More than before, but we're still netting positive. "Cheap oil" could be had for an energy return of 10:1 or even better: for every joule of energy that went into processing the oil into usable fuel, including the energy cost of all the equipment involved, we'd get more than 10 joules back.
Even with something as energy-intensive as the Alberta tar sands, we're still getting an energy return of 3:1 or so.
Until we hit 1:1, energy will get more expensive, but things will still be sustainable with effort. And we have a long, long way to go before we reach that point.
Of course, there will be environmental impacts along the way, but we are quite far from running out of oil. Cheap oil... maybe. Usable oil... not for a long time.
Oh, I was talking about assembling it from whatever hydrocarbons you had lying around, which usually won't let you break even. But I agree that usable oil won't disappear faster than we can get alternatives implemented.
Again your perspective on history is limited. In previous ages there was much abundance.
That's a very slithery statement. Much abundance compared to what? Did the average family have a set of a hundred slaves
purely to transport them from place to place? Because that's what a car is.
So lets just replace all the humans with robots.
...Yes, actually. If you could replace
all jobs with robots, you've just hit something called post-scarcity economics, with the net result that nobody need ever work again.
Well I've given the solution. What solution do the scientists give?
Modify the atmosphere. The figures I saw said it would only take a few million dollars to solve climate change entirely.
It made us satisfied with what we have so that we didn't need any planet destroying technology. The Vedas offer superior form of medicine as well as superior cosmology. Human concocted knowledge can't compete with Divine Knowledge.
If you want to know about me, do you ask me myself, or do you ask my best friend? Or my parents? You ask me, don't you?
Now this is blind faith. Way too much star-trek.
Star Trek can never happen, but that's fine, since it's a good story. Machines more powerful, more majestic and more glorious than everything humanity has constructed in all of its history
are possible. (AFAWK) They probably won't happen in our lifetime, but they won't happen at all if we don't push technology forward.
If you don't believe me, go tell Alan Turing that his machines will be used to build photo-realistic virtual worlds
purely for a movie set.