Show your math.
Yes, but it takes* even more* energy and resources to support a more spread out settlement. It’s the suburbs and small towns that are really wasteful.
I’ll also say that if you are correct about how bad resource scarcity will get, the answer is “there won’t* be* any cities because nearly everyone will be dead”.
Large cities are simply not sustainable. Small towns have existed for eons, and will continue to exist. Large cities are only possible in the era of cheap and abundant energy.
I’ve already said that the suburban living arrangement has no future, the suburban experiment of the past 70 years will fail miserably. The future human settlements will be far smaller, far more compact, and far more walkable. If we’re fortunate, they will be serviced by public transit and linked by rail. But we may find ourselves to be too broke and resources too scarce for even that.
And yeah, many, many people will die. The usual suspects of disease, famine, and violence will do their work, but other underrated factors will be suicide and drug/alcohol abuse. But it’s rather grandiose to think that our time will be the “end of times.” Human civilization will go on in some form for the foreseeable future.
So cities have to become smaller and denser, but the smallest and densest cities are going to be the worst off? 
I don’t dispute that we are going to see resources getting scarcer.
But I agree with this. As resources get scarcer, there will be an economic incentive to shorten distribution lines and push people into living closer together.
No, it doesn’t. Cities are much more resource efficient. Cities consume more than small towns but that’s because they have larger populations. But a single city with a hundred thousand people will consume far less resources than a hundred small towns with a thousand people each.
Such towns are overly expensive, highly inefficient luxuries. And if we can’t support large cities, then we can’t support much of anything, certainly not smaller, less efficient towns. Especially considering all the knock-on effects of most of the human race dying off.
In your scenario it would be much more likely we get knocked back into at best something like the medieval era, with the death of most of the population and the loss of most knowledge along with it. But even then there would still be large cities.
If your premise is an oil shock, then the people with short commutes (public transport, high density) will suffer the least. The suburbs will get hammered, but the suburbs are not what I’d call the “big city”.
Suburbs are already declining right now, but it’s not because of oil scarcity. It’s because of time scarcity. People, especially younger people, are weighing long commutes against the supposed high crime of the city, and finding that much of the “high crime” is overblown while long commutes are definitely real.
Ah, Peak Oil™ rears it’s ugly and decrepit head again I see. Well, since someone already cribbed my standard Ghostbusters paraphrase I’ll just say that I don’t believe your premise is correct, so the answer is ‘I don’t think there will be a coming era of resource and capital scarcity across the board’. Basically, SOME cities will certainly have issues. I could see several cities in the South West having real problems in the next century. Several coastal cities may similarly have issues. But we aren’t IN a period of resource and capital scarcity, and Peak Oil is, frankly, bullshit and always was. Oh, eventually we will stop using oil, but it won’t be because we ran out, it will be because we’ve moved on to something else. Hell, we are in the process of doing that right now. There is ALREADY a paradigm shift underway. It will be like the whale oil thing…we didn’t run out of whales, we merely found a better alternative.
Anyway, far be it from me to ruin your Mad Max fantasies. If you want to think that’s what we are headed too, more power to you. But your question isn’t answerable to me or, seemingly most others because your premise is flawed.
But there are so many ways to obtain energy now that I don’t see how we can go backwards regarding energy.
Even if you use nuclear which is expensive as hell, we could afford it. Assuming 300 new plants at 10 billion each that is 3 trillion dollars. About 15% of annual gdp. It’ll hurt but it’s possible and that would replace all non renewable and non nuclear energy in the grid.
There are multiple ways to fuel transportation. Hydrogen, batteries, compressed air, coal to oil, methane to oil, ammonia, etc.
And even if we run short in energy for transportation there is nothing stopping us from carpooling, investing in public transit, motorcycles, high mileage cars, etc.
We can only hope.
The only people who need oil are the vermin who sell the shit. Those buying it now will adapt as resources dictate–perhaps using fossil fuel proponents in some novel way to contribute positively to the global economy.
For those who think we can quietly transition over to “renewable” energy- do you think renewable energy scales up? Do you think we can run Walmart, suburbia, the interstate highway system, Disneyworld, the US military, air travel and so on, on any combination of wind, solar, algae, used french-fry potato oil, or the dark matter of the universe? Do you think we can manufacture, build, and maintain Godzilla-sized wind turbines and millions of solar panels without an underlying cheap oil economy? Do you think it’s possible to mine and transport the so-called rare earth metals needed for these technologies without oil?
Our vaunted ingenuity has not produced a viable ‘renewable’ energy source to replace cheap oil and other fossil fuels, which the global techno-industrial system absolutely requires in colossal amounts. The time for such savior technology to arrive has already long passed. Our systems are already very wobbly, especially global finance and banking, where the capital is.
Just because your OP is so absurd, I see no reason to be rational.
Yes. We can eliminate oil tomorrow and everything will be fine. Better, in fact.
This. The OP is so patently false as to be undeserving of response.
If anyone can demonstrate that it’s possible to extract a limited resource indefinitely, I will concede my OP is “absurd.”
Nuclear scales up just fine. It has other issues, but they’re mostly political in nature. Politics that I expect would change pretty fast if the choice was between that and not having electricity.
It’s a little early to say for sure, but the price curve on solar looks a lot like Moore’s law. So it will likely scale up just fine before we run out of oil.
We don’t have to extract oil indefinitely. Just long enough for something else to become dominant. You could have made the same argument about running out whale oil in the 19th century. And you’d have been right on the specifics (we did run out of whales!) but totally wrong about the societal impact.
Lets see, compact, walkable, serviced by public transit, linked with other settlements by rail…
…so, New York City, basically.
We have enough coal and natural gas to last at least 100 years.
We could switch to an all nuclear grid. France is 80% nuclear. It’s not ideal but it is viable.
The only think holding back renewables is grid and storage tech. But as I said we have enough time to figure it out.
Human civilization has a lot of human capital and financial capital. We just aren’t using it to deal with these problems to the degree we could.
While I don’t agree with the OP on the subject of cities, I am in broad agreement with him on the subject of resource scarcity, with oil being the main example. Too many people are just refusing to admit there’s a problem.
To make an analogy, we’re like a person who won a million dollar lottery and begins living a lifestyle that spends a thousand dollars a week. His friends might try to intervene.
“Dude, you’re spending too much money.”
“No, I’m not. I have a million dollars. That’s a huge amount. It’s going to last me forever.”
“A million dollars is a lot of money. But it’s not an infinite amount. It can be spent. And at the rate you’re spending it, you’ll have spent it all in twenty years. What will you live off of then?”
“No problem, I’ll just win another lottery.”
The absurdity of this thinking is obvious at this scale. But we’re pretty much following the same logic. Peak oil deniers will start by claiming that we’re never going to run out of oil. Push them hard and they’ll concede that there isn’t an infinite amount of oil so that first claim is obviously not true. Push them harder, and they’ll claim we have a huge amount of oil, so we don’t have to worry about running out in the foreseeable future. But it’s easy to produce the figures about oil consumption, oil reserves, and oil production and show that the future isn’t all that far away. Then, pushed to the wall, peak oil deniers will simply dismiss oil and say that when the need arises, we’ll switch to a new source of energy that will replace oil.
If the lottery winner dismisses the problem and just keeps spending his money, he will run out one day and then have to get some no skills job at a Burger King or some place like that just to survive. He won’t be able to afford the high life style he’s gotten used to, so he’ll lost all the stuff he had.
If the lottery winner is smart, he will acknowledge the problem and begin making plans now for what he will be doing after the lottery money is gone. He’ll use some of the lottery money (even if it means living a less lavish lifestyle) to set himself up in a career or build up a business that will produce income to take the place of his lottery winnings when he needs it. He’ll treat his lottery winnings as a temporary asset and use them to set up a permanent asset.
If he waits until he’s spent most of the lottery winnings to start planning on his post-lottery future, he’s going to have far less options. He has the money now to get a college education or start up a business. Those won’t be options when’s almost out of lottery money.
Now look at our economy. Which path are we following? Are we just saying “Don’t worry about it. We’ll figure out a replacement for oil when the need arises”? Or are we building that replacement now while we have the assets so that it will be in place when the need arises?
Without the skyscraper valleys and 20 million people.