Hello mikey,

Option 1 v. Option 2 is flawed in several serious manners. You seem to approach this issue from a nationalistic standpoint while I am looking at the entire Earth (which is already filled with billions of impoverished non-drivers who are barely surviving these "good times" of increasing oil production).

From the standpoint of the United States, undoubtedly America could survive if Americans were willing to live with less. I would prefer that Americans consume less:

The U.S. trade deficit climbed to a record high for the fifth straight year, with 2006 imports exceeding exports by $764 billion, the Commerce Department reported yesterday. The gap reflects higher oil prices, which increased the nation's import bill, and American consumers' rising appetite for foreign-made goods.

The figures raised tensions in Washington, unleashing criticism on Capitol Hill of the Bush administration's pursuit of new trade deals. They also provoked a fresh round of demands for action against China, whose trade surplus with the United States swelled to a record $233 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR200702...

But do you know what would happen to the American economy if massive numbers of Americans actually followed the advice of Option 1?

I imagine that the American economy would collapse because there are millions of jobs which are made possible by America's present (increasing) level of consumption. The value of stocks would decline tremendously, too, once everyone realized that America had entered an era of perpetually diminishing consumption.

Regarding Option 2: Extinction is not an immediate threat. Extinction is our species' ultimate fate.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1