It is only WE LEMMINGS who are immortal and superior.

Understanding the tree of "no ledge" is a good first step for your species. Maybe there is hope for your f-ledgling kind. We will put in a good word for you with the Captain of the Star Trek Armada.

Your view is very similar to the "flat earthers" who opposed/feared Columbus' voyage. If you were living in that time, you would have been one of those saying: "Let's not delude ourselves with cornucopian nonsense about other continents."

Wow. I'm amazed. It went off into personalized attack & defend mode rather than exploring the connection between denial of Peak Oil and denial of mortality.

Like Peakguy, I think there is a very strong connection.

We are inately wired to survive and continue our species. (Otherwise we probably wouldn't be here having this discussion.)

Part of that wiring includes some irrationally exuberant optimism about our future, namely: (1) we will always be here at least as a species; (2) we will always find a heroic way around every adversity that comes our way; and (3) Technology will always "advance" and bring our kind to new Star Trek heights of achievement and "progress".

As for heroic answers: when the bird flu strikes (if it strikes), we'll just send in a commando team starring Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stalone, Ben Afflick, did I miss anyone? oh yeh: Arnold to flame fry those sick chickens and make the world safe for Colonel Sanders again.

When Peak Oil hits, we'll telephone professors Pons and Flieshman to bring back their cold fusion kit and start it up again.

Never give up. Never give in. We are the greatest thing on this planet since sliced tyranasaurus. Or are we?

Then the people who do not trust human imagination. ??? It was imagination which made Darwin come up with evolution, it was imagination that made people invent a divine creator and so on.

I do not deny Peak Oil. I will even admit the production of light crude peaked yesterday. But it will be imagination which saves the day. Who on Earth needs the action hero's? I think you worry that oil per barrel isn't expensive enough yet. If we have peaked than we shouls see $100 per barrel pretty soon. After that affordable solutions will pop up in people's imaginations equally soon. That's the way it works.

No selfrespecting human worthy of the name will deny mortality. After all, not even the universe itself is immortal. We might live a 1000 years, who knows. Personally, I'd be content with just a quarter of that, just to see how it all works out.
If you folks can't move beyond the 'denying peak oil = denying mortality = boo hoo hoo', then, I think, you are stuck in just another version of We Ate From the Tree of Knowledgde & Oughta Burn For That In Hell Forever... sigh.

Personaly I would probably wood be happier in a world that uses less energy and material technology, but that is me.

From what I have learned over the years (this is what I think I know).... life on earth is supported by the radiant energy of the sun and the mineral/elemental material of the earth.  We eat plants and animals.  Plants get therie energy from the sun and their material from the earth.  Animals eat plants and sometimes other animals,  getting most of their energy and mineral/elemental components from this food source.  We eat both plants and animals.  Plants, animals and yes even humans die, they decay and the material part of their existence is re-cycled back into the earth.  

Death is a reality we can not escape.  Every one of us is going to be a pile of rotting meat or ash some day.  That is the way of the world.....

As far as our spirit and souls go I have no idea if they exist and if they do I don't know what happens to this aspect of our being.  I BELIVE we have something like a soul, but I don't KNOW if we have a soul...........  

I am an agnostic with Buddhist tendencies.  I view life on the planet as a great cycle, and death a.k.a mortality is an integral part of that cycle.  Where would we be without it???  I have observed that our society here in the U. S. does not like to think about death.  We spend most of lives denying our mortality, and ultimately this may ruin the planet for all life........

Humans make up language, religion, economics, politics.  All forms of spoken and written language were created by us.  We have become lost in the symbols we use to communicate and understand our world.  We have denied the origins of our material aspect, a. k. a. nature, insulating our minds in symbolic worlds of our own creation.  Think about it, Alomost everything we come in contact with in our daily lives is man made or engineered.   If you ask me this is what is killing the human spirit.....

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE so why not LIVE life to it's fullest and treat our planet and fellow humans with care and respect.

That's my two cents....... on imortality

This is what makes it difficult for many to deal with complex technical solutions. It goes against our nature to have limits put on us. I recall arguing with a guy who wanted to build a perpetual motion machine. It wasn't that he was deficient.  He just couldn't accept that this avenue was closed to him.

Collapse is nothing new in the experience of human societies.  For more on this topic I reccommend a god read of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" - on how socieites choose to fail or succeed.  He claims that beliefs are a crucial element in allowing societies to adapt to changing conditions, be they environmental, resource based or what have you.  Those less willing to acknowledge and accept change are condemned to a far more painful consequences than those that actually choose to adapt.

Good post.  Look forward to more threads of this nature.

I can see that these problems are likely to require government action if they're going to be solved or mitigated, and conservatives don't like government action of that sort. But that's not a reason for denying that environmental and resource problems exist and are bound to become more acute. I mean, why do some people get frantically anxious about "Islamofascism," homosexuality, and the estate tax, and yet engage in grossly magical optimistic thinking about environmental and resource problems?

I guess I agree with Peak Guy that it's got to be something deep in the culture, but I'm not sure that immortality has much to do with it. I don't know what it is, actually.

I think we may the verge of a paradigm shift, as great as Galileo or Darwin.  People will have to realize that sustainability is more important than "progress."  Though many will resist this idea, as fervently as they resisted Darwin.  

That is what makes us superior to bacteria in a petri dish.  We can understand that growth can't continue forever, and stop.  Bacteria can't do that.  

And yes, I firmly believe that it's possible.  It won't be easy, but it's possible.  As Diamond's book points out, there are societies that have achieved sustainability.  Limiting growth is a big priority for them.  If they can do it, we can.

peakguy on the view that is the problem:
"However, I think the key point of this ancient text is that because we as a species are mentally (and therefore technologically) superior to all other forms of life, and because we will have the same genetic drive to reproduce we have a responsibility to replenish the environment around us instead of simply extracting resources from it."

step back:
"Part of that wiring includes some irrationally exuberant optimism about our future, namely: (1) we will always be here at least as a species; (2) we will always find a heroic way around every adversity that comes our way; and (3) Technology will always "advance" and bring our kind to new Star Trek heights of achievement and "progress"."

step back:
"We will no longer be the all powerful, all techno-advanced beings that we dream ourselves to be.

brutus:
"So, it would be unprecedented, but I think doable, but it's going to take a lot more than some techno-theocratic faith..."

copperweaver:
"Personaly I would probably wood be happier in a world that uses less energy and material technology, but that is me."

Anyone can see that this thinking is akin to luddism. You have negative feelings toward technology and progress. Writing "progress" in quotes (to sarcastically indicate that it's not really progress)  is not the mark of a progressive. It's the mark of a conservative, i.e. an ally of religion. The churchmen who opposed Galileo didn't think much of "progress" either.

There are undeniable facts available to all.

1. We are mortal.
   
2. The universe will end.
   
3. We live on a sphere.
   
4. All fuels that do not rely on timely recharging from the sun, will run out.
   
5. Commenting on the number of rivets on the front of the train that is bearing down on you is counterproductive.
   
6. Arguing about how reality resembles something other than itself (in effect, analogies, religion, conceptualization, etc.) is a futile exercise.
   
7. Telling yourself that you are special is a form of narcissism.
   
8. Nature does not care if you live or die no matter how much you anthropomorphize it.

Something happened today while I was away from the office trying to enjoy a very rare event, (Four days off). This may not mean much for those that are not self employed, but us self employed, it is a grand event when we can sneak away and hopefully have a business to come back to.
I lease a good portion of a commercial building where my business is located, but today down at one end of the building someone lost their business to a fire. Do not know what happened yet but do know they were there and could only look at watching their business go up in smoke. One of the employees is in the hospital with third degree burns. The sad thing was they did not have one fire extinguisher to try and put out the fire when it was small. In my business you will find one every fifty feet.

Here I was all cock-sure of myself thinking that I had protected my business from such of an event from ever happening. But something that I didn't think about was all of the smoke and water damage that could occur which happened.

My point to this post is, there just might be another event just waiting to happen besides fossil fuel shortage worries. Makes one wonder what is coming into our lives that wasn't thought about. Hope everyone had an enjoyable Thanksgiving. I did until today.

And with all this talk by the Bush regime of taking out Iran and/or Syria and adopting a policy of preemptive first use of nuclear weapons, I don't think such worries are fanciful at all.

Even a cursory reading of military history clearly shows that the decisions to go to war have almost always been gross miscalculations when viewed in hindsight. There is no reason to believe that the next one will be any different. The potential for screwing up in a big way has never been greater.

I love science. My first major was geology. Then I moved to biology. It wasn't working, though. My impediment: math. It's my shortcoming, and not one I'm proud of. That's why I appreciate people like Bartlett, whose video on exponential growth is a balm for those of us who are innumerate. Same with John Allen Paulos' book "Innumeracy."

Studying peak oil has had the interesting side effect of inspiring awe in me for the extraction technologies humans have come up with, as well as for the numerous uses people have managed to discover for oil. My anxiety rises when I consider that most in the public are clueless about all this, and have no idea that this era of abundance is about to end.

To acknowledge that science and technology has limits has nothing to do with

Luddism

Religion

Medievalism

or the other sticky-post labels JD throws around here.

People who are the most dependent on oil, gas, the electric grid tend to be the most technologically illiterate. I know. I routinely ask my students their knowledge of where their light comes from, where oil comes from, what energy is. They simply don't know.

Those of us who tinker with old farm equipment, traditional food preservation techniques, solid-fuel stoves, liquid fuel lighting (kerosene), animal husbandry, and the like, are in love with this history of technology.

We don't trust Big Brother to take care of us during fuel shortages, or even during ice storms. In 1998, when we lost power for nine days, we were among the few who did not simply leave the area. Instead, we through a party for those who were still around.

It seems many people want to continue climbing the steps of the technological ziggurat as if it will continue indefinitely into the sky. Maybe it will. But I'm not counting on it. The technological skills of those of us milling around the base of the pyramid are just as informed as those continuing into the clouds.

Quite simply, the problem is that there are far too many people in the world today for us to 'go back'. This fact will hit you right in the face every time you are in a plane making a nighttime approach to a major uban airport, such as New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. What you view is literally millions of lights as far as the eye can see. Most of these lights are places were people dwell. Now, can you try to imagine all of these people 'going back to the land' or whatever you want to call this notion of reverting to a simpler life?  For the life of me, I can't.  

And reelatively recent attempts have resulted in mass death: Think Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.

If I understand correctly, over half of the world's population now lives in an urban evironment. One of the reasons is that i) being a subsistance farmer is a wretched way of life for most, and ii) land is more valuable for real estate and other uses than for family farms.

Now, if you are a reasonably well-off First World person and are lucky enough to possess farm land, and you want to make a go at independence from The System, then more power to you. I wish you luck. But my point is that this avenue is only open to but a very small fraction of the population.

If we had 1 billion instead of over 6 billion people, we might be able to pull of the 'simplicity' route, but I think it is far too late for something like that. I believe that we will sink or swim based on how well we can use technology and innovation (not to mention common sense) to both increase energy supply and reduce energy demand.

The 'Greenie' route may be fine for rural Vermont or Oregon, but it hasn't got a prayer in New York, Chicago, or LA. And today there are many cities in the world much larger than these. Our living environment is more like an ant hill than a praire.

A little conversational post is too small to dig deeply into the subject, but I can offer you a tip on where you will find an interesting perspective on how our culture's worldview came to be what it is and how we can move on to a worldview more useful to a living on a planet with visibly limited resources. Go to the library and bring home the books from the "Ishmael" series by Daniel Quinn. There are four: Ishmael, My Ishmael, The Story of B, and Beyond Civilization.

Don't be put off by the literary "trick" the author uses of presenting the information in a fictional setting. It makes the information accessible to a much wider audience than a dry non-fictional style. (And the story format is an enjoyable read.) And don't let the telepathic ape throw you either - it's another method used to convey some very deep insights.

Give the books a try. It is usually recommended to read them in the order I listed above, but a little shuffling will not detract much. "Beyond Civilization" is much more a how-to book and should be read after a couple of the other books.

Coupled with your knowledge of our energy situation the insights found in these books will be quite powerful.

To give some taste of what you'll find; in Steverino's reply to your post he wrote "i look around the world and see the incredible destructive force that man is...and i don't see anything positive about man's long term chances for existance or redemption". In one of the Ishmael books this common opinion is responded to as follows (paraphrasing from memory here): 'It is not mankind that has brought such destruction - it is just one culture out of the many cultures that mankind has experimented with. Humankind lived sustainably for hundreds of thousands of years, only in the last 5000 years has one culture arisen that contains such destuctive potential".

Below I'll paste in a few more favorite Ishmael quotes to give you a further idea of the insights to be found...

Greg in MO
***

It's almost impossible for one paradigm to imagine that there will even be a next one. The people of the Middle ages didn't think of themselves as being in the "middle" of anything at all. As far as they were concerned, the way they were living was the way people would be living till the end of time.
****

"It is my bizarre theory, Julie, that the people of your culture are destroying the world not because they're vicious or stupid, as Mother Culture teaches, but because they're terribly, terribly deprived--of things that humans absolutely must have, simply cannot go on living without year after year and generation after generation. It's my bizarre theory that, given a choice between destroying the world and having the things they really, deeply want, they'll choose the latter. But before they can make that choice, they must see that choice."
****

To figure out a better response to failure than doing more of what didn't work last year, you don't (as they say) have to be a rocket scientist. I'd formulate it this way:
If it didn't work last year or the year before that or the year before that--or any year in recorded history--then TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
****

"People can't just give up a story. That's what the kids tried to do in the sixties and seventies. They tried to stop living like Takers, but there was no other way for them to live. They failed because you can't just stop being in a story, you have to have another story to be in."

Ishmael nodded. "And if there is such a story, people should hear about it?"

"Yes, they should."

"Do you think they want to hear about it?"

"I don't know. I don't think you can start wanting something till you know it exists."
****

You don't have to "go somewhere" to get beyond civilization. You have to make your living a different way.
******

Not everybody in the anthill can go out and get themselves a nice little farm in a bucolic rural area and make a go of it.  Those days have long been over. In fact, in well-developed areas like Europe those days were over centuries ago, which is why so many people there were anxious to take their chances in the New World. Well, the New World is now the old one, and there doesn't look to be any more New Worlds on the horizon.

Therefore, I think we are stuck with a densely populated urban environment which will continue to be highly complex and interdependent and totally at the mercy of the energy situation.

If we are smart enough and have the will to expend the enormous amounts of capital required to make a transition to some form or alternative energy, then we migh have a prayer (though I wouldn't bet on it). If not, then we are in for some pretty serious nastiness. Nature might eventually bring the human population down to a sustainable level all on its own, but it won't be pretty.

I don't think it's in the nature of humans to ever live in harmony with nature.

I do believe that we are bumping up against permanent constraints in oil supply and that this is generally consistent with the peak oil theory. I do not think the peak will be as drastic as many other do. I think that as constraints grow, prices will rise and other options will emerge. Population growth trends are already slowing and a population peak will occur in many of our lifetimes. I am not at all convinced that the end of life as we know it is imminent or that learning to farm is a good idea.

I welcome JD and his comments, although I disagree with some. If we peak oilers couldn't face any criticisms or challenges, than "Peak Oil" would be a religion as he suggests. The Oil Drum has featured wonderful fact-based commentary from people who hold a range of beliefs. Let's continue this exchange, not try to censor others by bullying them with insults such as troll.

Peakguy lays out ... what could be considered "Political Peak Oil" [PPO]. It is [a] complex and inter-related set of beliefs of which the end of [cheap] oil is [but] only one. Others are that Consumption, Capitalism, Growth, and Corporations are bad.

I don't agree with much of this, but many of my friends do and I respect them and Peakguy [for it].

However, it is not necessary to buy [into all of their beliefs] ... in order to believe in Peak Oil or in order to be an active participant on this site.

The above rephrases slightly what Jack said. He scores many good points in the few lines.

IMHO it is important to understand that the original Hubbert Curves (the centerpiece of PO beliefs) are themselves a mixed study in geology, economics, politics, etc.; in short they are graphs of "Political Peak Oil" behavior as applied to domestic, onshore-drilling USA.

Think about it. In 1956, as the American herds were heading toward the cliff some 15 years into their future (1970), they did nothing about it despite the early warnings of chicken little Hubbert. They called him names. Belittled him even though he was dead right.

Luckily for the Americans, 1970 was not the real deal because a safety net lay directly under their first cliff. It was called global oil.

So here we are some 35 years later, repeating the same behavior on the global level. Very interesting. Of course, there probaly will be no catch-us-if-you-can safety net for the "First World" this time around. (BTW Cuba & others are already living in the post-peak universe. Peak Oil is really about the joining of the "major powers" to the already-existing, post-peak universe.)

On Jack's statements though, note what he says about need for affirmation from a group of other people (his friends). This is an example of herd mentality. I poke not fun at Jack because truth is, we are all herd animals. We all need affirmation from the group. (After all, what the hell am I also doing here but not giving and seeking affirmation in writing at this site?) So Peak Oil is indeed a complex mix of social, economic and scientific disciplines. It is not "Geology" plain and simple. It is not "Economics" plain and simple. It is not "Human Stupidity/Nature" plain and simple. It is a complex mix of all of the above.

This drives the herd mentality by firstly not giving people real information with which to make a choice and also by phychologically punishing those that don't follow the line.

Also, I disagree with the Monbiot quote above.  Our cheap energy resource society works in a way that is counter to our natural selves, hence the need for the propaganda model.  With the passing of the cheap energy age, the propaganda model might well crumble allowing the natural human traits of "mutual aid" and "survival of the fittest" to come to the fore rather than the unnatural concept of the self above all else.

I teach language. What people say, and how they say it, tells me a lot.

I draw your attention to the adjective-laden discourse:

One who doesn't agree with a certain person gets these accolades:

"religious"

"hysterical"

"fascist"

"medieval"

"luddite"

and so on.

The Oil Drum has featured wonderful fact-based commentary from people who hold a range of beliefs. Let's continue this exchange, not try to censor others by bullying them with insults such as troll.

I'll take this with a grain of salt. I just call them as I see them. I have no power to censor anyone. This site is the most useful by far of the others I've read.

Here's a scenario and a question:

I'm an EMT. I can describe for you, in detail, the effects upon the human body of a car crash. You tend toward driving along at eighty, on the highway, without a seatbelt. If I go into detail to you about the "three impacts"--first, the car impacts with the object, then the body impacts with the inside of the car, then the internal organs impact with the inside of the body cavity, and the great the speed, the greater the momentum of impact--am I a fear-monger? a doomer? hysterical? and are you more or less likely to slow down and wear your seatbelt next time?

So, I believe that
<quote from catechism at vatican.va, emphasis added>

God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.  Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered.

Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.

The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the "six days", from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: "You are of more value than many sparrows", or again: "of how much more value is a man than a sheep!"

Man is the summit of the Creator's work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.

Man occupies a unique place in creation: he is "in the image of God"; he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 2:7).

The "breath of life" refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: his spiritual soul.

Every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

God unites man and woman in such a way that, by forming "one flesh" (Gen 2:24), they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen 1:28).

In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of "subduing" the earth as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator "who loves everything that exists", to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call "divine providence" the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection.

The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God's absolute sovereignty over the course of events.

God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

<end of quote>

Notice "symbolic" referring to "six days" and "dust from the ground".  So, no conflict here with Big Bang and the universe being 13.7 billion years old.  And no conflict either with evolutionary theory explaining the mechanism for the successive creation along the "days" of the different living creatures, including the biological layer of man.

Speaking about the evolutionary theory, now strictly within the biology realm, I assume that everybody knows that current scientific knowledge - actually since the work of H. De Vries and T. H. Morgan in early XX century - supports the neodarwinist/mutationist theory, as Darwin himself was Lamarckian.  Thus, "random" mutations (DNA changes) provide the "feedstock" upon which natural selection through the struggle for life operates. (Remembering the last paragraphs of the quote, we know that the mutations are not really random at all.)

Back to the origin of man, at one point in the evolution of hominids, most probably in sync with an speciation event, God started to infuse an immortal spiritual soul, beginning with a couple.  From that point onward, we have humans from a theological viewpoint.  Before then, just more or less intelligent 2-footed animals.

(The specific point is open to debate.  My personal pick is the appearance of Homo Sapiens 250 K years ago.  Thus Neanderthals would have been animals.  You can start with Homo Ergaster/Erectus 1.7 M years ago if you like, or some point in between.)

Note that A. R. Wallace, who authored the evolutionary theory simultaneously with - and independently of - Darwin, departed from him regarding the origin of man, by not thinking that natural selection explained it and admitting the existence of spiritual factors, in line with what I said above.  Note also that Wallace was closer to the current mutationist theory than Darwin was.  To me, the sad fact that Darwin has eclipsed Wallace in the general public's mind is just a matter of PR.

Now, it is just plain obvious that our being special ("in the image of God") by our immortal spiritual soul does not imply:

• That through ever greater technological innovation our species can continue to expand its size and consumption levels indefinitely into the future.

• That at our biological layer we are not subject to the same natural forces and limits as all other species of plant and animal on the planet.

So, while on the way up to Hubbert's Peak it looked sensible and responsible to have big families, Roscoe Bartlett's-like, reckoning with the impending peak oil and the impact it will have on society makes it seem not so wise and responsible now.

Which is apart from the teaching that the only licit method of birth regulation is periodic abstinence.

It always pushes a button when the word Luddite is used in a derogatory way.   The Luddites knew first hand how painful progress can be.  Im not saying that destroying machines is the answer. But I do think it is important to understand the effect technology has on the way we live our lives and the way we interact.  Sometimes that effect is very positive, and sometimes it is devastating....  

As an artist I am very aware of the lack of quality in contemporary goods.  Most contemporary goods are not made to last, most of them are  made by machines, and a great deal of it ends up in landfills. Disposable crap is now an integral part of our culture and economy, we are encouraged to consume more and more crap because it feeds the economy....... it drives me crazy.... most of us seem to realize that the American way is not sustainable.  If there is any hope of preventing mass chaos, die-off, or extinction we have to change....

I know my attitude and ideas, my sentimental yearning for a world were handmade objects are valued are naive in some respects.  At the same time a slower world, were people are more aware of their  interdependence and mortality would in my eyes be a better one.  

For those who haven't encountered it, a key piece of reading on this topic is Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. Becker basically argues that keeping busy to forget our mortality is the key motive that underlies individual and societal human behaviour.

To second peakguy's point: if we can deny that we are mortal, it makes perfect sense that we'd deny that oil, which fuels our material fantasies, is finite. It's no accident that when a my-lord-I'm-mortal midlife crisis hits, a hot sportscar looks like just the ticket to soothe the mind.