Larry, it's always very easy to take a pessimistic view of the future. Because, simply stated, you don't know what's out there. And such doomsday tripe is very easy to get published.
Academicians of this sort have always had their audience. I give you Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist.
Now, I don't know whether Goodstein is right or not (neither does he, nor do you). But I do know that Ehrlich was full of sh!t.
Problems are very easy to conceive. We all do that every day. However, the most productive thinkers in society not only expose problems, they also posit solutions for them.
If it is your nature to be pessimistic, that's your privilege. It doesn't make you a bad person -- my wife's tht way, as a matter of fact. But it does make you better-equipped to deal with the past than with the future.
And you're right, Goodstein (being very good as I said) isn't sure he's right and actually hopes he's wrong. But Matt Simmons bet Rita Simon (wife of Julian Simon, he who exposed Paul Erlich) a few years ago, that oil would be over $200 a barrel in 2010. It looks like he'll win.
I'm sure that people will continue to drill as long as they think it profitable. Doesn't matter what theories are out there, or what the collateral damage.
On your final point, however, I have to disagree. I'm very well positioned to deal with the future, even if it's terrible.
At the simplest level, if two people carpool that cuts their gas usage (and cost) in half. A lot of hot water heating can easily be converted to solar. Mixed use neighborhoods can be built (or retrofitted) so that travel to work and shopping is drastically reduced. And so on.
Conservation alone can probably give us 20 to 30 years - a generation - to find alternative technologies.