I don't see why this is an "us vs. them" issue. The point he is making is valid and important. People run many processes where the output energy is less than the input energy. The idea that energy production will stop when EROEI<1 is ridiculous. That would only be true in a world where there is just one type of energy.

Here's another example: the shift from hunting/gathering to agriculture. That was a step down in EROEI. You have to put in a lot more energy to get a calorie from farming than from hunting. Nevertheless, the shift to a lower EROEI food (energy) source led to a massive increase in food availability. A lower EROEI source can be better than a high EROEI source if the lower EROEI source is more plentiful and reliable.

Does this mean we have nothing to worry about with oil depletion--as long as we find something more plentiful and reliable than oil?
Well, pretty much by definition when the average EROEI<1 then energy production does stop.
Can you point to a real-world case where that actually happened?
Yeah:

Easter Island.

They ran out of trees (=fuel for fire).

They applied a match to what was left of the "woods", namely to the ashes. The ashes wouldn't catch fire. EROI of the lit match was less than unity. So production stopped. Most of the population died-off.

The End.

We don't really produce energy, we convert it from one form to another (ex: from heat to mechanical force). Having an EROI < 1 is not a problem as long as you can rely on another source of cheap energy (slaves, cheap gasoline or electricity).