In the middle of the 6th century a million people lived in Rome. The Goths had conquered it, but it was still operational. However, the German tribes decided to do away with Rome, so they cut the aquaducts. Among those million people there was no one who could fix the aquaducts. Ten years later, the population was 10,000. What they really needed was a few good engineers and technicians, but all they had a bunch of religious fanatics and bureaucrats. Sound familiar? Rome also had gotten used to using paid mercenaries to staff their legions, instead of a citizen army. Sound familiar?

The Peak oil argument definitely identifies the biggest challenge for this generation, however, I find some of the conclusions to be overly dire and dramatic. While I do not think we are headed for another stone age, I do think there will be some economic turmoil over the next 20 to 30 years as there are shifts and adjustments to alternative sources. Over the next 5 - 10 years, I think the biggest threat to our oil-based economy isn't that we will be faced with an oil shortage because production decline, but rather will stem from the geopolitical mess we have created in the regions that produce most of the world's oil. I think it is those issues that will really precipitate our awakening and transition away from oil.

I think the ultimate salvation is nuclear power - or rather that is the giant nuclear fusion reactor in the sky that we call the sun. The sun has always been the ultimate source of power on the planet - it is what provided energy to the plants that fed the dinosours that produced the oil that we use now to provide cheap power. Right now, the price per kWh from a photovoltaic cell runs about 2-5 times the cost of conventially produced electricity. However, the cost has been on a downward exponential curve since the first PV's were used by NASA back in the 60's, although there has been a plateau for the last few years because of cost of silicon, however, there are also a lot of exciting new technologies being developed that increase the efficiancy, which will continue to bring the costs down - its sort of like Moore's Law. Fortunately the U.S. has lots of space for PV's - think about Nevada which gets an enourmous amount of sun.

I think there will definitely be a transition in the next few decades, but I don't agree that it will be complete devastation of humanity as we know it.

When the roving bands of armed bandits come along and see all the hard work these people have put into building this self-sufficient infrastructure, they'll say, "Thanks for all of your efforts. We'll be taking this now."

I've done a lot of reading on the Peak Oil phenomenon, including all of James Kunstler's books. I do not think we will regress to some sort of pre-modern state. However, I think Peak Oil definitely exists and we need to be proactive about it. Just saying 'someone will figure something out' is nothing more than magical thinking. How is that different from saying, "Jesus will provide."?

I think we have enough givens that a rational case can be made for working on the post-oil future now. It's a given that there's a finite amount of oil in the earth. The Oil Age is a one-time deal and once it's over it's over. It's readily apparent that supply and demand are currently very tightly matched. There's no slack, no swing producer anymore who can moderate prices like the Saudis used to. When a militia with small arms in Nigeria or three guys with a car bomb in Saudi Arabia can affect global oil markets you know something's wrong.

I agree with others who have mentioned that the next energy crunch won't likely be created by the bounds of technology rather it will be due to geopolitical forces. The truth is that a handful of strategically aimed attacks in the Middle East could radically alter our energy picture overnight. Will we all die as a result? No. However, we would be helpless to do anything about it for an indeterminate period of time. Doesn't this seem like one contingency it would be prudent to prepare for?

Even if none of the energy supply doomsday scenarios come to pass, radically scaling back our fossil fuel consumption would produce a host of benefits: environmental, political, economic and strategic. It's not at all difficult to see what these could be and any one of them would possibly be worth it in their own right.

The problem with "Society is going to collapse because of peak oil" is that people forget about Coal, Ethanol, Solar, and even oil rich shale. The problem today with these technologies is that oil, despite its increased costs, is still cheaper to produce by pumping it directly out of the ground. When the day finally comes when that is no longer true, you can bet the Exxon's and BP's of the world will be investing in these alternative sources for no other reason than cold hard profit. The technologies exist to convert coal into liquid petroleum. Ethanol is a proven fuel source, see Brazil. Solar is free for the taking but panel costs still remain high. One thing we have an over abundance of is silicon so making panels en mass is feasible if the cost structure is right(ie a company can turn a reasonable profit). Canada has oil shale reserves that rival Saudi Arabia in terms of oil content, and will keep us guzzling fossile fuels for probably at least another century. The recovery costs are still too high, but again that scenario won't last forever. The real concern is global climate change. That problem will come home to roost far sooner then we will run out of fossil fuels to burn. There is evidence we are seeing the results of it in real world terms already. Hurricane seasons, for example, will probably only get worse.

Modern corporations are amazing things, dangle a profit in front of them and they will solve almost any problem. Not because they are good natured or altruistic, but simply because they live on profit. That alone will keep modern society humming along. The real issue is there is no profit motive in solving the global warming issue. That's the real threat long term.