somebody spiked the punch
The ramifications of Peak Oil are absurd.This explains much of the knee-jerk criticism to the well-established model of Peak Oil. It doesn't mesh with our world as it has been experienced. People don't have a cognitive frame of reference for “running out of oil”; it has never happened before. (As Jay Hanson pointed out.)
People in the U.S. can tell you what to expect if kidnapped by aliens (they’ll probe yeranus), but would have no idea what to expect if Iran blockaded oil traffic in the Gulf, using their cruise missile capacity. (Where are the frosted flakes???)
Adding to a general lack of knowledge is the angry criticism directed at individuals who stray towards negative scenarios. My sense of self does not include a tin-foil hat, but an outside observer might perceive one nestled on my hairy pate.
For example, proclaim something perfectly reasonable, in a post peak context: “The airlines are going the way of the Dodo”, or “Gold will rise in excess of $1000 US dollars an ounce” and the big nets come out. Peak Oil – what dat?
Consider a simple negative scenario:
Shortly, we lose 8% of our oil production in a given year.
Subsequently, we grow 8% less food in the next year,
Human population shrinks by 8% around the globe.
Now, this absurd scenario is easily picked apart. (Liquid fuel could be allocated for food first.) Or, it is easily supported. (Rich countries control the supply; poor will suffer.) It strikes me that arguing over this scenario is pointless, because:
Peak oil is absurd in the context of our current civilization.
It ALLOWS for absurd consequences.
In that light, the simple negative scenario described above has moved into the realm of the possible. That is a very different thing from me ADVOCATING such a thing, as those who discuss overshoot are often accused.
Absurd, I tell you.
Be ready for anything.