Global Doom! Better to pay the Grim Reaper in lump sum, or in installments?

Question

Fossil fuels seem to be on the decline, and it doesn't appear that humanity will make a graceful transition to whatever kind of civilization may result. In other words, we're going to crash, either fast or slow.

Which scenario, in your opinion, is better? A fast crash in which 4 billion people die from famine, disease or war within a year or so? Or a slow crash in which twice as many deaths occur over perhaps forty years? Why?

After stating which eventuality is preferable to the other, please indicate what you think is actually going to happen.

Answer 1

I don't buy either of your scenarios.  I don't believe the global doom bit, either.  

People have forecast gloom and doom for years.  Things have got tough now and then, but mankind always has found a way out of it.  I doubt that the decline that fossil fuels will be a sudden crash.  I think it'll be a more gradual decline.  And that will give us time to develop alternatives that phase in.  There's no way we could replace a 75% reduction in petroleum over 5 years.  But we might be able to do it over 25.  And that could happen.  T. Boone Pickens has a plan to replace the energy from over a third of our imported oil in 10 years.  At that rate, and with conservation, we just might see a 75% reduction in energy from oil in that amount of time.

So my answer is C - none of hte above.

Answer 2

Pay no mind to my silly purple friend. The slow crash is the better way. It buys us time (with lives, perhaps) but that is time in which, with the increased motivation, we may be able to avert the extra deaths.

And frankly, Though it may sound evil, Life is valued too highly these days. Men have become comfortable cowards, utterly incapable of facing the world civilization has roped into submission. We're too weak, and too unwilling to make sacrifices.

What's more, a higher death toll would give the survivors (Oh, Darwin! The STRONG!) much more room to breathe, even a chance to correct the problems an overpopulated world can cause (ecologically, politically, economically, etc.)

Answer 3

Fast crash, at least that way its harder for nay-sayers to deny that there is some sort of problem.

As much as I like the idea of an intelligent, morally conscious, eco-friendly society.  

Fact is it does not matter, no matter what actions we take to prevent earths demise.  The universe itself has a finite lifespan and we are bound to it.