now and then i've asked the more pessimistic posters for a timeline that really works with doom. i don't think i've gotten a plausible one. if the lower defcon levels (see right hand side-bar and "peak oil primers") are fact based, surely the facts can be laid on a timeline ...
there's a reason for that, isn't there? earthquates, and meteor impacts, and similar catasrophies do not depend on past human behavior. they simply exist as statistical possibilities.
no one says drive less, or eat less beef, to stop the next earthquake ... for that reason.
the key difference here is that if peak oil is going to hit us like an earthquate, it should be based on observed precursors: oil discoveries and oil consumption.
if someone said in the late 90's (which many did), "this is all going to come down like a tonne of bricks", well, in hindsight it looks like they had a pretty good argument justifying their position.
but ask for a timeline... and you'd probably only get a bunch of.. erm.. more existental types pulling out charts and talking about fibonacci resistances.
the fact is that lots of people were shorting the market with the right argument, but just couldn't predict the timing.
this same point goes for any stockmarket crash, of course
i believe that your suggestion that a 'doomer' argument needs to be able to provide a timeline in order to be valid is flawed.
i'm trying to follow that, but i don't see collapse or doom as a market (psychological) issue. i think in order to trigger something bad, we need to starve society down with a steep energy shortfall.
if something takes 10, 20, 30 years to play out ... is that like a quick market crash?
In contrast, I do see 'collapse or doom' as a psychological or market issue.
I agree strongly that if psychological and/or market risks were ignored, any argument toward a 'doomer' position would be marginalized.
I was simply suggesting that your supposition (that in order for a 'doomer' argument to be valid, it should suggest for itself a timeline) may need to be revised.
I don't think that's actually true. I believe that our government has become increasingly complex in past years, and it is now experiencing stresses from many different sides, including oil, natural gas, terrorism, global warming, etc. This has created a situation which is very unstable, which means that many different things might spark a collapse, even things which are not directly related to a 'fundamental' cause. The same situation arose prior to World War I, when an assassination of a minor archduke sparked a war. Europe's superpowers were already menacing each other, and the peace between them was evidently very unstable, which is why a war was started off by such a minor event.
how would you compare those stresses to the american civil war? or the world wars? i really don't want to see another major war either ;-), but i think here is something important in the comparison. there is an idea that a good 'shock' to a the civilized world can send it into a world-wide collapse.
but, in reality, we humans were really happy to settle back down after those desturbances. i think that is our nature.
isn't it sort of a hubris, combined with a shallow understanding of history to think (1) the world is about to collapse, and (2) out of a mult-thousand year history of civilization, WE are the ones who get to see it?
Every generation has believed that its problems and troubles were unique, and my own is no different. This is not the first time that people have believed a collapse was coming, and it may not be the last. However, just because it is a bit self-centered to believe that this age is unique or different from other ages does not make it wrong. Collapses do happen, and I think there is quite a good chance that one will happen soon.
and (2) out of a multi-thousand year history of civilization, WE are the ones who get to see it?
The only people who have these conversations are those whose societies did not collapse. Folk from the truly collapsed civilizations are all dead or assimilated. Where is the Mayan culture resurection web site? Are they talking about how collapse is only a hubiristic myth?
I recently finished Peter Heather's "Fall the of Roman Empire," and was rather startled to discover that it collapsed in a relatively short period of time (a decade or so).
It had been tottering for a long time, but barbarian incursions delivered the coup de grace.
Timelines are impossible to predict, for several reasons:
energy declines are only part of it. Political responses to declines are even more important. Will the US gracefully live on less income, or will it invade the Middle East and try to control the oil? (we know the answer to that one). Also, as power inexorably flows to the few oil exporters, how will they deal with their profound new power and wealth? (anticipation of which may well be why Bush co decided to off Saddam). How will competitors such as China and the US deal with their competition? If China dumps its dollar holdings and uses it to buy energy, how would the US respond?
We can look at the former Soviet Union; who would have predicted that it would collapse at all -- let alone in the spectacular manner in which it happened. (Personal disclosure, I spent much of the '80s studying nuclear deterrence. My professors were outraged when communism collapsed, because their professional trajectories were suddenly irrelevant)
I am finishing Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" 1988. His thesis is that a) societies invest ever more heavily in complexity, and b) the law of diminishing returns impacts these investments, such that soon incredible effort is expended on getting any return at all. GM and Ford are in this boat now; they have sold huge numbers of highly profitable SUVs, and yet they are still going bust. But could any of us predict if and when that will actually happen?
On a larger scale, in 2030 we might be producing two thirds of the energy as now -- gross -- but net may well be much less. Also, we still have to invest in maintaining our present infrastructure,as well as invest in future production and infrastructure. And that could well be the budget buster. As it is, we seem to be living off debt in many different ways, pushing costs off into the future. At some point these costs have to be paid.
4) The present is qualitatively different from any previous society. Until the industrial revolution, 70 - 90% of all populations were near subsistence farmers, and their lot didn't change all that much from century to century. Now, we are all utterly dependent on what happens in capital markets and energy fields which are distant and opaque.
For all these reasons, we can note the trajectories and try to plan as best we can; but to ask for a rigid timeline is folly.
On Ford or GM, they do rely in part on foreign sales which are better than at home for the most part. It may be, as some writer recently wrote, ToyotaGM in 2010.
The 6 May Economist has a chart in the back and for industrial nations, for trade (not debt), but points out that Spain, Greece, and Portugal are worse than the USA for % of GDP as a deficit. Northern Europe is the best.
Some countries (Canada for example) are running a consistent budget surplus. Toyota would never hook up with GM. General Motors has been insolvent for quite some time. Its debt to equity is roughly 30 to 1 which is ridiculous for a company which has no real growth prospects. Toyota could buy up GM tomorrow for the market worth (14 bill) but would never do this as the company has a huge negative net worth (is worthless). Real liabilities exceed real (marketable) assets by hundreds of billions of dollars.
One of the ironic aspect of allies is that Australia has retired their national debt and of course, our govt. has accepted the Reagan idea that deficits do not matter!
I read Harley-Davidson stock had more value than Ford!
The Australian government has a very large amount of unfunded superannuation liabilities do despite its claim of having no public debt, we actually do have quite a bit. The state governments are largely debt free, however.
The crisis that America faced during the civil war was of a completely different nature, which makes it difficult to make a comparison to the crisis we face now. However, I believe that the civil war was in fact far less serious. First of all, it was a localized crisis, rather than a global one. While that might not have offered much comfort to Americans, it does change the nature of the problem. Second, most people were engaged in agriculture, which means that they were far more self-sufficient. Finally, and most importantly, the crisis was a political and moral one, not a question of resources. Civil war leaders did not face the problem of decreasing fuel supplies, and skyrocketing costs that we will most likely face. The problem we face will grow worse and worse, while our ability to deal effectively with it will diminish as our fuel supplies decrease. The civil war was certainly a traumatic time, but it did not spell starvation for millions of people. This crisis may threaten the lives of billions of people.
Bear in mind that the Chinese were having the Taiping rebellion in which twenty million people died, compared to one million for the US during the same period.
I hope that you are right, of course. As for the minor archduke, I suppose that that is a contradiction in terms, so I'm sorry about that. However, on the global scene, he can hardly have been the only reason for the war. His death incited global powers into a war, but I think most of the strategic reasons for the war were already present, including the unfolding diplomatic battles over middle east oil. The archduke was just the excuse for the fight.
In response to these solid comments. Clearly we face a global crisis, but the education process is not far enough long. It will take some more climatic catastrophes to really wake up the planet's leadership. Some of the leadership gets it, and that is better than five years ago.
The Civil War is by no means a direct analogy. I certainly agree to that. But in terms of tearing at the very fabric of the United States, I do not think there is anything to compare, except the American Revolution itself, which was part of what is often times called the 3rd or 4th World War by some military historians.
The archduke was a trigger. No question that the war could have resulted before or after August 1914. But the results were not pre-determined. It could have been a five month war and just set the old monarchies up for another war in a few years. That it was going to be a long, bloody, and destructive war - well, it did not have to be.
PS My daughter almost died on your mountain last year. This Fall she is off to South Africa to surf for two months. I told her to travel now as it will be more difficult in a few years.
It's all about the Soccer Moms in the minivans and SUVs. When they realize that their kids lives will be worse not better, TSHTF. The American Dream is a better life for your kids, not cheap gas. The Mexicans aren't coming here for cheap gas....
I disagree with that WWI was going to be a short war. The updated/modified Schlieffen Plan was never going to work, and even in its original format would have failed. The density of German troops required to defeat the French was not possible even with railways. The railways made transportation of troops fast, but also because of the complexity of routing troops and turning around trains, once one European country started to move troops by train, every other country had to otherwise it was at a major disadvantage to its enemies. John Keegan's book The First World War is a good book to read on this subject. Every European nation and peoples wanted to prove that their country was the best in the world and would not mind fighting and defeating its rivals to prove its point. Only trouble was, they proved that they were equal and fought themselves to a standstill, whilst proving America the best by being the last to fight, losing the least and so ending up the only real winner.
After watching Blackadder Goes Forth, which seems to capture many peoples imagines and views of the First World War, reading John Keegan's book gave a much better understanding of the difficulties the generals and planners had. As machine guns made defence so much easier and attack so much more costly, it took the generals a long while to work out plans that had a chance of success over terrain that vastly helped defence.
Sorry for this but I find WWI a very depressing subject. WWI is the reason for not having wars, WWII is the reason to have wars.
WWI lasted more than three months because the Germans could no longer be cut off from their ammunition supply by the British navy after the development of the Haber process for nitrogen fixation. No nitrogen fixation and they would have been out of ammo and France by Christmas.
And a good case can be made that there would not have been World War II except that we had World War I.
Keegan is a good author and there is a solid chance that any war started in the 1900-1920 period would have been long and bloody and horrible. But it was not inevitable. And it it could have been short. Command decisions at the top can make or break a campaign.
The USA, Japan, and the Commies did benefit from the war.
Hew Strachan's trilogy of which only vol. I is out should be the new standard on the topic.
Earthquakes: We know where, we know how and why, we know eventually, we dont know when, we dont know how big.
Vulcanicity: Exactly the same as above, but we do get some warning: Usually weeks, sometimes months, rarely years.
Astral Impacts: A relatively new science. Astral bodies are: a) known types (Asteroid belt etc) and b) unkown types (Unknown comets etc)Occassionaly a) becomes a threat or b)and becomes a threat. In each case, the threat would be known in advance by months / year(s). So far, In human history, this has not been a problem.
Of the above three, 2) is probably the most dangerous.1) Is frequent but limited in size. 3) Is rare but potentially devastating on a global scale.1)Can occur at any time, but its effects are limited. 2) Is different. Occassional Caldera events are minor and localised,(one may be happening now in Indonesia) but a major event such as Yellow Stone or the Deccan Traps Event or the Campaignian Fields near Vesuvius can have severe regional or global consequences.
2) and 3) are potential 'slate wipers'.
Other threats may include such things as submarine slumping (Canary Isles, Norway, Hawaii) Where large chunks of land slump and create a much larger than normal Tsunami)
But these are still a regional problem.
All of the above can happen any time, we have no say or control, and we are at the mercy of events. That's just life. Shit happens - deal with it. The Gods dont need to get involved, You just need Physics to tell you what will happen.
4)Peak Oil and its equally evil twin - 5)Global Warming are different: We have a say in this. We can mitigate the effects should we choose to do so. 1),2),3) are normal, natural hazards of life on earth / this part of the galactic neighborhood. 4), 5) However are relatively easily mitigated and they are well within our brief. Assuming we choose to act...
Either way, Gaia will continue in her own majestic way , with or without the human race.
reminds me of a quote from a old two part series about Darwin. from the second part in fact, about the consequences of his discovery.
'yes nature always heals it's self and finds a balance but it never does so until the problem that caused the imbalance is removed. we are the problem and nature will not be able to heal herself until we are gone or we change our ways so we are not a problem.'
sometimes when i read a story about yet another technological discovery or a method of getting energy at the expense of the planet i am reminded of mr. smith and the matrix when he said humanity is a virus and that maybe he was right.
but thats off topic. i would like to comment on number three, there are not enough people looking up at the sky to find them all. also i would think with the bush admin cutting nasa's budget year after year that it would be falling too. the chances of not spotting a incoming body until it's about a month from impact is still relatively high. especially if it's coming in from the basic direction of the sun on it's way out of the inner solar system.
i forgot to add the following.
we are also blind on about 30% of the sky mostly in the southern hemosphere. at most we would also have a few months, a year or more would not be very posible.
On number 3 also;
For a tiny sum of money we could have a proper sky survey in place that would be able to detect Earth threatening astroids. It amazes me that we don't. A number of "near misses" in recent years have only been noticed after they had passed the Earth - that means that if they had hit we would've had zero notice.
This New Scientist piece has links to some nice astroid caused tsunami simulations. The time-scale for these events is about once every 6,000 years. 6,000 years isn't a lot. Unfortunately it's a lot longer than the next election.
This seems to be a fundamental flaw in human nature. We know that there is a problem but because its a long term problem rather than something immediate we ignore it.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with the comment that peak oil and global warming are easily mitigated. First of all, we have very little experience with either of these issues, at least in modern times. However, in the past climate change has had serious consequences on many civilizations, and resource depletion is considered a major factor in the collapse of civilizations. Our mitigation options with regards to global warming are not very good. We have already added a lot of CO2 to the air, which we cannot, with present technology, remove. Even if we stop emissions completely, the temperature will still increase (about 3 degrees C if I remember right) until the various carbon sinks (like the Amazon rainforest) can begin to sequester the heightened CO2. Unfortunately, even with declining oil production, we will still produce significant emissions, so the problem is going to be exacerbated. Of course we should try to limit emissions, but this is not a problem we can solve. It is a question of trying to make the situation less bad than it already is, but the problem, even if humans were saints, is not going to go away.
As for peak oil, conservation can help. But the main way of reducing oil usage is called doing without, without driving, without working, even without food. There are alternatives to oil, but none that can replace a large portion of oil production. Wind and nuclear cannot fuel cars, solar would need to be improved a great deal before using it for cars could become practical, hydrogen is not a source of energy, and since there are already problems with the electrical network, natural gas has peaked in North America. Biofuels are an option, but there are many problems people have failed to adequately consider. Even if biofuels have a positive EROEI (and I don't think ethanol does, biodiesel is probably better) the EROEI will still be quite low. A more serious problem however, is that farming land to produce energy uses land that could be better used for food production, and also removes nutrients from the land, meaning that such farming would be unsustainable. I don't think fuel production from farmland could last all that long. Remember, the energy from biofuels comes ultimately from sunlight, with a very low efficiency (I think 2%). It would take a lot of land to turn this low efficiency into enough fuel to power our cars. Looking over the list above, it is clear that alternatives to oil are very poor. I've mentioned before that fusion power is a possible option. In particular, cold fusion, which was dismissed far too quickly by various parties who had an interest in seeing it feel, deserves a second look. (See my website, http://rainsofkilimanjaro.blogger.com for more info). It is possible that some miracle energy source like fusion can be found and developed, but I don't think it is likely. Thus mitigating either peak oil or global warming, while not impossible, will be very difficult.
I should have said Relatively easy - insomuch as they are man made - and therefore correctable (still a tough one though)
Large Volcanic events and Astral impacts tend to be beyond engineering and science and cause regional / global catastrophes.
Actually, on balance, the period the development of Homo Sapien up to and including recorded history looks like it may have been an extremely benign period to have developed in.
Oh, and something else that just occured.
If we dont resolve energy depletion and end up with 'Hobbiton', 'Mad Max', 'Shogun' or similar, then we wont have the kind of civilisation that can detect and deflect an Astral Impact.
We may not even know about it until we can see the 'firey orb in the firmament'. Let alone have the energy to get Bruce Willis up to save us.
Dendrochronology (the study of tree rings) says that every few hundred years we have very bad weather that wipes out agricultural civilisations. The last time that happened was 630AD and we are very overdue for another collapse of agriculture.
I'm sensing a lot of anti-doomer hostility in your posts lately. Maybe you should define "doomer" - it's not all that clear, really. Mostly it's in the eye of the beholder.
First of all, we're on a peak oil site, which by definition makes most of us doomers from the point of view of most people.
Second, I've read comments from those who claim to be non-doomers, but then go off into how to pick the best ammo, and what guns work best when the crazed mob shows up to steal your burried supplies.
For me, I don't believe PO need cause the rapid collapse of society on it's own. But then things don't often happen in isolation, and I see plenty of reasonably viable scenarios where we could indeed see rapid, major changes. Call it collapse, whatever. I think the likelyhood of big changes coming soon is increasing, but by no means assured. Some of those scenarios would be devastating, but others just look like change to me, and could well be change for the better.
Well, ok, but it's unrealistic to put a time line on it. We try to be objective, using facts and data, but in the end it is too complex, and we're left with gut feel. Hopefully an educated guess made after observing carefully. One can see two trains heading at each other on the same track at speed, and predict with reasonable certainty that they will hit. But to try to predict where all the pieces will go is hopeless.
I have my guesses as to what will happen, and about when - but hell, they're just guesses, and they vary with my mood! It's more important to gain an understanding of what could happen, and how things interact, then it is to pick one scenario and blindly follow it. And then (if we're paying attention) we'll have a better idea of what it is we're seing, and can react accordingly.
The doom scenarios are just one end of the spectrum.
I'm don't believe that it follows that a true enough argument must reasonably be associated with a foreseeable timeline.
no one says drive less, or eat less beef, to stop the next earthquake ... for that reason.
the key difference here is that if peak oil is going to hit us like an earthquate, it should be based on observed precursors: oil discoveries and oil consumption.
if someone said in the late 90's (which many did), "this is all going to come down like a tonne of bricks", well, in hindsight it looks like they had a pretty good argument justifying their position.
but ask for a timeline... and you'd probably only get a bunch of.. erm.. more existental types pulling out charts and talking about fibonacci resistances.
the fact is that lots of people were shorting the market with the right argument, but just couldn't predict the timing.
this same point goes for any stockmarket crash, of course
i believe that your suggestion that a 'doomer' argument needs to be able to provide a timeline in order to be valid is flawed.
if something takes 10, 20, 30 years to play out ... is that like a quick market crash?
I agree strongly that if psychological and/or market risks were ignored, any argument toward a 'doomer' position would be marginalized.
I was simply suggesting that your supposition (that in order for a 'doomer' argument to be valid, it should suggest for itself a timeline) may need to be revised.
if we were going to "up and collapse" without a fundimental cause, we would have done so already.
but, in reality, we humans were really happy to settle back down after those desturbances. i think that is our nature.
isn't it sort of a hubris, combined with a shallow understanding of history to think (1) the world is about to collapse, and (2) out of a mult-thousand year history of civilization, WE are the ones who get to see it?
but i think the "doomers" are thinking something worse ... again that amusing link:
http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/05/peak-oil-taxonomy-doombat.html
The only people who have these conversations are those whose societies did not collapse. Folk from the truly collapsed civilizations are all dead or assimilated. Where is the Mayan culture resurection web site? Are they talking about how collapse is only a hubiristic myth?
I never thought of the reform-minded heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a minor archduke . . . .
It had been tottering for a long time, but barbarian incursions delivered the coup de grace.
Timelines are impossible to predict, for several reasons:
- energy declines are only part of it. Political responses to declines are even more important. Will the US gracefully live on less income, or will it invade the Middle East and try to control the oil? (we know the answer to that one). Also, as power inexorably flows to the few oil exporters, how will they deal with their profound new power and wealth? (anticipation of which may well be why Bush co decided to off Saddam). How will competitors such as China and the US deal with their competition? If China dumps its dollar holdings and uses it to buy energy, how would the US respond?
- We can look at the former Soviet Union; who would have predicted that it would collapse at all -- let alone in the spectacular manner in which it happened. (Personal disclosure, I spent much of the '80s studying nuclear deterrence. My professors were outraged when communism collapsed, because their professional trajectories were suddenly irrelevant)
- I am finishing Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" 1988. His thesis is that a) societies invest ever more heavily in complexity, and b) the law of diminishing returns impacts these investments, such that soon incredible effort is expended on getting any return at all. GM and Ford are in this boat now; they have sold huge numbers of highly profitable SUVs, and yet they are still going bust. But could any of us predict if and when that will actually happen?
On a larger scale, in 2030 we might be producing two thirds of the energy as now -- gross -- but net may well be much less. Also, we still have to invest in maintaining our present infrastructure,as well as invest in future production and infrastructure. And that could well be the budget buster. As it is, we seem to be living off debt in many different ways, pushing costs off into the future. At some point these costs have to be paid.4) The present is qualitatively different from any previous society. Until the industrial revolution, 70 - 90% of all populations were near subsistence farmers, and their lot didn't change all that much from century to century. Now, we are all utterly dependent on what happens in capital markets and energy fields which are distant and opaque.
For all these reasons, we can note the trajectories and try to plan as best we can; but to ask for a rigid timeline is folly.
On Ford or GM, they do rely in part on foreign sales which are better than at home for the most part. It may be, as some writer recently wrote, ToyotaGM in 2010.
The 6 May Economist has a chart in the back and for industrial nations, for trade (not debt), but points out that Spain, Greece, and Portugal are worse than the USA for % of GDP as a deficit. Northern Europe is the best.
I read Harley-Davidson stock had more value than Ford!
The Australian government has a very large amount of unfunded superannuation liabilities do despite its claim of having no public debt, we actually do have quite a bit. The state governments are largely debt free, however.
In response to these solid comments. Clearly we face a global crisis, but the education process is not far enough long. It will take some more climatic catastrophes to really wake up the planet's leadership. Some of the leadership gets it, and that is better than five years ago.
The Civil War is by no means a direct analogy. I certainly agree to that. But in terms of tearing at the very fabric of the United States, I do not think there is anything to compare, except the American Revolution itself, which was part of what is often times called the 3rd or 4th World War by some military historians.
The archduke was a trigger. No question that the war could have resulted before or after August 1914. But the results were not pre-determined. It could have been a five month war and just set the old monarchies up for another war in a few years. That it was going to be a long, bloody, and destructive war - well, it did not have to be.
PS My daughter almost died on your mountain last year. This Fall she is off to South Africa to surf for two months. I told her to travel now as it will be more difficult in a few years.
After watching Blackadder Goes Forth, which seems to capture many peoples imagines and views of the First World War, reading John Keegan's book gave a much better understanding of the difficulties the generals and planners had. As machine guns made defence so much easier and attack so much more costly, it took the generals a long while to work out plans that had a chance of success over terrain that vastly helped defence.
Sorry for this but I find WWI a very depressing subject. WWI is the reason for not having wars, WWII is the reason to have wars.
And a good case can be made that there would not have been World War II except that we had World War I.
Keegan is a good author and there is a solid chance that any war started in the 1900-1920 period would have been long and bloody and horrible. But it was not inevitable. And it it could have been short. Command decisions at the top can make or break a campaign.
The USA, Japan, and the Commies did benefit from the war.
Hew Strachan's trilogy of which only vol. I is out should be the new standard on the topic.
- Earthquakes: We know where, we know how and why, we know eventually, we dont know when, we dont know how big.
- Vulcanicity: Exactly the same as above, but we do get some warning: Usually weeks, sometimes months, rarely years.
- Astral Impacts: A relatively new science. Astral bodies are: a) known types (Asteroid belt etc) and b) unkown types (Unknown comets etc)Occassionaly a) becomes a threat or b)and becomes a threat. In each case, the threat would be known in advance by months / year(s). So far, In human history, this has not been a problem.
Of the above three, 2) is probably the most dangerous.1) Is frequent but limited in size. 3) Is rare but potentially devastating on a global scale.1)Can occur at any time, but its effects are limited. 2) Is different. Occassional Caldera events are minor and localised,(one may be happening now in Indonesia) but a major event such as Yellow Stone or the Deccan Traps Event or the Campaignian Fields near Vesuvius can have severe regional or global consequences.2) and 3) are potential 'slate wipers'.
Other threats may include such things as submarine slumping (Canary Isles, Norway, Hawaii) Where large chunks of land slump and create a much larger than normal Tsunami)
But these are still a regional problem.
All of the above can happen any time, we have no say or control, and we are at the mercy of events. That's just life. Shit happens - deal with it. The Gods dont need to get involved, You just need Physics to tell you what will happen.
4)Peak Oil and its equally evil twin - 5)Global Warming are different: We have a say in this. We can mitigate the effects should we choose to do so. 1),2),3) are normal, natural hazards of life on earth / this part of the galactic neighborhood. 4), 5) However are relatively easily mitigated and they are well within our brief. Assuming we choose to act...
Either way, Gaia will continue in her own majestic way , with or without the human race.
Its our call.
'yes nature always heals it's self and finds a balance but it never does so until the problem that caused the imbalance is removed. we are the problem and nature will not be able to heal herself until we are gone or we change our ways so we are not a problem.'
sometimes when i read a story about yet another technological discovery or a method of getting energy at the expense of the planet i am reminded of mr. smith and the matrix when he said humanity is a virus and that maybe he was right.
but thats off topic. i would like to comment on number three, there are not enough people looking up at the sky to find them all. also i would think with the bush admin cutting nasa's budget year after year that it would be falling too. the chances of not spotting a incoming body until it's about a month from impact is still relatively high. especially if it's coming in from the basic direction of the sun on it's way out of the inner solar system.
we are also blind on about 30% of the sky mostly in the southern hemosphere. at most we would also have a few months, a year or more would not be very posible.
For a tiny sum of money we could have a proper sky survey in place that would be able to detect Earth threatening astroids. It amazes me that we don't. A number of "near misses" in recent years have only been noticed after they had passed the Earth - that means that if they had hit we would've had zero notice.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9160-tsunami-risk-of-asteroid-strikes-revealed.html
This New Scientist piece has links to some nice astroid caused tsunami simulations. The time-scale for these events is about once every 6,000 years. 6,000 years isn't a lot. Unfortunately it's a lot longer than the next election.
This seems to be a fundamental flaw in human nature. We know that there is a problem but because its a long term problem rather than something immediate we ignore it.
As for peak oil, conservation can help. But the main way of reducing oil usage is called doing without, without driving, without working, even without food. There are alternatives to oil, but none that can replace a large portion of oil production. Wind and nuclear cannot fuel cars, solar would need to be improved a great deal before using it for cars could become practical, hydrogen is not a source of energy, and since there are already problems with the electrical network, natural gas has peaked in North America. Biofuels are an option, but there are many problems people have failed to adequately consider. Even if biofuels have a positive EROEI (and I don't think ethanol does, biodiesel is probably better) the EROEI will still be quite low. A more serious problem however, is that farming land to produce energy uses land that could be better used for food production, and also removes nutrients from the land, meaning that such farming would be unsustainable. I don't think fuel production from farmland could last all that long. Remember, the energy from biofuels comes ultimately from sunlight, with a very low efficiency (I think 2%). It would take a lot of land to turn this low efficiency into enough fuel to power our cars. Looking over the list above, it is clear that alternatives to oil are very poor. I've mentioned before that fusion power is a possible option. In particular, cold fusion, which was dismissed far too quickly by various parties who had an interest in seeing it feel, deserves a second look. (See my website, http://rainsofkilimanjaro.blogger.com for more info). It is possible that some miracle energy source like fusion can be found and developed, but I don't think it is likely. Thus mitigating either peak oil or global warming, while not impossible, will be very difficult.
Large Volcanic events and Astral impacts tend to be beyond engineering and science and cause regional / global catastrophes.
Actually, on balance, the period the development of Homo Sapien up to and including recorded history looks like it may have been an extremely benign period to have developed in.
Could be we are a very lucky fluke.
If we dont resolve energy depletion and end up with 'Hobbiton', 'Mad Max', 'Shogun' or similar, then we wont have the kind of civilisation that can detect and deflect an Astral Impact.
We may not even know about it until we can see the 'firey orb in the firmament'. Let alone have the energy to get Bruce Willis up to save us.
In which case we are a bit doomed.
First of all, we're on a peak oil site, which by definition makes most of us doomers from the point of view of most people.
Second, I've read comments from those who claim to be non-doomers, but then go off into how to pick the best ammo, and what guns work best when the crazed mob shows up to steal your burried supplies.
For me, I don't believe PO need cause the rapid collapse of society on it's own. But then things don't often happen in isolation, and I see plenty of reasonably viable scenarios where we could indeed see rapid, major changes. Call it collapse, whatever. I think the likelyhood of big changes coming soon is increasing, but by no means assured. Some of those scenarios would be devastating, but others just look like change to me, and could well be change for the better.
any definition of doom, with a time, would work for me.
unfortunately, too often we get vague fears of 'viable scenarios' without specifics, or any reasonable path from here to there.
I have my guesses as to what will happen, and about when - but hell, they're just guesses, and they vary with my mood! It's more important to gain an understanding of what could happen, and how things interact, then it is to pick one scenario and blindly follow it. And then (if we're paying attention) we'll have a better idea of what it is we're seing, and can react accordingly.
The doom scenarios are just one end of the spectrum.