The Oil Drum

298 comments on Prepping for Peak: How Fast Can We Change?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

confederate on October 14, 2007 - 3:03pm

I appreciate Kunstler's definition from The Long Emergency;
"Fossil Fuels are a unique endowment of geologic history that allow human beings to artificially and temporarily extend the carrying capacity of our habitat on planet earth."

Recently heard Dr. Wes Jackson of the Land Institute speak. He seemed deeply concerned and shwowed that o so familiar graph of oil production and population rising in tandem.

IMHO, Die Off seems inevitable

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on October 15, 2007 - 10:29am

Dieoff amongst other species is already occurring, of course. When we enter human dieoff, will it be too late to save non human species? We should be more concerned about the millions of canaries in the coal mine. And, btw, we should be closing the coal mines.

Most of us probably abhor the idea of mandatory birth control. And yet, we also abhor dieoff. Those countries, like France, which are experiencing low birth rates, are trying to incentivise population growth, a largely chauvinistic exercise.

Not to worry, magazines like the Economist are concerned we have too few people. So, I guess, dieoff, obviously is not a concern remotely within range of the radar screen.

Yes, Virgina, there will be dieoff. I see no evidence that we have the prudence to take the necessary actions to cause a different result.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

CMDC on October 16, 2007 - 11:52am

I see the difference between dieoff and preventable deaths, but that is a difference in input/ouput numbers. Morally there is no difference between the millions starving now and the millions starving in ten/twenty/whatever years. We are allowing so many preventable deaths now I don't see that we will move decisively to prevent mass dieoffs. In spite of this, I think the dieoffs will happen more slowly than is generally predicted on this blog. We probably will pass the point of dieoff without noticing, it will be a series of "bad years" that no-one will see as the peak until after the fact. This paragraph makes me sound very pessimistic but I do feel a sense of optimism. The fact that we are doing such a terrible job now (in an age of plenty) implies that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit we can pick to soften the transition.

My best hope is that people and small communities see that it is in their best interest to have fewer children. Birth rate declines in Europe, Japan and liberal US states strongly suggest that the fertility rate of human beings would be well below replacement rate if the question was left to individuals (particularly women). Birth rates correlate much more strongly to access to birth control than to cultural factors, although they do have an effect. For example, Catholics often vocally support the anti-abortion stance of the church, but actual abortions among self-identified catholics is actually higher than the general population average where it is available.

I believe that mandatory birth-control will be ultimately counter-productive. Reproduction is an incredibly emotional issue and the existence of mandatory birth control has been used consistently to undermine and demonize legitimate reproductive rights activities. One of the excuses for reinstituting the global gag rule in 2001 was that money might go to forced abortions, an accusation completely contrary to the facts. The reality that a forced pregnancy is also traumatic and infinitely more common doesn't seem to bother these people.

Any solution to peak oil, global warming and poverty will depend on wide or universal access to contraception.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mdsolar on October 16, 2007 - 11:30pm

Morally there is a difference between deaths now and speculative deaths later. We are bound to prevent the deaths now because now is when action is required. Speculating that the deaths are only postponed does not let you off the hook of trying to do what you can now. If you save a child from drowning today, you are not saving the child from all future mishaps, only today's. But, failing to save the child means failing to give the child the same opportunity you have to do some saving. That child may grow to save a child who then figures out the solution to the future problem that you would weigh equally with today's problem. The moral compass is not a mathematical model. It has immediate imperatives.

Chris