Well, I would argue that I'm using a fairly broad definition of "engineering" that basically boils down to "undertaking problem solving in a logical and straightforward matter." And, from my experience, a lot of people don't really know how to do that. Even relatively simple problems like what happens to modern hospitals when the power gets shut off are immensely technical, as you really really need to know something about how those hospitals operate on a moment to moment basis if you want to have a chance at "fixing" the problem.

I think a lot of people have gotten into the habit of "solving" problem by buying something new or complaining to someone who truly solves the problem for them. But maybe I'm just being elitist.

No you are not being an elitist.

What you describe is an outcome of the Adam Smith proposal that we should all "specialize" in one esoteric craft or another. After a while, we come to expect that "the markets" will always provide an approproate solution on a just-in-time basis.

Did the blue screen of death just pop up on your computer? OK. No problem. Pick up the phone and call the office computer geek. He'll fix it. Always has.

Not feeling well? Go to your doctor. He'll give you just the right pill. You'll be good as new in a day or so. It will work next time for sure. Always has.

Your gas station is out of gas? Forever? No problem. Pick up the Yellow Pages. Look up Energy Specialists. They will deliver a just-in-time soultion. The science geeks always have, always will. The markets have always provided. They are sure to do so with each next crisis. It is the power and the miracle of the Invisible Hand. It always delivers. I have deep faith-based confidence in it. Don't you?

No need for us to alarm the sheeple. Everything will be fine. Doom and gloomers have come and gone. The Earth is still here. See?

The problem is, in an absolutely perfect capitalist society (read, not us), the problem actually would be fixed.  But, I think perfect capitalism requires perfect understanding of the market situations, which we just don't have.  

We COULD correct PO, if we took the right steps.  But, ultimately, the people who hold the pursestrings have to know that there's a problem that needs a solution NOW.  Ultimately, this is where the process has failed.

What do you mean by "correct peak oil"?  Find fossil fuel where there is none?

What a capitalist system will do is push the price up high enough that we never run out, making sure that there's always some oil production available for the boutique plastics industry and other specialty niches.

Already, and more so as prices go higher, there's money in finding substitutes, which will work great for the non-energy uses for oil.  But when it comes to oil's role as a source of cheap energy, I don't think capitalism is going to help.  Capitalism will work fine for finding other sources of expensive energy which will be somewhat cheaper than the really expensive oil of the future, but hardly what I call "fixing" the problem.

The problem is, in an absolutely perfect capitalist society (read, not us), the problem actually would be fixed.  But, I think perfect capitalism requires perfect understanding of the market situations, which we just don't have.  

You have a lot more faith in capitalism than I do. The fact is that there is a lack of social consciousness in capitalism. The disparity between the have's and havenot's is just one example of what's wrong with capitalism.

We COULD correct PO, if we took the right steps.  But, ultimately, the people who hold the pursestrings have to know that there's a problem that needs a solution NOW.  Ultimately, this is where the process has failed.

The problem is that all of the solutions I know of require asking people to make great sacrifices. My contention is that people will fight change at all costs. How many times have we heard that honesty with the American public would be political suicide? Jimmy Carter was honest and look where that got him. So the politicians who are aware of the situation aren't going to make the same mistake. There are just too many other immediate problems to deal with. So they will continue to pass the buck until the buck can't be passed. We may be seeing some initial signs of that now.

Anyhow, my basic point is that "correcting PO" equates to causing social upheaval. If the situation gets bad enough, change will be forced on us. It may not be a very pretty scenario. Sometimes the universe has to give us a little spanking to set us on the right course. Historically speaking progress comes in cycles not unlike economic cycles. Even if things were to get pretty nasty, we will end up being stronger, smarter, and better prepared for future challenges.

What you describe is an outcome of the Adam Smith proposal that we should all "specialize" in one esoteric craft or another. After a while, we come to expect that "the markets" will always provide an approproate solution on a just-in-time basis.

Specialization is inevitable to some extent. Nobody can be all things to all people. Though I think it's good to be well rounded and have extensive knowledge in a few areas.

I, too, think we're on a dangerous path. I don't blindly believe in capitalist dogma. Unfortunately we've dug ourselves into this hole and we'll have to figure out how to get out on our own.

The Pilgrims and progenitors of modern America had to work their asses off to build this country. People still work hard every day, but I would argue that most really aren't doing anything valuable. I don't think service sector jobs are going to launch us into the next era. There is a certain laziness to America now, a sense of entitlement, a sense that everything should come easy just because we exist.

What we should've been doing for the past 50 years is making sure that everybody had a GOOD education. For all of our wealth we should have an absolutely fantastic educational system. Kids should be expected to achieve academic excellence. I have to laugh when I hear about "no child left behind". Many of our crime, welfare, health, and other problems are related to poor education. Education is the single best investment you can make in a child's future.

I'm reminded of that saying about people perishing for a lack of knowledge. If Peak Oil turns out to be a nasty period in the annals of human history, then it will have a lot to do with the feudalization of America. There is no nice way to put it, but that's what happens when 90% of the wealth exists in an increasingly small percentage of families.

The Pilgrims and progenitors of modern America had to work their asses off to build this country.

Not to mention the slaves and immigrants. =/

The L-shaped, wealth distribution curve (where 1% of the population accumulates for itself 99% of the capital) is an inherent property of free market capitalism.

In almost every commercial transaction, one party has at least a slight advantage over the other. The one party with the trade advantage learns how to repeat that behavior. Over time, they win again and again, shifting more and more capital gain into their corner. They justify it by claiming they are superior human beings. God wanted them to be wealthy. They deserve it. In the end, you have an L-shaped distribution curve. The winners are happy with the system as is. The losers have almost no power to change it.

But as long as each trade transaction is voluntary and made between two intelligent persons who has a reasonable idea about what is in their self intrest you get a deal that benefits both even if one is better of then the other.

The problem is dumb consumers and thick people who dont think when they trade.

It is a falsity to assert that people are "rational" and/or "intelligent" when they conduct a transaction.

What objective evidence do you have to back up this pure assumption?

On the other hand, if you need proof that people are irrationally exuberant and unintelligent, then the evidence for this is bountiful. Let's start with the 2001 stock market. Even now you see people buying up SUV's and homes in outer suburbia. There is no win-win situation here. Too many unwitting people are getting suckered in to a lose and lose-big situation.

Yes, I know your economics teacher pounded the dogma into your head about the hypothetical two intelligent persons hammering out a fair deal in a "free market". But the whole fairy tale is just that. How much "free" information do you think McDonalds gives out to the hoards who line up behind its counters thinking they are buying hamburger "meat" when in fact they are being sold redigested soylent green? Madison Avenue is all about brainwashing not about intelligent transactions with win-win outcomes. Get real.

Hey ! I got an unfair deal with that "skinny" box --so I'm reposting. Just goes to show you how unfair the system can be when resources are stretched thin. :-)

COPY:

It is a falsity to assert that people are "rational" and/or "intelligent" when they conduct a transaction.

What objective evidence do you have to back up this pure assumption?

On the other hand, if you need proof that people are irrationally exuberant and unintelligent, then the evidence for this is bountiful. Let's start with the 2001 stock market. Even now you see people buying up SUV's and homes in outer suburbia. There is no win-win situation here. Too many unwitting people are getting suckered in to a lose and lose-big situation.

Yes, I know your economics teacher pounded the dogma into your head about the hypothetical two intelligent persons hammering out a fair deal in a "free market". But the whole fairy tale is just that. How much "free" information do you think McDonalds gives out to the hoards who line up behind its counters thinking they are buying hamburger "meat" when in fact they are being sold redigested soylent green? Madison Avenue is all about brainwashing not about intelligent transactions with win-win outcomes. Get real.

Much depends on those who think before they act.

We would be very poor if they did not exist, we are not poor.
We might become poor if too few think before they act or if they have to shortsighted goals.

I have both read this in textbooks and observed it in ordinary day to day life. It is obviously important in every scale of economical activity.

Regarding hamburgers there is written material about the nutritient value of the hamburgers in the McD i bicycle past daily. The factory for making most of the meat patties(?) for Sweden is situated in my town. I have not visited it, only the butchery next door too it. And I know how most of the farms selling the beef used are being run. Most of them are like my fathers farm were but the trend is to bigger more automated units with better facilities but less human oversight. This is also fairly well documented for people who care to look.  But still, I choose to most often buy less well documented hamburgers in small hamburger bars since they often are spiced better. Rational or irrational of me? I do at least get my meal and reward those who spice well.