"doom" versus "technology will save us"

Now the other side of the "doom" versus "technology will save us" debate. This piece on No Quarter is well worth consideration. For the most part, I do not agree. I tend to favor the doomers. Societies fail. All of them, eventually. The argument that Thomas Malthus was wrong when he predicted chaos works only if one believes we have the resources now to sustain 8 billion people. When Malthus made his bleak predictions the world was awash in natural resources. 7 billion souls later this is no longer the case.

I find the severe strain of Luddite fetishism in the "doomer" community useless. However, believing that technology will right the ship magically is just as useless. And more dangerous. It is not 1800.

Trying to save a system predicated on perpetual "growth" is a death wish on a finite planet with finite resources.

The system is failing. We should allow it to - while being compassionate and conscious.

"Doomers" and others predicted the resource wars in Iraq and the Sudan, and the housing bubble and financial collapse. Many are now saying we are at the peak in world oil production.
If nothing else one should consider how, exactly, Phoenix, Orlando, and a thousand other American urban sprawls even function without a deep supply of carbon based fuel.

Answer: they don't. This may not be the end of the world - but it is the end of something big.