"Conservation, powering down and switching to renewables, which are available now, strike me as much, much better options."

Who could gainsay that? still solar power has much to recommend it, especially from space where it could be converted to microwaves and beamed down. I think that even before lasers were invented there were "masers" which made microwaves. It would take research but it stands a chance of working. There's also geothermal.

Solar power is great, I support its widespread adoption. But it ain't gonna replace the massive amounts of energy we get from fossil fuels, for the reasons I've already stated.

Sure, we could put up solar collecting satellites and beam down the energy to earth. And we could modify the genome of the pig so that pigs could fly. Just 'cuz it's possible doesn't make it likely, or feasible. There are no silver bullet technologies. The human population is in overshoot, primarily because we have used a one time bonanza of cheap energy (fossil fuels) that is running out.

Where are you going to get the energy for all the satellites you're gonna need? Where are you going to get all the energy to build all the geothermal and solar plants you're gonna need? It has to come from fossil fuels, which are seriously depleted already. If you build all this stuff that you envision, how are folks going to heat their homes, drive to work, etc. - how will you maintain the economic activity people are accostomed too?

The point is, that conservation seems to imply a voluntary lessening of life style and a restriction in birth rate and those don't seem to be characteristic desires of our species.

Well, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I think currently existing democracies are not up to meeting this challenge, and we will all suffer through a dismal future, and the human population will experience a major die-off. We will not, voluntarily, take the steps needed to get to a lower energy future as humanely as possible.

We will live in a lower energy future. Either we will have a chance to shape what it looks like, or Mother Nature will do it her own way.

You first. How would "Conservation, powering down and switching to renewables" be enforced?

Government mandates and programs/projects would be and excellent way to do it. Or taxation so that energy becomes much more expensive. In fact, these are the only feasible methods of doing it that I can see right now.

Would there be quotas and mandates and a fresh new bureaucracy behind it, with all the force of Uncle Sam to ensure it fulfills its mandate? Would those who refuse to power down face criminal punishment?

Probably, and yes.

These great ideas like "conservation" and "powering down", are just that, great ideas, then the implementation occurs. The stormtroopers knock on your door to tell you that you've gone over on your energy quota and that it's time for you and/or your family to "power down", by force, the only tool the Government has. Then the great idea won't seem so great all of a sudden.

OK, let's examine your alternative. We do nothing, or rather muddle along as we have been.

Now fast forward 25 years. Global oil production is 60% of todays production, and there are no longer any nations exporting oil. Domestic US production is about 2 million barrels per day, one tenth of the amount available to us in 2007. People can't heat their homes, businesses can't keep the lights on. Starvation is rampant in many parts of the globe. Perhaps there will be a real US invasion of the middle east to get at additional oil supplies.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

This is the future that will occur if we do nothing, the one we will get by default if we follow your advice. The future is lower energy, regardless of what we do. We can only try to manage the powerdown. If not, the planet will manage it for us.

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I am getting pretty close to elderly - LOL

Differences in potential are everywhere. Nothing is impossible.

Here's one for you - traveling faster than the speed of light. That is impossible.

As for energy issues, maybe you should try to engage my arguments, or learn a bit about the topic, before piping up.

Sounds to me like you're a Libertarian know-nothing - tech will save us, the market will work its miracles, etc.

Perhaps this will focus your attention - interested in a bet? I believe I asked you this before, and you, revealingly, declined. Let me know if you've changed your mind.

lowering our living standards and implementing eugnenics policies are good things

Lowering our standard of living, given the situation we face, is indeed a good thing. Eugenics policies I do not support, but reducing the population would also be a good thing. We need to reduce our footprint in order to avoid a massive die-off.

I'm sure all the environmentalists out there will be the first ones in line to trade their Prious in for a bus or rail pass and throw away their PS3s and their iPods, if they haven't already.

Some have, actually. But you are right that people will not voluntarily disarm, so to speak. That's why government has to get involved.

Maybe we could all become farmers and the Democratic Party can rename itself the Khmer Rouge?

Clearly you don't have any actual arguments to make, which is why you resort to this kind of snide BS.