pygmy

I am honestly at a loss as to who to vote for. Okay, it's true that I think most people that are undecided by now must be braindead, or probably just attention-starved and like to have people pandering to them, but let me tell you, my reasons are very different than most.. As for the issues on the table publicly--the economy, Iraq, security, education, etc etc.. No question, Kerry would get my vote. Without a second thought.

The problem is, the one issue that I think is absolutely the most important in at least the next 20 years, and the most pressing topic of the past.. ohh.. dozen centuries or so.. has not been mentioned once by either candidate, directly at least.

Okay, y'all will probably consider me a doomsayer, conspiracy theorist, hack, paranoid, whathaveyou. I don't care, I'm used to it. I'm not out to change anyone's mind anyway. And, don't try to change mine. I've heard it all already, trust me.

So just what am I yabbering about? Peak oil. I don't expect anyone to read this really much less respond, this post is really just self-indulgent.. I won't even bother explaining it, because it's complicated.. Well the most basic premise isn't complicated at all, I just feel I need to preempt all the usual arguments against it, and that gets time consuming and frustrating.. Well okay, the basic premise is that we're running out of cheap oil. There is plenty of oil in the earth, no doubt, but eventually it will require more energy to extract than is gained.. Really this will just be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and is by no means the only straw so to speak. The more essential problem is that our market system requires constant growth, and the only other thing in nature with this particular quality is cancer, which grows until it inevitably kills its host. While any reasonable person will admit that they can't predict the future, I know one thing for sure: Things will change, very radically in the next 15 years, and they will never return to the way they were.

Well that's the extent of my introduction, if anyone wants more information I'll be happy to supply it. Back to my current problem. The real question is, is it better to bring it about faster, or prolong it? (Bush bringing it on faster, Kerry prolonging it) The faster, the less environmental damage, and the less the population will increase in the interim and therefore the less people will die (less people living, less people available to die).. This would be the choice if I were to decide on a strictly utilitarian ethic, for sure... I know it sounds harsh talking about the deaths of probably billions so stoicly.. believe me, that is not really how i feel, but in the end there will be as much life as our Earth can support, to me it is not inherently better or more ethical if it's humans instead of bunnyrabbits or rattlesnakes using the resources.. tangent..
And really I'm not really sure how different Kerry is from Bush, in this regard.. I can only guess..
Kerry will be more likely to go after alternative fuels, which to me is just a waste.. If everyone in America decided to go out and buy a new hybrid or fuel cell car, we'd actually be approaching peak oil a lot faster.. funny, huh? These technologies are powered by oil, they are made physically out of petroleum products (plastics, etc), the parts are transported with petroleum products, the machines that make them are powered by petroleum products, the workers that put them together get their energy from food that is grown with massive amounts of petroleum products.. Okay, you get the idea. It requires MASSIVE amounts of oil..
Ahhh, I just don't fucking know.
Honestly my intuition says Bush.. I know it's awful.. I think either way, I won't be able to sleep at night..
To me it seems (in this context) the reasons I might vote for Kerry are largely selfish.. To buy Jason and I more time to get prepared..
This is actually somewhat similar to a situation we faced recently.. We found an injured pigeon in our parking garage, it's beak was damaged, we tried to feed it but it just wasn't enough, he was wheezing.. He would probably die, suffering and starving and cold.. We knew the right thing to do would be to euthanize him, but it would have been a lot easier for us to just leave him, convince ourselves that he might be okay, he might have a chance.. And that little hint of hope would allow us to sleep, make us feel good about ourselves maybe. If he did die, it wouldn't be our fault. We wouldn't have to feel guilty, or even think about it. But we knew if we did that we were just deluding ourselves.. So we decided to end his suffering. It was hard, but it was the right thing to do. We buried him in a clay pot on our fire escape that only had a dead stem breaking its soil.. Now there are lots of little green sprouts..

Anyways.. All that and still no decision. I'm thinking Bush..

..Not that my vote will count towards anything, anyways.. harrumph.

Oh, and this is by no means my entire analysis of this problem.. I left a lot out.. So don't make any sort of judgement based merely on what I wrote here.. Like I said, it's mostly for my own benefit to write some of it out..

Edit: Still thinking... All the peak oil related stuff is mostly speculation, since neither candidate adresses it.. would it be better to make my decision based on the things I do know?
I'm so conflicted...