Close, but not quite right. The oil peak represents the point where production is no longer able to keep up with demand. Except, it is not “some date”, it is an extended period of market volatility. When demand cannot be met, prices go up, throttling demand (as the product becomes less affordable); meanwhile, efforts are made to increase production, so a market trough is reached due to nominal oversupply; demand rises because the product is more in reach, until the inflexion point is reached where increasing prices drive demand lower and the market tops out again. This see-saw will continue almost indefinitely as demand follows a declining trend (finding lower and lower cyclic troughs) until the overall market becomes unsustainable and the last gas station closes.
We will never actually extract the last drop of oil from the ground, the market will fail long before the last wells are dried up. The more pressing issue is that there are too many people who want to believe it will not be a problem, or at least not any time soon. Governments are more likely to address the economic effects of the peak/post-peak era than the actual cause itself. Politicians, businessmen and the general public are notoriously short-sighted, right now is far more important than the next decade (after all, I could be dead by then). Thus, speculating on what if it all dried up tomorrow is really not beyond the pale: the situation could well become critical at a time when we are not prepared for it, take us by surprise, because not preparing for things is what we do.
The government and military immediately seize all the most valuable assets and defend them with lots of bullets. Outside those areas would basically be the zombie apocalypse with massive die offs. The surviving pockets of civilization should be able to rebuild pretty quickly equipped with modern renewable energy technology, etc.
Naah - there are already millions of people who aren’t dependent on fossil fuels for their current daily lives - people who use wood or dung for fuel, don’t have vehicles or electricity or running water, make a living scrabbling at the earth and herding their stock. Sure, it’ll bite for them when it’s time to replace their foundry-made iron hoe or Chinese-made shoes, but they likely still have the skills in the community to do local smithing over charcoal fires and cobbling of leather. Or, you know, pick over the rusting remnants of the Western world for useful stuff. And like I said, there are millions of people who live like that today.
Millions are doing just that today, in the Global South. No, make that hundreds of millions. At least 200 million people worldwide are subsistence swidden agriculturalists, for instance, and another 30-40 million are nomadic pastoralists. That leaves out other subsistence farmers, subsistence fishermen and the few HGs remaining.
](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/en/)
Sure, I can be convinced that even without power, water, sanitation or vehicles, these 1-billion-plus people (and you have to agree the overlap between no water + no power must be dominant) are somehow intensely dependent on fossil fuels - food aid, for instance, and health care. And a healthy majority of them are doubtless urban poor, not subsistence farmers. But even so, you’re going to get much more than a piddly “10’s of thousands”, globally.
And all (or even most) of those people live in highly remote areas, well away from any large population centers, having zero dependence on any sort of outside aid, and without any large bands of thugs heavily armed with guns anywhere near them? Well, in that case, I suppose there will be a lot more people scratching out a living than I think there will be. Or, you are not factoring in such things, and thinking that during the collapse of our current global civilization that everyone is just going to leave your subsistence farmers, using zero fossil fuels for anything alone and in peace to continue their happy existence.
Doubtless a lot of them are in places like India and China…and they aren’t going to be able to avoid the disaster in either of those places. I don’t expect that a lot of Africa will be able to skate by and continue on either. I don’t have to tell you this, but there are large cities in Africa…cities full of folks who are going to be headed towards the country side looking for food. And in some parts of Africa there are plenty of folks with guns who would take the food at gun point…hell, even if they weren’t desperate. Also, many of these places receive western aid in the form of food or other resources from not only their own countries but from places like Europe or the US…or other countries in their region. All of which would cease immediately. It might not directly affect your subsistence farmers, especially in Africa, since I suspect that much of the food never gets to them…but it will be a cascade effect, with the folks who depend on it now becoming desperate and going after those who more or less are self sufficient at a low level of technology and agriculture.
I think you are underestimating the impact if you think that it will just mean no new hoes or shoes from China. I have no doubts that, short of the world going completely crazy when this happens and everyone launching nuclear weapons, that some folks will survive. For sure, some of the people in the more inaccessible places in Africa and Asia, as well as on some of the Pacific islands…heck, even in Canada, the US and Europe…are going to have the right combination of resources and time to survive. But it’s not going to be billions or, IMHO, even millions…it will be thousands, maybe 10’s or 100’s of thousands, at least at the low point, before it starts to rebuild. JMHO, so MMV…obviously it does.
On the contrary - sometimes it’s nomadic pastoralists who are the thugs with guns.
And how, exactly, are these armed gangs from the city going to get out into the country to do their menacing? Bicycles?
They don’t have a happy existence now, and are often subject to the whims of other people with guns. So what changes for them?
Like I, myself, already said.
And I say again - how far into the country do you think they’re going to get without fossil fuels?
Again, I already mentioned this.
And exactly how far are these starving masses going to get? I don’t think you grok how much distance we’re talking about, or just how hard travel would be out from cities without any fossil fuels.
I’m basing it on the fact that that’s often all these people have that is beholden to fossil fuels. Sometimes not even that.
Well, obviously if the nukes fly, all guesses are moot.
I don’t think you understand just how many people are in those inaccessible places - Africa is mostly one big inaccessible place, really. 60% of Africans are rural. 620 million people. Ditto large parts of Asia (c’mon, are the hordes of Beijing going to make it to eat the Yak herds of Tibet like locusts :dubious:) and South America. And of that, you think only 1000s will survive? You think that passes the arithmetic test? You’re talking effective species near-extinction for mankind there. Numbers we haven’t seen since the Toba bottleneck. And that’s frankly, just preposterous.
The problem is, rewinding is hard. It takes a modern “expert” to do things the way “everyone” did them in centuries past. I’ve had a lot of fun reading about attempts of modern archeologists trying to figure out how stone age tools were made and used. They’re generally not very successful at it! Of course, with millions of people trying, many will succeeed, but in new hybrid ways using available scrap materials mixed with iron-age techniques.
I think Mad Max is a pretty realistic scenario, as most people won’t be able to reinvent themselves and will scrabble to try to live with the technology we had before the fall, and at the expense of the lives of others (which will seem very cheap, since everyone’s dying of hunger anyway).
It depends on the numbers: there really aren’t enough bullets, anywhere near civilization. Truly remote areas will fare the best. However, guns don’t make themselves, ammunition doesn’t last forever, and even remote areas are hugely dependent on imports for their current means of operation.
IMHO the highest survival rate will be in areas that are already overpopulated and barely feeding themselves with minimal technology, such as areas of India and Bangladesh, and likely certain areas of Africa. The stone-age tribes of Irian Jaya will do just fine and won’t notice we’re gone. They had the sense to leave the beach before the tsunami in 2006 or whenever. But they won’t be exporting their technology, such as it is. They tend to kill anyone they don’t recognize.
I agree. I believe that tens of millions, and maybe even hundreds of millions might survive. Anything over 1% would surprise me greatly. But then, I wouldn’t be around to be surprised, because I’d be in the 99%.
Currently, the earth has a little over one acre of arable land for every living human. I believe the “experts” claim it takes about 0.9 acres to feed one person (not sure at what level of nourishment). So basically all the arable land in the world must be fully productive to feed the world (no droughts, flooding, swarms, fallows, etc.), so it would appear that we are already effectively over capacity. Without fossil fuel support, I would expect the number would have to at least triple, meaning the best the world could possibly handle would be on the order of 2 billion. In ideal circumstances. Of course, if we were to just feed our dead to pigs and eat the pigs, maybe the decline would be a little slower. Except in Islamic areas.
If fossil fuels disappeared tomorrow you would see an immediate escalation of food prices, war and chaos. However, I think a plan could be put in place for people to work shifts on existing farms while new tech was developed to replace all the fossil fuel powered machinery. It would be a long process.
Why would it be hard to find? Is it not present on maps? Sailboats and gps systems would still work.
The reason they have to go there is that it’s sparsely populated, hard to get to, and clearly capable of sustaining people with no contact with the outside world. That’s a freaking homerun trifecta when it comes to life after the apocalypse.
Well, they wouldn’t just go there. They’d go to all the little islands covered in trees. Your chances with the North Sentinelese are astronomically better than they are trying to stay within walking distance of an urban population center. If they don’t have any contact with the outside world, I bet they don’t have guns, either. Maybe they’d kill the first few boats full of people. Maybe they wouldn’t. But they’re very likely to notice something’s going on.
I don’t believe that’s true. Brazil, for one, has a comparatively powerful state agency that seeks to keep people from encroaching on the natives. And they’re still only moderately successful. Also note that where “nobody wants to live” changes drastically in this scenario. Right now, people want to live in cities because they make more money, have more opportunity, have more services. When civilization collapses, people will want to live in the country, because there’s land where you can grow food, and fewer people around who will try to kill you and steal your food.
Everyone won’t leave the city. Lots of people will, but you’ll still be screwed if you stay behind. I’m sure a few people will survive in cities. But a very small percentage. Hope a fire doesn’t start.
FYI; NatGeo is airing it’s special, Aftermath: World Without Oil, today at 4pm EST. It’s a hypothetical look at what would happen if the world’s oil disappeared overnight. There’s another one that a hypothetical look at what would happen if the Earth gradually stopped spinning in case anyone’s wonder important realism is to the series.
Seen that one. It’s fairly interesting, though it’s mostly a psudo-story format which can be annoying sometimes. However, assuming anyone finds their scenario plausible, just keep in mind that in their scenario there is still coal and natural gas…and also that we’d still have the current stockpiles of refined fuels that the government could dole out. None of this stuff is what the OP was proposing.
Personally, I found the story pretty optimistic even with those caveats , full of similar attitudes in this thread about how we’d just switch over to wind and solar, after a bit of a struggle…mankind triumphing and being better off without all that nasty oil stuff mucking things up. I’d say that in the NatGeo show it’s at least plausible that things could hold together long enough for governments to actually do something, and save something. Would still be grim, but wouldn’t be Dies the Fire type death tolls and collapse, which is something I guess.
