Could there be a breakdown of society or is it a sick joke?

[Sarge]

"Some seriously interesting articles on that site Sarge

I've just read some of 'em

I'll second that !!

[Prono 007]

Peak oil was thought to initially lead to a series of unstable oil prices and recessions or a depression.

I think the idea of a breakdown in society is the combination of peak oil and our political and economic system. If we had the right kind of political leadership (extending far beyond just the PM) then I'm sure a breakdown could be avoided. But what we have is political and economic elites who share an almost religious faith in an economic system based on endless endless growth. Our system is largely run by very powerful, unaccountable corporations who have responsibility for society's problems only their shareholders profits.

As this growth fails to materialise millions of people will be put of of work and as that situations worsens people will protest, riot even. If we have say 70% unemployment rate could that be considered as a breakdown in itself?

As we go further down the decline slope our food system may fail. There's a saying 'We're only 3 meals away from anarchy'. That is if people go without food for 3 meals then a breakdown in society will occur.

The great depression lead to WW2 so for many countries a complete breakdown happened. Is there any good reason to think that the current crises won't lead to wars in a few years time?

We will still have oil for food, transport, energy etc,but it will become more expensive and we will have to comsume less.

At some point we won't have enough for those things but I guess that's post peak rather than peak itself. For some countries that will happen much sooner than others. So perhaps the idea of a synchronous global breakdown of society is unlikely (apart from all out nuclear war).

[kenneal - lagger]

Is there any good reason to think that the current crises won't lead to wars in a few years time?

Some of the least stable areas of the world, politically, are also some of the most drought prone and food short. Think Pakistan and Palestine and really the whole of the Middle East. These areas have had large increases in population and rely on oil/gas to pay for food imports and power desalination plants.

Once surplus world food supplies disappear due to changes in rainfall patterns and high fertiliser costs, the inherent instabilities in the region, coupled with militant Islamists, could cause the whole area to blow up. Those on the periphery, such as India, which is already seen as an enemy, will suffer first and then the USA and Britain will be added to the list.

The one saving grace will be the Sunni/Shia split. They are more likely to have an internal power struggle before launching an all out coordinated attack, as is happening in Palestine now. Increasing terrorist action will be the more likely course with dirty bombs from Pakistan's nuclear weapons a bigger threat to us. India will have to be careful over a direct attack though.

China could well destabilise with large scale food shortages. The result would depend on whether the Chinese government see it coming and have time to launch an external attack to keep the nation together. A good war always unites a country in trouble from within. If the government don't see it coming in time, a local conflagration on the borders is the most likely, otherwise, anyone with any food surplus could be in for it.

Then there's North Korea. God help us when they decide to break out.

Russia may well want to resecure it's bread basket and take Ukraine back under the "wing" as food supplies get low. I can't see NATO rushing to the rescue as Germany and a few other NATO nations won't have the stomach for a fight until the enemy is over their borders.

The worst, and most certain, invasion we may face as food gets short will be an all out migration out of Africa. If even a small percentage of Africans up sticks and hop in a boat, southern Europe first and then us in the north could be overwhelmed unless we take strong action to secure our borders.

[fifthcolumn]

Jebus Ken that's a scary analysis you have there.
Not a lot different though, than the one on Sarge's site.

[ziggy12345]

I thought the argument went like this.

Oil is needed to to drive economic activity. For capitalism to work you always need an increase in economic activity to pay interest on loans and so provide growth. Therefore the increase in the stock market is dependent on an increase in oil consumption (or energy in general)

If oil peaks then the stock market collapses and so does the societies based on it.

I agree that a peak in oil will lead to an economic collapse but I disagree it will result in a breakdown of society as the laws of the society are still based on the the laws of thermodynamics and there is still 84 million barrels of oil being produced every day.

[fifthcolumn]

I thought the argument went like this.

Oil is needed to to drive economic activity. For capitalism to work you always need an increase in economic activity to pay interest on loans and so provide growth. Therefore the increase in the stock market is dependent on an increase in oil consumption (or energy in general)

If oil peaks then the stock market collapses and so does the societies based on it.

I agree that a peak in oil will lead to an economic collapse but I disagree it will result in a breakdown of society as the laws of the society are still based on the the laws of thermodynamics and there is still 84 million barrels of oil being produced every day.

OK I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree 100% with some of the details (e.g. about what capitalism is, but I won't quibble).

If this scenario is true, then is it possible that there is a sub-variant, where there isn't a GLOBAL collapse, but instead "capitalism" moves to those places which haven't (yet) collapse?

I personally think this is what is going to happen.

e.g. if there are more icelands then the global average stays constant (or shrinks) but some countries may still continue to grow. Ultimately this scenario would lead to the "last man standing" but it's different in many ways to a synchronised global collapse which many of us seem to be expecting.

[RenewableCandy]

China could well destabilise with large scale food shortages. The result would depend on whether the Chinese government see it coming and have time to launch an external attack to keep the nation together. A good war always unites a country in trouble from within.

Not China's style. Unlike most other countries they tend to go all out for "the enemy within" rather than look for one outside like the rest of us. Mind you for them, "within" includes things like Taiwan...

I can see all the rest being a distincy possibility, mind

[DominicJ]

Chinas (governments) stock response to anything is to blame foreigners.
A week doesnt go by when a chinese submarine isnt chased out of Japanese territorial waters.
Its probably a worry for those who live there.

North Koreas army, although vast, isnt overly formidable, infantry havent been able to attack a defended obstacle for a century now, and that isnt likely to change any time soon.
I doubt the South wants a million men marching south, but its unthinkable that they wouldnt be able to hold heavily fortified well supplied mountains till doomsday.

Russia is the sick old man of Europe again, literaly, HIV and TB are running riot, isnt life expectancy below 60? Average age is about 45?
Ukraine is a hell of a lot more capable of defending itself than Georgia was, a NATO force to shoot down Russian aircraft would probably be enough for Ukraine to win a war itself.
If I were Putin, I'd be more worried about how I could stop China eating the middle of Russia, and the East.

[SILVERHARP2]

I agree that a peak in oil will lead to an economic collapse but I disagree it will result in a breakdown of society as the laws of the society are still based on the the laws of thermodynamics and there is still 84 million barrels of oil being produced every day.

what is going to happen is that there will be a contraction in economic activity but for instance no stockmarket is going to zero , if you look at the Dow in the US it is at about 8000 now , it may get down to 4000 or lower before all this is over , companies like GM and more banks will go under.
If x amount of people were being plugged into the global network every year then this will probably reverse
Eventually the excess debt not tied to production or assets will get written off by a combination of default and possible inflation , this could take 2 decades and after that a new cycle will begin. You can draw you own conclusions as to what the energy/technology/consumption patterns are like at the other side

[fifthcolumn]

what is going to happen is that there will be a contraction in economic activity but for instance no stockmarket is going to zero , if you look at the Dow in the US it is at about 8000 now , it may get down to 4000 or lower before all this is over , companies like GM and more banks will go under.

You think that it might not be possible that in nominal terms the stock market might go through the roof if we get sustained inflation higher than say the 20% that's probably already programmed in?