http://www.oilendgame.org/

John Kerry said that we can't drill our way out of an oil crisis, we have to invent our way out. The Americans didn't buy it then, and they won't buy it now. The price of oil, as world production peaks and then declines, will go exponentially higher. The oil company executives will become zillionaires. Then the world economy will collapse and society will degenerate into barbarism, and the executives can eat their gold.

the Americans will buy whatever is cheapest. If oil continues to increase in price, alternative energy sources will eventually be able to compete

It's all part of the Devil's plan: by then (when market forces react) it will be too late.

Bush loves Jesus
Bush loves Oil
therefore Jesus loves Oil

(they should put this one on the ACT or GRE)

In all seriousness, there are credible future scenarios (see the current Scientific American) where it goes a lot easier on us (life, the universe, and everything) if we start developing alternatives before the market economics compel us. Doing so requires a thoughtful electorate driving responsible government action, so that being the case, we might as well abandon all hope and assume we're in for an economic crash around 2025, or if I'm wrong maybe sooner.

the 'correction' hypothesis seems likely, but it need not be the end of us

Certainly just running out of oil isn't going to extinguish our species, but it might destroy civilisation, leading to a new dark age lasting millennia. If we can avoid this fate by being mindful and diligent, shouldn't we? Corporations aren't going to do it as they are greed (near term) motivated.

If we (government) can invest in alternative technolgies soon and well enough, we may escape a wrenching crash, and smoothly sail into the future.

I agree, we should exercise a little farsightedness as this problem is no trivial matter

hopefully we get it right and avoid descending into darkness

Thom Hartmann wrote on this topic,

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight

As I understand him, he proposes the idea that the future collapse of our (fossil) fuel supply is the history of civilisation repeating itself once again.

Empires rise and fall on the necessity of aquiring ever more quantities of fuel. Empires seek sustainable growth, (an oxymoron?)

Only looking to prehistory (tribal) cultures do we glimpse sustainable models of societies. Interestingly, our founding fathers did just that; when they devised our form of government, they sat in on the Congress of the Iroqouis Confederacy, (also called, the Six Nations, the oldest living participitory democracy on earth.)

Hartmann contends that any technological solutions to our problem will only be subjected (and perverted) to the modern culture of dominance, which is in fact "the problem" we have and have dealt with all through history.

The alternative is the model of the tribal culture which is based not on dominance but on cooperation.

Let's hope Hartmann is wrong and that technological solutions can be obtained without corporate dominance by improving voter awareness of the evils of corporate greed and environmental rapaciousness. Otherwise we are headed for disaster.

In the (assumed) interest of belaboring the point-

Suppose your computer shows signs of an imminent collapse,

you would need to determine if the problem were software or hardware.

Suppose the problem is in the software,
would your solution to the problem be to replace the old hardware (gradually or quickly) with new hardware?

What about the virus in the software, wouldn't it infect (inform) the new hardware?

We have our big computer (of civilization)
we have our hardware (of technology)
and we have our software (of humanity)

The imminent crash we face is the symptom of a virus in the software.

Like all viruses, this virus's purpose is the dominant aquisition of energy.

("Dominant" as in, obliterate and/or absorb all opposition to the task of aquiring more energy.)

That's an interesting analogy. I think Dan will agree that a devastating collapse of civilization can be prevented by right and timely action. Therefore, the harm of a collapse is unnecessary. Thus, if the collapse should occur, our failure to prevent it can be regarded as a triumph of evil, by my definition of evil as unnecessary harm. No magic involved.

It's agreed that we're heading for trouble, but I wonder what idea would serve as a sound-bite "wake up call" that would undercut factionalism yet still suggest the scope and gravity of the responsibilities of mankind?

My perceptions are so indoctrinated, I can only conceive of a problem as an enemy that should be eradicated, but considering that our fundamental problem just may be the fact that we rely upon our desire to eradicate trouble, how then do we approach such a problem?

We tried electing an environmentally aware President. That didn't work. How much hope is there that the Republicans will wise up?

In my view, the republican party is a bit too wise for the common good.

Hartmann writes extensively about democracy, he points out that corporations today are basically unconstitutional in their assumed functions.

Originally, corporations were kept on a tight leash, our founding fathers were quite aware of corporate tyranny; (the Boston Tea Party was a response to the newly aquired taxfree status of the East India Trading Company.
The issue had less to do with "taxation without representation" and more to do with "that F**KING corporate monopoly is gonna screw every one of us!"

In the new republic, corporations had to testify on a yearly basis how they deserved the privlege of serving the good of the commonwealth.
Nowadays, corporations petition the US Supreme Court demanding their "right" to mislead the public as per the right to free speech. See Nike vs Kasky
I don't think the two factions of our country are the grand ole parties (I mean, what the hell, both Bush and Kerry are Bonesmen, right?)
I say, at the risk of treason, that the two factions at work in these US and in our world are labor and capital.

Fundamentally, we're either an owner or a worker,
and our demacracy had originally assumed the duty of combining the two,
(that is, so the citizens of the state are the government of the state.)
Now what?

Class warfare?

I hope the ACLU realizes that if the supreme court decides that corporations are persons, then stockholders can be executed should the corporation commit a capital crime.

Ah, yes,
point taken.
I was thinking of the kind of "wisdom" that has so far kept the likes of Tom Delay out of the klinker.

Perhaps class warfare has been ongoing for some time now (a cold war?).

My take on Orwell is that the upperclass capitalize on the "necessity" of war;
the "ruling class" provide the "backing" of industry
while the working class provide the backs of bodies.
Who can tell me war is not profitable to industry?
(Did you see that photo in Newsweek of those the bricks of cash stacked up by the Coalition(?) Provisional Agency in Iraq for payment to the private contractors? They said it was the wild west out there.)

Look at Bush 41 and his Carlyle group.
The Bush dynasty exemplifies the class distintion in our country.
The Bush family are our very own royal family
and they worked hard to make that come about by buying up and selling off every freaking thing they could get their immoral criminal hands on.

Class warfare?
That's just another word for
American revolution.
Our forefathers told us the day would come again.

Yep. Looks like that's where we're heading.

Yep, reckon so.
Blood 'n the gutter 'n life on the lam.

(is it "on the lam" or "on the "lamb?"
How could "lamb" make sense? Is "lam" even a word?)
hmm,
the things that make you think...

From dictionary.com:

on the lam

Running away, especially from the police, as in He's always in some kind of trouble and perpetually on the lam. The origin of this slangy term of the 1800s is not known.

I bet lam is short for lamb.