Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
AFAICR the Oldvuvai theory fails to consider some societies might try to reduce their per capita energy use since not all of them are motivated by consumption. And, then, a post-industrial civilization can either be a MadMaxesque one, a Solarpunk one or an Automated Space Gay Communist one.
Note: If that theory actually asserts those points please let me know I'm wrong, I don't remember all the details.
It is a theory that has already been confirmed several times in the past, showing that civilizations collapse when they reach a certain level of development. So it's not that far off. Naturally, the interval of the mentioned 100 years cannot be taken as certain, since our current science and technology can considerably extend this interval, but even so, sooner or later, between energy needs and a population in permanent growth, a collapse it will be unavoidable. Not only due to the increase in the decline of a society, but currently due to causes that threaten our civilization, such as the increase in pandemics (COVID will not be the last), related to climate change, the collapse of the capitalist system, wars etc. Our mistake is to believe in infinite growth, which is naturally impossible and invariably leads to the creation of bubbles that finally burst and usually end in world wars, as has already happened twice in the last century. The human being is the only animal that does not trip over the same stone twice, but a hundred times.
Why of course I'm not saying is false nor based on wrong assumptions. As you mention, the impossibility of infinite growth had been consider either by Malthusians, the Tragedy of the Commons and is the ultimate sign that capitalism is doomed to fail.
What I was pointing out is that AFAIK the main data used for some graphs is based solely on the per capita energy use worldwide, and that's why the peak takes place just before the "Oil Crisis" of the 70s. I ignore if there are national or regional metrics which compliment the theory or if there are some evaluations about potential post-industrial outcomes. I'm not doubting that it points out an imminent collapse, it's just a sincere doubt I have about these points within the theory.
Per capita energy expenditure is not the main problem, or rather it requires a more detailed specification and the relationship it has with a system of wild consumerism. We take into consideration the energy expenditure as a whole applied to the whole of humanity in its average term, where it turns out that a Western person has the same energy expenditure and CO2 footprint as an entire population of the third world, these occupying the majority of the population world. It is this wild consumerism, the use and throw away of things, the waste of food (up to 70% of the food produced in the Western world ends up in the garbage), the excess consumption of meat products, instead of 2- 3 times a week, we consume these 3 times a day 7 times a week, making this unsustainable causing massive livestock farming for this, another polluting factor, deforestation for agricultural use and livestock, overfishing with fish farms that destroy the livelihood of local fishermen, monocultures and patents on traditional local products for mere speculative reasons, etc. All this and more inevitably leads us to the inevitable decline and collapse of our society and to the poverty and misery of the rest in a world where MadMax seems like a paradise to us , This, if climate change and consequent cataclysms, do not already make survival on this planet impossible. This condition must be changed right now to avoid the worst, but I am afraid that with these criminals in suits who govern us and who do not see beyond their quotas in the stock market, it will be a practically impossible task.