85. THE GAME OF "RESOURCE WAR"
As we've seen so far, much of the doomer position is based on hype and misinformation. Debating doomers is a lot like playing "Whack a Mole" -- you debunk one point, and another one pops up, which you debunk etc. etc. There are, however, a few doomer positions which lie at a deeper level, and it is there that the doomers always take refuge. One of these positions is the idea of "resource war".
The basic idea is simple: if there is not enough of a critical resource (like oil), war will ensue and the strong will take the resource from the weak. This is often framed as a lifeboat analogy. You have two men in a lifeboat: Steve ("S", the stronger) and Willy ("W", the weaker), and only enough rations for one to survive. The usual doomer interpretation is that S kills W, takes the food, and all is right in the Darwinian universe.
In reality, the situation is more complicated. To see this, consider the three possible outcomes of the game:
1) W dies, S lives
2) S dies, W lives
3) W and S both die
Now, if you are W, and you know you aren't strong enough to kill S, then only two possible options remain: 1) and 3). But because S is planning to kill you for the food, you don't like S, and therefore you would prefer outcome 3) to outcome 1).
So, in the lifeboat analogy, W's choice is clear: throw the food away in the sea.
The moral of this story is that Darwinian theft of resources only works if S is strong enough to totally neutralize W. To "win", W doesn't need to be strong enough to defeat S. W only needs to be strong enough to sabotage S, and prevent S from getting enough of the disputed resource to survive.
This is the reason why the world will cooperate rather than fight over oil. The "strong" aren't strong enough to stop sabotage by the weak.