToD on the most likely future for humanity:

The consensus at the Oil Drum is that we will rationally move to a sustainable society with help of our great scientific (and social?) knowledge.
-DoubleDutchDoom

I'd love to see what the real consensus is at ToD.
Does TOD have a "poll" feature? Well here's a crack at a poll anyway:

In response to Peak Oil, population overshoot, climate change, and environmental degradation, do you believe that modern civilization will, in the next century,

  • a) irreversibly collapse and die-off to below pre-industrial population levels
  • b) transition to a sustainable and technologically advanced civilization of 6-8 billion humans
  • c) contract to a sustainable, less technological civiliation of under 2 billion humans

The poll is open for voting and editing. Choosing from the myriad of possible scenarios was very difficult, and well, multiple choice polls are inherently limiting. So, if you don't like my scenarios, add your own!
First of all, IMHO, Peak Oil will not cause die-off.  But peak fossil fuels will.  The total population of Earth will track the total energy available for human endeavors.  So die-off may be more like population contraction, and I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the contraction pace will be fast and violent or slow and managable.

d) World population contracts to 2 Billion range, but level of technology is high.

I vacillate between a) and c) depending on my mood.  I think c) is the proper answer depending on the answers to these three questions:  how much less technological, how far under two billion people, and over what time scale?  Seen that way, a) is really just a more extreme case of c).

FWIW, I think "dieback" is a better term than dieoff. We will arrive at a sustainable level of population and technology, because systems tend towards equilibrium in the long fun.  The population will shrink for a variety of causes, but we are a tough species and it will take a lot to wipe us out.  How much technology will we save, and how small will our species get?  I have no clue. If I had to bet real money I'd say we will shrink to 1.5 billion, retain a level of technology equivalent to the European middle ages, and will arrive at our new equilibrium in about 100 years.  Come see me in 2100 to collect.

I agree with you that 'dieback' is a much batter term than 'dieoff'. 'Dieoff' seems too one-dimensional to me - like a cannon ball falling off a cliff with the final destination in sight far below and no prospect of intervening countertrend moves. The concept seems too simplistic to describe the inevitably complex interactions of energy, money and collective human responses to changes in the supply and distribution of both.

I would expect instead much greater temporal and spatial variability than 'dieoff' suggests. 'Dieback', to my mind at least, implies a trend toward lower population, but one with more scope for complex variation - perhaps like a cannon ball rolling down a bumpy incline with a variable slope. I do think one or more diebacks is/are inevitable, partly for reasons Jay Hanson and others have expressed.

Shortages of critical resources - or even merely the perception of shortages - result in conflicts in a world where different 'tribes' (for want of a better word) do not trust each other enough to engage in a mutual powerdown. As Roger Connor has pointed out, the risk of a huge over-reaction to peak oil and financial turbulence is substantial. The consequences which would flow from destabilizing human over-reactions (military adventures etc) would be far worse than what one would expect from production declines where the global socio-economic context remained unaffected. It is primarily the fallout from maladaptive (for the collective anyway) human respones to shortages which I would expect to be responsible for one or more diebacks.

Pat,

My option would be c).

My consensus comment was a little sarcastical. I think the fundamental changes will not come through great new solar technology or biofuels or awareness through websites and forum discussions. It has to be more fundamental than that.

We have to start using a (money) system that inherently promotes investing in the future. Our current system has everybody fighting for the scarce virtual money resources through plundering scarce real resources for a short term profit. The system is fundamentally setup to do this and everybody thinks this is the correct way since we grew up with it. Please step back and think outside the box. Money should not represent a store of value, it is a utility, a store of value is in natural resources and the ability to perform valuable work. Using money as a store of value should be discouraged. This would mean negative interest rates in our current system, which shows the absurdity of the idea: you would be rewarded for taking a loan from the bank! But it shows the idea: you only use what you currently need and invest money in something that can provide a future value when it is needed. Only this way we build a system that stops our current practice of maximizing consumption at the expense of the future.  

Start a war in the Middle East that pulls in half of the globe and wrecks the world economy and destroys all fiat money.  
I generally consider Iran to be a hot headed country.  Probably my impression via the MSM.  Think of the stratigic way to start a war that screws the US royally?  Use hezbolla to piss off israel to the point of attacking Syria or Iran.  The oil price increase would screw the world economy, and the US too.  Cut off your nose to spite your face.  I know people like this.
probably not a likely senario, but hezbolla has some pretty good weapons(hmm were are these from?)
hezbolah is not iran's or syria's puppet.

Both Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah has declined significantly over the past dozen years, particularly since the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from southern Lebanon.

In reality, Hezbollah's strength derives primarily from popular support within the Shiite Muslim minority in Lebanon which has suffered from heightened poverty and displacement as a result of the U.S.-backed Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, the U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment of the Shiite-populated areas of the country from the 1970's through the 1990's, and the U.S.-backed neoliberal economic policies of the Lebanese government that have decimated the traditional economy. As a result of the violence and misguided economic policies, hundreds of thousands of Shiites were forced to leave their rural villages in the south to the vast shantytowns on the southern outskirts of Beirut where many found support through a broad network of Hezbollah-sponsored social services. As a result of gratitude for such assistance and anger at Israel and the United States for their situation, many became backers of Hezbollah's populist, albeit extremist, political organization. In the wake of the forced departure of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the destruction of the secular leftist Lebanese National Movement by successive interventions from Syria, Israel, and the United States during the 1980.s, the radical Islamist Hezbollah rose to fill the vacuum. In other words, "Hezbollah's strength" was very much an outgrowth of U.S. and Israeli policy. Indeed, the group did not even exist until a full four years after Israel began its occupation of southern Lebanon.

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2421.cfm

So why is Saudia Arabia stepping in with a comment that seems to support Hezbolah?  Are they supporting them?
They probably have to look like they are supporting Hezbolah to their own people.
Hello Delusional,

Your quote: "I generally consider Iran to be a hot headed country."

This got me thinking that the Iraqi climate is very similar to Arizona, maybe even hotter over a larger area.  I wonder how much of the violence that is blamed on Shiite-Sunni-Kurd religious differences is actually addicted detritovore violence over fossil fuels and electricity.

Imagine sleeping on your roof nightly for months on end because it is too damn hot inside your house, and electricity for your refrigerator is so intermittent that the food constantly spoils.  It might be very tempting for a small group of thugs to use their AK-47s to shoot someone for their pickup, then shoot some homeowners to steal their small generators, window air-conditioning units, and the 5-gal. jerry cans of gasoline to run it all.

How badly will postPeak Americans act when our energy situation gets this bad?  For example: what would you do to keep your family from freezing to death?  Criminals already carjack vehicles in broad daylight with full TV coverage from helicopters--I expect them to become much more brazen and brutal postPeak.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
 

I remember listening to Coast to Coast AM where peak oil was the topic awhile back. The host asked callers the questions 'if peak oil turns out to be real would you steal to provide for your family?' Every single caller said yes.
Crime appears when wealth is unevenly distributed. When people perceive their country/area as rich, and themselves as poor, they are much more inclined to commit crime than in other cases. At first crime rates will rise, and then go down again when it becomes clear that everybody is fucked. There will also be less stuff to steal after a while.
Iran is very cool-headed. If they need some commotion, they casually say that Israël should disappear. If they need some time, they invite people for "negotiations".

Be assured, they know what they're doing in Teheran.

In Jerusalem too, however. They have purposely provoked Hezbollah, who either had to react and be drawn into hard confrontation, or decline and lose face. Expect Israëli troops in Lebanon. There were already UN troops there before the hostilities started. It didn't stop Israël or Hezbollah from using violence. They also killed UN personnel and attacked refugees, after those obeyed an Israeli command to leave their village.

The game goes on.