You are here

What Will The Dalai Lama Say When The Oil Runs Out?

I live in a community of right-brained people with innumerate minds full of New Age mush, devoid of logic and antagonistic to science. The shibboleths of 'compassion' and 'caring and sharing' prevail over dispassionate analysis. The medieval mentality of Tibetan Bhuddism combines with the prescriptions of soft-green environmentalism to produce a brew of 'thinking' that is toxic to comprehension. It is a community where people will pay $50 for a psychic reading or a quack medical therapy but balk at paying the same amount of money to fix a leaking kitchen sink or a subscription to Science Daily. I wrote this almost 5 years ago, and despite the development of our much acclaimed "Community Garden" and a local "transition" initiative, I can think of no good reason to make more than one amendment----even we do grow a backbone and a "hard edge"---a local 'fortress' would not indefinitely endure. We are hopelessly dependent on the outside world in ways that we have not yet contemplated. Our deficiencies will only become apparent, I think, when our "Long" emergency becomes a permanent one.

“We like to think that moral progress has made us nice people. We've heard that our distant ancestors were mean and cruel and ruthless, and we can't imagine that we would be such people - but we're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable. And when we're no longer rich and comfortable, we won't be as nice." Robin Hanson, economist

“Katrina helped us realize that the veneer of society is very thin and it doesn’t take much to peel that veneer back and what you see underneath it is quite ugly, quite nasty”- Kevin Reece, Defense Consultant

What will the Dalai Lama say when the oil runs out? Will his words feed my children? Will they appease the starving marauders who threaten to take what little is left to go around? Is universal love a prescription for dealing with universal scarcity? When survival dictates that we must first defend our homesteads, then our community, then our nation from desperate outsiders too numerous to accommodate? When the oil runs out will Jesus appear to distribute loaves and fish to the hungry billions and save us from stark choices?

When affordably accessible oil runs out, food cannot be sufficiently produced or transported. There are no “green” alternatives that can be scaled up to our needs. Five billion people will die in less than twenty years, and as Dale Pfeiffer concluded, one third of America’s 300 million people and more than one third of Canada’s. The idea that we could feed ourselves is a quixotic notion that doesn’t bear up to scrutiny. We’ve already covered 20% of Fraser Valley farm soil with buildings and lost a similar proportion of arable land nationally to urban growth, which will only continue unchecked with current immigration rates. When you remove fertilizers, chemicals and fuel-run machinery with a power-down, the required land per person for food production skyrockets.

A study done of London, Ontario, a growing city of 460,000 surrounded by farm country, revealed that it simply could not be fed without fossil fuels. It would need to use 200,000 animals and conscript half the labour of the city, posing logistical problems for their commute or the commute of their school children. Storage for the food could not be found and if it was, it could not be kept from freezing in the winter time. And this is for a city that might have enough arable land in proximity. Other Canadian cities would not have that advantage.

“Relocalization” in Canada is a pipe-dream. Without oil, we’re cooked. Those Californian vegetables and fruits will not get here-- the Americans will not have a surplus to export and if they did it certainly wouldn’t be delivered to us by electric cars. The last hurdle in our island community would be the Quadra ferry. Without fuel it is not operational and virtually everything we need could not be acquired in meaningful quantities. In three days or less the shelves of both of our stores would be empty, and those with hunting rifles would make the local fish-packing plant release everything they had at gunpoint. Needless to say, the vegetables grown on Quadra would not suffice to feed 2700 people. The Community Lunch would be faced with thirty times its normal patrons but with no food to give them---it would be cancelled. The Churches would open their arms but not their empty refrigerators. It is then that we would find out about our much vaunted community spirit.

History tells us how people behave when they go hungry. The better angels of our nature often do not prevail over the desperate instinct to survive. Even in normal times, social psychologists report that more than 80% of us fantasize about murdering people we don’t like. Growing your own food is one thing. Stopping other people from taking it is another. One day we will regret our restrictive gun laws.

During the Second World War, Vancouverites living on rations made the long 40 mile car trip up a narrow road to beg for butter and eggs from farmers like my parents whose neighbours typically carried rifles to fend them off. One day my folks came back from a shopping trip to Mission and found ladders up against all the trees in their orchard with the fruit stripped off them. And these thieves were only motivated by deprivation, not starvation. By contrast, in Leningrad during the 900 day siege people were dying of starvation in the tens of thousands every month. Leningraders not only dug up the freshly buried corpses of starving people to eat them, some even resorted to cannibalism. When you are only getting 10% of your caloric needs, it’s amazing what moral precepts go by the wayside. Morality, you see, is not much use when you are dead.

So what then, of love and compassion? In my moral universe these hypocritical Christian pieties offer no help in an environment of too many people and too few resources. “Love” must co-habit with cold calculation. Empathy begins at home, and extends outward with prudence and caution. As the airplane sign instructs, if you experience a loss in cabin pressure, first secure your own oxygen mask before attempting to help others.

The kind of compassion needed in the coming collapse, be it resource depletion or ecological in nature, is the kind shown by a ship’s captain who orders that a few crewmen be jettisoned from an over-loaded lifeboat to save the rest from drowning. It’s the kind of compassion that will deny medical care to me in those times because folks my age cannot be allowed to siphon off scarce resources from the young who must survive if any portion of humanity is to survive. And it is the compassion required to save our nation and its environment from the tens of millions who will look to board our lifeboat and sink it.

Sometimes compassion would require that I shoot a beloved horse with a broken leg. Or, when medical help is unavailable, that I amputate the leg of a beautiful young woman with a gangrenous leg. Or that I assist in the suicide of a brother who suffered the indescribable nausea and pain of terminal cancer---- in defiance of Christian morality.

True compassion is not the compassion of Christianity or Buddhism or of any the major religions. It is not the compassion which would dispense development aid to African nations so that their populations explode and misery and starvation returns at an even greater level. True compassion often means saying no.

True compassion comes with a hard edge.

Tim Murray
April 12, 2007

Article, A century of famine, was kindly reposted here as a comment by its author, Petter Goodchild. It has been re-posted here as an article. - Ed

Image icon quest-tiny.jpg5.89 KB
Image icon quest2.jpg65.4 KB


Tim's essay does brilliant job of describing the future problems facing our species. He shows why we must face the future with reality and not hopes and dreams.

(An email to the friend who forwarded the link to this essay):

Dear George:

Once again, you have a Cassandra who, while no doubt quite correct in his conclusions over a longer time frame, completely goes off the deep end in his short-term predictions. 5B people starving within 20 years? 100M of them in the USA? (Of course, he just says "die," and a certain number, quite probably including you and maybe me, will die in that time by reasons not related to the food supply, but within the context of his article, I think that "starving" captures his point.)

Ah, bullshit, I thought...and then I realized that he wrote this 5 years ago, so now he means within 15 years. And he calls the masses "innumerate"...

As always (and especially with your friend James Howard Kunstler), it does little good for someone who writes as brilliantly as this Murray guy does (the oxygen mask analogy was spot-on) to sabotage his message with such claims. And it's too bad, because his message is one that really needs to be heard.

Just to give you an idea of how much "we" need to hear it...last night, NPR reported that yesterday's budget vote was considered a compromise even within the Republican party, and then had a sound-bite from some Repugnant spokeshole complaining that under the plan, the budget would not be balanced until 2040. And NPR reported this as actual news, instead of pointing out that no one but a complete moron would pretend to speculate about what the budget might look like in 28 years...even if it were binding on future administrations, legislators, or voters....let alone on Mother Nature.

So Murray isn't the only one making ridiculous predictions. But I still don't like to see "our side" falling into that trap.

But of course, I could be wrong. Care to make a bet on how accurate those figures are?


Most of the tractors, trailers, trawlers, trains, and tankers of the world are powered by a one time fossil fuel. According to IEA, the harvesting of this energy peaked in 2006, a year before Tim Murray wrote these predictions.

In considering the topic of the end of oil, I rely on two authorized sources: The Hirsch Report, and the report ”Fueling the Future Force”. The last report states: “We recommend that DOD establish a goal that by 2040, DOD must be able to operate all of its assets on non-petroleum fuels.” No mention of which “non-petroleum fuels” and by whom.
Based on these facts, I feel Tim Murray’s predictions are very justified.

Most people tailor their facts and arguments to support their core beliefs. In the case of peak oil and its ramifications, it is the willfully ignorant optimists who are doing the tailoring. Their numbers are so great that it is impossible to deal with all of them that surface on the Internet.

It is of course not a crime to be found guilty of unfounded hope, but discrediting the evidence-based warnings of “Cassandras” should be. If this is tolerated without protest, then the collapse is more likely.

As a Norwegian, I have been witness to an invasion. During the Second World War, the Germans inflicted many deprivations upon us, and I remember my father and uncle chopping wood into small pieces to power community trailers and buses that could not run for want of gasoline. Now I see my share of the commons once again reduced by the unwanted influx of foreigners who have not inherited and grown up with commitment to my ‘tribe’ and its culture. In view of the coming end of oil, this will be a tragedy for my descendants.

In both cases there were people who warned us that our country was in danger, and that the future would be blacker than most people imagined. But their warnings has been ridiculed and dismissed. My grandchildren will inherit the chopping blocks from WW2 and the inscription will read: “Never again will we permit the killing of the messengers of doom. Never again will we tolerate the killing of Cassandras.”
Reiel Folven

Please correct line 13:
numbers are so great that it is impossible to deal with all of them that surface on the Internet.

Candobetter Ed. I have corrected this.