Peak oil will kill civilization

Assumption: natural oil and gas are used for the production of fertilizers, 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 fertilizer does not require steam reforming with natural gas. In fact it works easier 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 agriculture and hydroponics we know exactly what levels of fertilizer is required of specific plants to grow. The fertilizers are (and can be) entirely artificial. This is not speculation, but used in everyday farms. And even if for whatever reason it would not be possible to use fertilizer, 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 feasible.

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 arid lands water can be drawn from the air by cooling air so the water condensates. If this is feasible is a mater of price, not technique. Eventually artificial food will entirely kill this argument, but while prices are so low this is not feasible.

Climate change will lead to crop failure and widespread hunger

Assumption: Heat waves and changing weather patterns will lead to droughts and crop failures, which in turn will lead to famine.

Counter:

• Greenhouse tunnels and drip irrigation can lead to huge reductions of water use.
• Worsening weather patterns changes in one region are mitigated by improvements in other regions. whole Canadian and Russian arctics areas will become fertile.
• Transportation improvements have made famine a thing that can be avoided, unless war or mad dictators intervene.
• The world has huge buffers: Most food in the world is used for livestock, not for feeding animals.

Overpopulation will lead to widespread hunger

Assumption: Malthusian-ism lead to the prediction that populations will always grow exponentially, while food sources will only grow linearly.

Counter:

• Population growth has been slowing all over the world were people have the luxury to choose the size of their family. The population is still growing, but more than 30% of the population is no longer of child bearing age, and more than 10% is above 65. The only place were the population is still growing above replacement levels is sub-Sahara Africa.
• The green revolution has shown that it is possible for technological progress to grow exponentially, while population growth was much lower.
• Future advances will probably again increase in the future. For example: there is no reason why it would not be possible to create plant fats and/or glucose through chemical means in the near future. This would make food production 1000x more efficient than agriculture, and also eliminate the water use associated with this.

Under-population will lead to widespread economic stagnation and other disasters

Assumption: More people lead to more inventions and economic growth. If the population stagnates or shrinks then economies and countries will shrink, stagnate or collapse.

Counter:

• The world consisted of 4 billion people in just 1975, and the world was doing fine. During the age of the industrial revolution in 1870 when invention after invention was done the world population was just 1,3 billion people.
• People also claimed that economic growth was directly correlated to energy use, so that reducing greenhouse gasses would lead to economic shrinkage. This turned out to be false.