I don’t think there are any guarantees when it comes to peak oil. That being said, our awareness of the upcoming dilemmas posed by peak oil, never mind our response to them, has been pretty much nil. The less we educate ourselves and act upon that knowledge, then yes, the uglier it will be. In the meantime, our ability to somewhat manage the collapse of industrial civilization was lost decades ago, and the less we do to prepare for it the rougher it’s going to be.
Industrialism is a system largely based on mechanized industry (which is based on fossil fuels), and so is more than just "a thing [or] a process.| You are correct that “it is not required to have feelings” about what it makes possible, just like it is not required to have feelings about anything in this world. But I’m not a nihilist, and so have made the conscious decision to examine industrialism and its underpinnings. From those examinations I can say that I don’t think industrialism has much to say for itself in regards to individuals, communities, societies, nor the land and ecosystems.
Sure, the “use” of fossil fuels may be the result of human ingenuity, but fossil fuels themselves are not. The non-existence of fossil fuels (or fossil fuels with less energy return, EROEI) makes this notion of ingenuity rather moot.
And sorry, but the use of the phrase “cheap” energy is very much applicable. If you go back and read what I said, I was not referring to the price of fossil fuels over the past few decades. I said that industrialism’s existence is based on “cheap” energy. And fossil fuels are most certainly cheap. The numbers differ from study to study and how you want to measure things, but if you count how many hours of human work would be required to match the energy output from a barrel of oil, you’re looking at roughly 20,000 hours. Whether a barrel of oil is priced at $20, $55 (where it is now), or $147, the energy from fossil fuels is most certainly cheap.
No doubt that ignorance, corruption and other factors can lead to problems within a country (Venezuela). As do the theft of a nation’s resources (Nigeria). But to state that the existence of such things negates the effects that fossil fuel supplies can have on nations doesn’t hold water. The Soviet Union’s oil supply peaked back in the 1980s and contributed to its collapse. Russia’s oil supply is hitting its second peak, which will also have repercussions. On the other hand, Greece has barely any fossil fuels to speak for. Would it be needing bailouts if it were flush with domestic supplies of fuel? Not a chance. Greece is the first developed country to be experiencing collapse for a variety of reasons, one major one being its lack of domestic fuel supplies.
And not only does it seem that your understanding of geology seem to be skewed, but so does your understanding of economics. “Economics,” derived from the Greek Oikonomia, refers to “household management.” Unfortunately, our current understanding of economics doesn’t give much attention to this, and is more concerned with notions of growth to keep the fractional-reserve Ponzi scheme going. On top of that, to say that economics has something to do with the “will of man” is to venture into New Age territory and surmise that the we can have anything we want, so long as we want it hard enough. That’s not how oil is brought into existence.
And by the way; I may be an agrarian, but if anybody told me that an agrarian utopia was possible, I’d probably give them a funny look.