Peak oil will kill civilisation

Assumption: natural oil and gas are used for the production of fertilisers, car gasoline & diesel, plastics, airplane kerosine, shipping fuel, therefore a steep and steady decrease in oil and gas production will lead to a collapse of transport and food production, which will lead widespread hunger and society collapse.

Counter: The Haber process, for creating fertiliser does not require steam reforming with natural gas. In fact it works easyer with just pure hydrogen, which can be created by any means (it just requires energy). Kerosine can be created from created from any energy source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Kerosene_from_carbon_dioxide_and_water , artificial plastic (and methane in general) can be created through the Sabatier reaction, but preferably from Polylactic acid to create biodegradable plastic. Cars and even trucks are now more likely to use batteries, which is good for everybody in the long run. Just because oil and natural gas have been used because they are/where cheap does not mean that these are the only or even the best way to do things. A sudden shock can be problematic, but even as we speak societies are already decoupling. In the near future societies will require energy (entropy), not necessarily oil, coal or gas.

Soil exhaustion will lead to widespread hunger

Assumption: Soil retrogression and degradation because of extractive processes will lead to massive amounts of farmland becoming unsuitable for agriculture. Counter: because of intensive agricluture and hydroponics we know exactly what levels of fertiliser is required of specific plants to grow. The fertilisers are (and can be) entrily artificial. This is not speculation, but used in everyday farms. And even if for whatever reason it would not be possible to use fertiliser, it would still be possible to grow pioneering crops). Artificial food will eventually kill this argument, but while prices are so low this is not feasable.

Water scarcity will lead to widespread hunger

Assumption: Reduction of water flow (because of melting glacier and others) will reduce river flows, leading to widespread hunger. Some with heating due to climate change.

Counter: First of all: insane optimalisations can be made by switching to drip irrigation. instead of current practices. Second: greenhouse tunnels can again reduce the amount of water needed. Third: In many locations water can be drawn from the oceans, and be desalinated, and forth: flood waters can be retained instead of running off. But even in the most arrid lands water can be drawn from the air by cooling air so the water condensates. If this is feasable is a mater of price, not technique. Eventually artificial food will entirely kill this argument, but while prices are so low this is not feasable.

Climate change will lead to crop faillure and widespread hunger

Assumption: Counter:

Overpopulation will lead to widespread hunger

Assumption: Malthusianism lead to the prediction that populations will always grow exponentially, while food sources will only grow linearly. Counter:

Underpopulation will lead to widespread economic stagnation

Assumption: Counter: