Not unlike many PDXers, my partner has been advocating PO concern for some months now. Though I've not done as much research as she has, I have familiarized myself with the facts of the matter, and have concluded that her point of view—-that the supply of oil is likely to peak and/or run out in our lifetimes—-is quite reasonable. Ample evidence supports the fact that our (known) oil supply is finite, and unless we find alternative resources and/or discover new petroleum reserves, the reduced output (at best) or utter depletion (at worst) of this resource will have serious reprecussions on the way we live. Clearly, our current patterns and levels of consumption cannot go on; it is definitely urgent that we work towards achieving a more local/sustainable/organic way of life.

Having summarized my point of view—-and as you continue through my post, I urge you to remember that I DO agree with the facts of the matter—-I must assert that I am, nonetheless, profoundly disturbed at how these facts are presented and contextualized. Most prominently, what gives me a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach is how easily the (extremely valid) concern for what will happen after then end of oil becomes enmeshed with narratives of the Apocalypse.

A side note: not unlike the term "crusade," "apocalypse" can be used in both general/secular and specific/biblical senses. I make this distinction because, in this case, I WOULD like to foreground the biblical connotations of "Apocalypse"—-because so much of what I read on PO discussion fora sounds too eerily like LeHaye and Jenkins' "Left Behind" series of Christian apocalyptic novels. (I am not the first to notice the similarities.) The religious right's obsession with the End of Days (and the concurrent longing for the Rapture) are defined by:
1. An us-vs.-them, "either you are with us or against us" (saved or damned) mentality;
2. Judgement day is imminent;
3. On that day, the "wheat will be separated from the chaf;" i.e. only God's "chosen people" (those who "truly believe") will be saved, whereas the rest will perish.

At this juncture, I would reiterate that my research into the POVs on the subject is far from exhaustive; as mentioned before, upon my partner’s urging, I am trying to inform myself. But after a couple of hours spent searching the Internet, these are the attitudes that seem to dominate the discourse:
1. One must accept the reality of PO. One must “go through the seven steps” to arrive at that place of acceptance. A person who doesn’t accept this grim reality is addicted to a consumptive lifestyle and/or in denial.
2. The world’s supply of oil is on the very brink of depletion. The effects of depletion will be sudden and cataclysmic. Extreme pain and suffering as we undergo that change are inevitable.
3. At that juncture, only the “chosen ones” (those who have “accepted” the reality of PO and have made sufficiently dramatic lifestyle changes, i.e. stopped using a car, are growing their own food, able to live off the land, etc.) will survive.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of you are having a viscerally negative reaction to what (you perceive) I am working up to in this post. If this is the case, I would validate that response—-we are, after all, dealing with a serious and emotionally intense issue that affects all of us. Nonetheless, I would ask you to retain an open mind, and stay with me as I continue to weave my words.

So, as asserted above: I am personally disturbed by the tendency of the current state of PO discussion to veer towards narratives of the Apocalypse. There are several reasons for my concern.

First of all—-and maybe I’m totally wrong, but I’ll go out on a limb here—-I’m guessing this forum isn’t dominated by fundamentalist Christians. (Doubtless there are Christians among us, but I’m assuming we are of the more progressive variety.) Those of us who are made queasy by the discourse of the Rapture Right are, I’m betting, disturbed by the following assumptions inherent to that narrative:
1. The us-vs.-them, saved-vs.-damned mentality is an exclusionary and cynical estimation of humanity.
2. The A/apocalyptic notion of imminent, sudden and dramatic change both (a) ignores history, which suggests that, more often than not, change is gradual, not cataclysmic (despite what our fear-mongering media would have us believe), and (b) threatens to plunge us into a state of gloom which is counterproductive to real action.
3. Not unlike item #1, the notion that only the chosen (read: prepared) will survive strikes me as cynical and exclusionary, and distressingly anti-humanist.

How often do any of us fall squarely into ANY one category of being? Even if we are dedicated to ending our dependence on oil, how many among us are, at present, pragmatically able to do so completely (without jeopardizing our material well-being and that of our loved-ones)? Surely, few of us are able to reach this state of oil-independent perfection. Does this mean we are somehow “damned?” Are we so closed minded that we chide, belittle and label anyone who hasn’t achieved 100% “acceptance” (and the lifestyle changes this would necessitate)? How productive is it really for us to "rate" our fellow human beings based on such a black-and-white scale?

The A/apocalyptic notion of imminent, sudden and dramatic change (i.e. the notion that one day we will wake up and it will all be gone) both glosses over the valid dissent (and I am excluding right-wingers who would have us think “all is well, go back to your SUVs”) within PO research as to WHEN the peak will occur (or if it already has), and suggests that, since it is so imminent, there really isn’t anything we can do about it. What if the peak is ten, twenty, fifty years off? Given the dissent re: when depletion will occur, how does it serve us to gravitate to the POV that it is but a few years off? Wouldn’t that prevent a proactive response to the issue—i.e., is it possible that believing that the end is near provides a ready excuse for INaction? Is our estimation of human ingenuity and adaptability really so bleak that we can’t envision taking proactive steps to prevent this A/apocalyptic scenario?

To be sure: there are probably many of you who, as you read this, question the extent to which PO and Rapture narratives are really dovetailing. If so, here's a potentially enlightening activity you might engage in: go back and visit your favorite PO fora. Re-read the most compelling posts, written by the folks you listen to time and again. To be sure, full-on Rapturous posts my be in the minority, but threads of that discourse might be weaving their way through the most sane and rigorously-defended assertions.

No doubt, some of you are also thinking: Why should I care about this? How is this not merely an intellectual exercise? And how does it change valid and irrefutable PO realities? Let me be the first to say: it doesn't change reality. Nonetheless, as people who are, along with our PO concerns, committed to a progressive world view, real change that will have a positive effect on our lives and the environment, and (I assume) achieving social justice, we SHOULD pay attention to the tenor of our debates. We should be wary of how our discussions of PO can mesh with extremist patterns of thought.

To risk overstatement, I reiterate: first, I agree with the facts of PO, and second, I believe that intensely emotional responses to this likely scenario (however far off) are perfectly natural and valid. Having said that, as anyone who has ever dealt with a nagging personal/emotional issue knows (i.e., as MOST of us know), we DO have a choice as to how to manage our emotional responses. A/apocalyptic doomsday visions certainly shape our post-9/11 world, and (as I hope to have shown) are NOT the exclusive reserve of the Rapture Right. Seductive though they may be, we do have the power to resist them; we can choose maintain the audacity of perseverance, ingenuity, creativity, adaptability, and—-dare I say it?—-hope.

At its heart, this post is a plea: that we all keep our heads as we wade through this distressing issue, that we resist unthinking extremism, reactivity, or anything else leading to hopelessness, inaction, or the exclusion of healthy skepticism from the discussion. In the interest of local pride, let’s show the world that here in Portland, there is room for a calmer, more intelligent, more carefully thought-out, less reactionary debate on this very urgent issue. Only then will we be able to come up with real solutions to this dilemma.

p.s. I would like to direct you to local permaculture educator Toby Hemenway's website. His views on PO (links are on the home page) represent the kind of calm and nuanced reasoning to which I think we should aspire:

http://www.patternliteracy.com/

Granted, his estimation of current supplies are perhaps a bit optimistic, but he makes some other points about life after oil that speak volumes of how we choose to adapt to dramatic change.