Divergence “technology has saved us in the past doesn't mean that it can in the future.”

Maybe not specifically ‘technology’ but human ingenuity, endeavour, competitiveness (which is what stimulates the quest for technology and all other “developments”) will.

Simply, that we do not know what it might be now, in no way diminishes either the likelihood or possibility of a solution to any given problem.

What does matter is the viability of economic return to any development (reward for successful effort).

On that very matter, take oil as an example. The development, in the past 10 years of hybrid engines in cars is a direct response to the need for greater oil conservation. Such developments were neither “cost effective” or “commercially viable” when oil was $5 / barrel. But when oil was seen as increasing toward todays $75 / barrel, they are.

Hence, the monolithic institutions of nationalised industry, which were popular in the early to mid 20th century, did nothing for innovation or development because the governments which controlled them and unions who supported them were hellbent on maintaining the “status quo”.

A cosy unchanging environment is a myth.

The only certainty is “change” and all developments, technological or social or otherwise are some of the physical manifestations of “change”.

So I disagree with your assertion, “Human ingenuity” will “always save the day” because there are no alternatives, absence of “human ingenuity” will do and save nothing.

Have a read of this link concerning the reliability of expert predictions.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tetlock1

It's not hard to see how predictions of complex future outcomes go wrong. With so many hundreds of factors that can each cause a radical departure from an expected course, complex predictions simply become stabs in the dark.

And what is apparent in all predictions, is that the farther in time the predicted outcome, the more numerous the intervening events that give rise to exponential possible courses and much less certainty for any specific outcome. In other words, you've got more chance of correctly predicting the weather tomorrow than for next week. So for correctly predicting outcomes, simplicity is key.

But politics is never simple because human behaviour is not simple. Therefore, political predictions are like weather forecasting - you can predict a cool overcast Autumn day for next year, but not 18'C 53% humidity with a light S'West breeze. Who predicted that John Howard would become PM and for so many years? And that Australia would not sign the Kyoto Protocol? So much for the experts.

However, some complex scenarios do merit ongoing analyses and prognoses in order to avert possible catastrophe.

Without the doomsday scenarios of Peak Oil and Global Climate Change, and the resultant public anxiety that influences the political process, how would the ruling powers become motivated to implement the necessary changes to avoid the predicted inevitability?