Really? The scientists who predicted the LHC problem were nut jobs? Hmm. How about Paul Erlich? Using methods very similar to the ones you quote in your first post he predicted widespread starvation and death - and a significant decline in population - in the 1970's. From his book: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate." He supported this by showing that the maximum yield per acre of the world's farms could not support much more food production. Fertilizer production (based primarily on natural gas) was about to dry up. Potable water would run out. Insect plagues and blights would become even more common than they were. Things changed, as they always do. OK. In order: 1) The world is still increasing in human population, but the second derivative is now negative. That means that population will soon stop rising and start leveling off. Thus we do not need an infinite carrying capacity; we just need a sufficient one. 2) Life does indeed need energy. Our energy comes primarily from the sun, and secondarily from fossil fuels, radioactive elements etc. We are in no danger of losing the Sun's energy. 3) The fact that we did quite well while our per capita energy needs were decreasing indicates we do not need constantly increasing energy sources to do well. Ten years ago all my personal transportation came from oil; now most of it comes from solar power feeding an electric car. Overall I am using far less energy (EV's are a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines) with no loss in lifestyle, calories etc. 4) Most of our energy does NOT come from the power grid. It comes in the form of fertilizer used to fertilize our fields, and energy to transport our crops, and energy to move us around, and energy (and materials) used to build the stuff we use, from paper cups to houses. Thus "a failure of the long distance high voltage network" even if likely would not drastically decrease our energy usage per capita. Heck, I don't even need electricity from the grid (although it's definitely nice to have.) 5) As you pointed out we hit peak oil in 2008 - and it turns out to be not much of an event. We did indeed run out of cheap oil, and will never return to those days. What happened then? Prices went up dramatically and it became economically viable to find unconventional sources of oil, like oil shale and bitumen sands. This will continue, and as these alternative sources run dry alternatives to _them_ will be developed. The future will still see plenty of gasoline (and diesel) vehicles - but it will also see EV's, and biofuel vehicles, and alternative methods of transportation. Hardly "mother eating baby melting" territory. 6) Increased complexity in economic systems both increases the number of failure points AND increases the resilience of the system when it is perturbed by shocks, recessions and shortages.