Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I think that's the matured version of the argument. It wasn't the version my friends were fixated on--though I should say, that version also didn't claim we were almost out of oil. I did oversimplify that.
The actual claim was more like: (1) production of oil is going to stop growing, and may even start to slowly fall, (2) demand is going to keep growing, because China, India, et al aren't going to shrug their shoulders and stay undeveloped (and the assumption was that oil == growth), and developed countries aren't willing to backslide on their prosperity, (3) the increasing demand for a fixed or shrinking supply was going to drive the price up--rapidly, and (4) this was going to cause all hell to break loose.
There was no viable alternative to oil (in the version I'm familiar with), so overall worldwide prosperity would be fixed or falling even as the developed world was hungry for a better life, leading to, basically, World War 3, in which every country would be willing to throw down for every bit of oil they could get their hands on. And it was all downhill from there: things would never get better for the world in general ever again, and when we spent fuel on war (which burns through the stuff in a hurry) it would only accelerate the downfall. Like I said, it was an apocalyptic vision.
Now, obviously, there is a finite amount of oil. We are continuing to burn through it. It's just not the burning fuse it was made out to be, inches away from the barrels of TNT. Climate change seems like a much more urgent issue, and luckily we can solve them both at once.
I'm not arguing against the concept of a finite oil supply leading to an eventual peak in oil supply (assuming we stay dependent on the stuff), just the apocalyptic vision that was popular in roughly 2007 which was claiming world society was on the verge of collapse in the next decade or so.