Totally agree with the LW -- I've had the oilposter.org poster up in my office at work for the past few years. But when I think about the post-oil future, most of what I imagine is positive.

- Peak oil will spurn an unprecedented drive to innovate and conserve energy. We will see 100 years worth of neglected R&D into energy technology happen in a 10 year time span.

- City planning will become a science by necessity. No more endless sprawl. City planning will become three dimensional with condos and residential space on top, commercial and recreation on the ground, and utilities and transportation below ground. We will have walkable neighborhoods, no traffic congestion, etc.

- Products will become much better. It will no longer be economical for some ripoff consumer electronics company to build and ship three models of a $39 DVD player from asia to the US every year. You will be able to escape from your daughters friends' birthday parties without having to take home some useless plastic junk to fill your home that will end up in a landfill next week. In the future, if someone wants to build a product, they will put considerably more thought into it because the production and shipping costs will be much higher.

- There will be a big push to use local foods, backyard gardens will flourish, and more people will participate in, and appreciate food production. Subsidies will shift, and you won't be forced to eat cheap high fructose corn syrup with every food. Food will cost more, but people will be healthier.

When I look at our society, about 50% of what I see are roads and parking spaces. Is this really the best situation? I can't wait for $10/gallon.

Jason

"I myself am a scientist (brilliant or not, only time will tell). And none of my brilliant colleagues, including those who have won actual Nobel Prizes, ever talk like the LW.

It seems in fact, that the smarter a person is, the more likely they are to insist that we really don't know anything at all.

Faith is basically accepting that there's more out there than you can know and understand."

I don't think LW was saying science has already explained everything there is to know, so now it's time to act.

He's simply pointing out that to the best of our knowledge, the re are some major problems with the worlds' energy supply that will impact many facets of our lives. Yes, there are things we don't know, and there are margins of error in studies leading to these conclusions.

But when the stakes are so high I think it's prudent to hope for the best but plan for the worst. After all, there's an equal chance that the margins of error could work against our interests.

Jason

pablo: "But I'm tired of RICH San Fran liberals, RICH Manhattan liberals and RICH Hollywood liberals praising high gas prices! Lower to Middle income people are really struggling with gas prices!"

Don't knock them -- these RICH liberals trying to save your ass. While Repugs are willing to lie to you about the significance of domestic reserves, delay any meaningful progress in moving the nation towards renewable alternatives, and sell the public commons for a buck and a vote, RICH liberals are working to solve the hard problem of providing you a soft landing to the impending oil crash.

Regarding your rebuttal of alternative energy sources, please read "Earth, the Sequel" by Fred Krupp & Miriam Horn, and then let me know if your understanding of the current situation has improved.

-Jason

"The fury with which the first atheist posters here at Salon have attacked this article comes as no surprise to me (King's sports-blog post on George Carlin last week features a lengthy dialog regarding what I refer to as "fundamentalist atheists"). Strict materialism, or positivism (a more sophisticated form of materialism) always ultimately bumps up against "that which it cannot explain". The fact that the science that these materialists have bound themselves to--in full integrity, I might add, with the belief that it can answer all of life's mysteries--hasn't answered all of life's mysteries pisses them off so intensely it has become one of my favorite entertainments!"

As an athiest, materialist, positivist, or as I prefer, a spiritually-challenged person, allow me to step in and clarify something about our "beliefs". Science is just a process of learning. It makes no claim to answer all of life's questions now or ever. There are likely many things that are simply unknowable.

However that does not diminish the value of science as the ultimate authority in furthering our understanding of the universe. The lack of a better tool to understand the natural universe does nothing to validate the existence of the supernatural -- it simply means that a better tool does not exist.

Jason

It's sad so many Salon writers on this subject (who are also scientists) make the same claim that we should be open to the possibility that religion may complement what science doesn't explain...

Without offering any reason, defying all logic, and completely ignoring the fact that science and religion are exact dictionary definition opposites of each other.

What difference does it make who published more papers? Giberson and Myers are just two scientists. Alone, neither one's publication list is not going to be a great indicator of what real scientists think about religion.

If you want to know to what degree how many scientists hold religious beliefs, I suggest looking at a much larger sample.

Nature published the results of a survey of leading scientists in 1914, 1933, and 1998 that overall, scientists' belief in God is drastically lower than the general population, and falling. Karl Giberson and other Salon science writers withstanding, it seems the more one knows about science, the less likely one is to believe a personal god is responsible for what science has yet to explain.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm