Apocalypse without Armageddon

[planetc]

I want to take up the largest case first, which is global warming, which, translated, means our asses are going to get fried, not to mention the polar bears and other deserving species, and the human inhabitants of low-lying coastal regions will be displaced. Those least able to cope with a radical change in climate will die because we refuse to change our light bulbs and get out of our cars. Apocalypse will mean The End of the World As We Know It. Armageddon, in this discussion, will mean The Final Battle. So, I wish to propose Apocalypse without Armageddon: let us welcome the End of the World and skip the battle. Remember, it's the Republicans who want us to think that every issue is a Battle in the War Between Good and Evil. And that every problem is an issue, and that some things that aren't problems at all are issues. Bullfeathers, and malignant bullfeathers at that.

We should welcome the End of the Cheap Energy World because it will produce a world that will be better than this one: slower, healthier, less accidentally lethal, friendlier, better informed, perhaps more artistic and thoughtful, and generally much more rewarding in every way. Remember, Big Oil wants us to drive SUVs because they ... *burn oil faster.* (If there's another reason for them, please enlighten me.) I do believe that these vehicles were sold to us because B.O. was afraid we would find out what the emissions were doing to the atmosphere earlier than they had planned, and they wanted to unload as much of the stuff as they could while there was still time. The world will be slower because we won't be able to drive door to door for all our errands, and healthier because we will all be walking the short distances from our doors to the bus stop, the train or subway station, the jitney stop, the whatever. Bikers will bike, and all companies will provide free showers to employees who work up a sweat getting to work. Greener will be healthier for us as well as the plants and polar bears. I hazard a wild guess that getting significant amounts of gasoline and diesel emissions out of the atmosphere might favorably affect the cancer rate, too. The new world will be friendlier because we will often pass it at 4 mph rather that 30 to 75 mph. We will see our neighbors with new eyes; perhaps we'll see them for the first time at all, and perhaps we'll get acquainted. With a lot of cars off the road, it will be much safer for children to walk to school, or, as we did in my distant youth, run to and from school if the mood took us. Children will reappear in the streets, and we will all take care of them, because that's the way good communities behave. There will, I hope, be less electrified entertainment, or more entertainment that is less electric. Banjo players and guitar players and pianists will pop shyly up in our midst and we will rediscover the pleasures of singing along. More bands will be formed, and we will walk the few blocks over to their local venue to hear them play. Libraries will be open all night in enlightened communities, and it will be perfectly safe to use them in the wee hours, because all the homeless will be homed. Once we redistribute the Defense Budget, any number of wonderful things will be possible.

I'm not a scientist or an expert in much of anything, and so I don't know for sure that Cheap Energy is the sole cause of global warming. But I am absolutely confident that one day we will run out of crude oil. And since we know that's going to happen, and since we know the costs of a foreign policy run by B.O. and Big Arms, it would be prudent to reduce our dependence on oil owned by other people. It would also be prudent to get to know, personally, some of the people who live in those countries, and do all we diplomatically can to ensure that the populations of those countries share in the profits of the sale of that oil.

As I hope you can see, the possibilities opened up by the End of the Cheap Oil World are numerous and thrilling. I love to think about them.

In my next installment, I intend to apply the Apocalypse without Armageddon principle to politics.

First corollary: at the end of every war, there is a meeting of the surviving combatants which works out a new arrangement to share territory, power, resources, and whatevers. Why not skip the war and go straight to the bargaining table? I mean What The Hell are we still fighting wars about? The testimony has been taken, the evidence is in: War is Hell, wasteful, stupid, and the most capricious god ever invented. Let's become War Atheists.

Until next time,
planetc

[planetc]

1. please excuse

My computer or me, whichever it is. A moment ago this post appeared twice on one click of my mouse. I have succeeded in hiding the second one, rather than deleting it, which I would like to do. If anyone has any expertise in removing unwanted duplicates, I'd be grateful for your help.

[InkAddict]

2. I'm unsure that the vast population of Planet Earth

can support itself as you envision it. Perhaps you'll live to see it but only after a cataclysmic kill-off; I'm thinkin' that, while your thoughts are very idealistic, it's not an ideal world and I'd not like to participate in the suffering circumstances of the transition. One way or the other, we're screwed though some of us are trying to do better at co-existance with conservation. :shrug: