20060406
    Max Schulz, the author of the linked TCS article, presents an interesting view on the recently declared American addiction to the use of oil. Mr. Schulz certainly makes some valid points in his defense of the use of oil as a tool for the rise of the West and its success in both military and political endeavors; however his defense of the continued use of oil- perhaps more correctly characterized as his failure to encourage the development of alternatives- leaves much to be desired.
    There can be little doubt that oil is the critical resource that has helped fuel the economic and technological growth that has allowed the United States to become the world power it us today. Without oil, most of our modern society just would not be. Yet, oil has an ugly downside, not even considering the possible environmental effects of the use of oil.
    The problem with oil- and indeed with any finite resource- is that it is finite and distributed. The US controls a fraction of the worldwide supply of oil, while it consumes by far the most. This is not to say that importing oil is wrong, however the fact that the US does not control such resources places future economic and technological resources at dire risk to the arbitrary fluctuations of the international marketplace.
    The modern truth is that most of the modern consumption of oil is directly related to the production of energy. Modern technology no longer needs fire to function, instead it needs electricity. While the commentary that the US is addicted to oil may be overstated, it does point to the fact that in the last hundred years of explosive technological growth, practically no attention has been paid to developing widespread, sustainable methods of powering all of the technology that has been developed.
    That reality is why oil dependence is so troubling. Upon the dependence on oil is hung the future development of the technology and economy that will keep the US the great nation it is today. Without the development of widespread, sustainable energy production that does not rely on the uncertain international market for oil, both that technology and the economy it powers will eventually cease to develop.
    Underlying this reality is a fundamental truth: the US, indeed the West, has become too comfortable with the current status quo. The thought of investing large sums of money into the kinds of research that would allow sustainable energy to become a reality seems unimaginable to most people who simply want their lives and lifestyles of today to be stable. Such investment presents a risk that few are seriously willing to take for a future benefit that is not all that certain.
    Yet, that risk is exactly what must be taken if the current prosperity is to last into the future. Such a risk must not just be reflected in national policy and expenditures, but in the way average citizens decide how to invest in their own futures. This statement is not to say that individuals should reduce their energy use, rather every user of energy should begin to seek out alternative ways to provide the energy they want to use.
    By pursuing such a course, both the US and its individual citizens can take the first steps down the path that will place the US in a position to relegate the use of oil for the production of energy to its proper place within the hierarchy of technology everyone has come to depend on today. By doing so, the US will have both reduced its dependency on an uncertain foreign commodity and helped set the stage for future technological and economic development.
DLH
