Since I stumbled over the topic of Peak Oil a while ago and immediately realised the reality and possible implications of it, I had a couple of paradigm shifts about life.

By nature, I always look for the positive outcomes any event may have and I do believe that Peak Oil, although it will have tremendous impact, will have a lot of positive outcomes as well. (However, I could not yet come up with any positive outcomes for war.)

Most people who realise the problem suggest that localisation will be one way to deal with it. I completely agree with that point of view as long as there is enough space for the people to spread out. Thus, I have serious doubts about the practicality of localisation in densely populated areas like China, Japan, even the UK and Asian countries.

Considering that all fertilisers and pesticides comes from oil and that it artificially raised the production of crops to a level that currently supports the earth, I am very concerned. Densely populated countries depends to a very large extend on imported food to feed the people. To produce such vast amounts of food with manual labour is obviously not possible, without fertilisers the production cannot be maintained and if the economy and transport system is handicapped, how will those countries get enough food?

In my opinion, die-off in many parts of the world will be inevitable. Are my conclusions correct?

Renewable energy sources can at best replace the electricity component to some extend. We will never be able to travel like we were used to. If we run out of time and the Great Depression strikes, there will also not be money do develop renewable sources. We certainly cannot feed on promises.

The Oil Ago brought plastic prosperity to only one generation.