"The stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of stones, and the oil age won't end because the earth runs out of oil" -- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, rmi.org
Your non-sequitur signature line puzzles me.
At first I thought perhaps something uttered by a rightie but after googling to see who Lovins is gave up on that...
In any case, seems a bit non-sensical. For one thing, since we haven't run out of stones there is nothing to be said for the relationship between running out of stones and an age ending.
On the other hand, the amount of oil is finite and sooner or later we will run out of oil easy enough to acquire that there will be inescapable socio-economic consequences.
I suppose what he is saying is that the oil age will end for reasons not having to do with running out of oil just as the stone age ended for reasons not having to do with running out of stones.
I find that particular interpretation too hard to believe. Oil is essential for a vast number of products besides fuel to run automobile etc. Seems like pie in the sky to believe society can transform itself to do without it, and especially so to think it could voluntarily happen while there is still oil to be had.
Sorry, but I just can't draw anything useful from his assertion.
I'm open as I can be to hear what better message I should take from it :)