Not exactly - it is just another (and more expensive) source of oil, but inevitably there is still a limit to it (and while prolly there is more shale gas in world than oil I doubt it even triples the time before oil supply will end). Inevitably we will have to use biofuels, solar, wind [and in future also thermonuclear].
Yeah, except there will be another (more expensive) source of oil after this one, and another after that. Gradually solar will become cheaper than the cheapest oil available, and the world will move to solar, and that will be it. Nobody's saying solar isn't the future, we're just saying there won't be any sudden end to oil. There will be no global catastrophe.
Solar still has a number of big draw-backs that need to be overcome (namely storage and time-to-recharge), but I suppose we have more time to work it out now. It's kind of a same, though.. I'm not sure the environment can tolerate much more burned fossil fuels.
As long as coal is still in use, anything that replaces it is a big win.
Right like the coal to liquids tech the Germans used in WWII. Peak coal is FAR off.
I actually have read fairly widely and taken courses in Systems Theory, but I'd appreciate a synopsis of your argument.
All the technology used in exploiting a non-renewable resource faster only sets us up for a bigger, more abrupt crash. I don't remember if she used the example of oil or fisheries (or both?), the dynamics are the same.
In the fishing village I grew up in, they were building massive ships with cutting-edge sonar(?) technology until the stocks collapsed.