Lens of History (67): Circumstance

STEC Archives, Print Document Division
Curator signature: [CLASSIFIED]
Format:  Print Media – DECLASSIFIED under [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
Special Documents Division – [REDACTED]
Time (if known): [CLASSIFIED, pre-war]

Editor’s Note: 

STEC does not typically act in a policymaking role, though we do frequently intersect with politicians and policymakers given the all-encompassing nature of the Abyssal War.

In this instance, we would like to share a couple of internal viewpoints that are somewhat at odds with one another – specifically, the fate of the civilian oil reserves in the immediate aftermaths of the Abyssal War.

Viewpoint 1:

Commander, I’ll preface this discussion with the frank admission that yes, I harbor personal sympathies for the industry. I harbor sympathies not because I agree with their viewpoints, but rather that we hold key technologies here that can overturn their entire industry overnight – and we have the ability to do so if need be.

Our mandate here at STEC is that we are to disrupt, to a minimum, the natural “progress” of American development. What we are discussing is a scenario in the far future where we can finally look beyond the Abyssal threat and look towards the future. That is currently beyond our mission’s scope. 

The energy sector as we know it will have to innovate – or else, yes, go the way of the horse and the buggy. This is something that is already going to occur anyways – with or without our intervention. 

I therefore see the continuation of these programs as a matter of necessity. Change ought to not occur over such a short period of time. See supporting evidence attached for more information.

In response…


I’ll cut to the chase here. These reserves should not continue beyond the Abyssal War. I approach this matter from three major perspectives highlighted below.

First, I would like to highlight STEC’s mandate. We are not to intervene beyond what is absolutely necessary in matters beyond directly fighting the Abyssals. In a post-Abyssal world, where the direct threat is gone, it is important for us to “sort ourselves out.” So isn’t it up to us – America, and not just us here at STEC – to figure out how we could make fuel accessible to all in a cheaply, environmentally friendly, and sensibly?

Secondly, from a policy perspective, I believe it is important for us to do the difficult thing even if politically inexpedient. I am not in favor of abruptly cutting matters, but I think it is best that we begin to wean people off of this specific resource – as indicated in this thing’s proposal to begin with. Short of anything happening to us as a whole – and you do know that there’s the theory that our entire infrastructure may vanish alongside the Abyssals too, I believe a slow movement towards “normalcy” is the best course of action we could take. 

Finally, I consider this a matter of opportunity in which STEC could ask the nation to embrace. The Abyssals will come and go, but as we step into the next century, there are critical problems globally that we will have to step up to the plate to solve in one way or another. Energy is not one of these matters that is an immediate crisis – in fact, I have attached here a fairly extensive report on whether “peak oil” is an accurate representation of the quantity and estimates in which we ourselves are able to absorb. 

However, in consideration of our long term future outcomes, I think it is necessary for us to be laying the groundwork now – in anticipation towards the years to come. Our grandchildren and theirs will thank us if we keep a critical eye to appraise the energy issue now, as we plan to meet one of humanity’s greatest challenges. 

Which one do you think has the sounder argument? Both? Neither? Feel free to leave your thoughts on the visitor’s logbook as you head towards the next room – where we can show you how these ideas were further explored by STEC as a part of our special exhibit.