Not to defend the entire argument that was being made BUT...

My take on it is that these things are neither good nor bad. It's basically a matter of what kind of stewards we are of the resources we have. This progression of resource usage versus our ability to discover replacements that won't destroy the other resources we depend upon, in a global economy with enormous momentum, is the real issue.

The era of cheap energy has fueled something spectacular comparative to all of human history. Civilizations have collapsed throughout history for many reasons including resource depletion. So it's not a stretch to imagine an economic butterfly effect with oil at the root of it. The world isn't going to disappear and the entire population won't die due to energy issues. However, things can get very bad, very quickly if we don't catch some lucky breaks along the way.

For all of the technology we have and for as much as humankind has evolved, we still are babes in the woods as far as societal structures are concerned. We've come a long way, but act too big for our britches (so to speak). I don't believe in complete doom and gloom after the Y2K fiasco. I don't have a great deal of respect for certain people in the community who are making money off of it either. I won't name names, but the are people who were in it for a buck back then and they are in the peak oil debate for a quick buck now.

I think it's good that a debate is taking place because it's our complacency that endangers us more than peak oil, nuclear states, or chicken hawk neocons in government. It's easy to believe something that is self defeating when we have imperfect knowledge of all the factors in play.