He's wrong, right? Please tell me he's wrong.

>>9442402
His timeline is wrong, the human race is probably viable for another one or two centuries, but there's no way technology is going to bail us out in time.

>>9442402
I haven't read it, but I guarantee it's pure speculation at best. Not to suggest that climate change and lowered oil production aren't issues, because they certainly are.

>>9442464
I sort of subscribe to this view but at the same time there is promising research going on and steps are slowly being taken in the right direction. Impossible to say what the future holds.

As a rule of thumb, if the cover of a book has quotes explaining why you should read it, it's not something you should probably spend your time on.
>"A tour de force, absolute must read - Salon.com"

>>9442517
If we figure out fusion and non-shitty batteries we should be good, but it might turn out that net-positive fusion isn't really feasible. At any rate I really wish it had more funding, I'm not a peak oil alarmist but I know shit's not infinite.

I know there was some relatively low theoretical upper limit for solar, but that may have only applied for certain kinds of solar cells.

The first 45 minutes of the movie collapse is worrying. I think we may be living in the best period of history (the west today) because of the environment and refugees and central banking messing tings up later

>>9442538
The Geography of Nowhere is a really good read if you're in a shitty flyover town and wonder what you did in a past life to deserve it

>>9443940
That's his best work by far, and a fantastic endorsement of it.