Not the same. Food production and distribution isn't increased like it is with oil. Same goes for medical. Al the people that would die every year from lack of transportation to a hospital or lack of medical supplies or even food harvested with machines. Lots more people dying means less people born means a much lower population over like 5 generations or so.

The question is loaded. We could live with a completely different energy use distribution ... and eventually will, but for now oil has been shoved down our throats as the only option.

Many vehicles for years have operated on compressed natural gas (CNG). The switch from oil to CNG could occur practically overnight if needed. The money the oil companies give congress will made sure that doesn't happen as, for the moment, oil gives greater profits.

The US government could simply switch from oil to CNG all across the nation. The infrastructure which preexists could be easily installed in every city to supply the government vehicles and then expanded as private vehicles jumped on the bandwagon.

Using natural gas for the generation of electricity is ineffecient. The switch to nukes could be made within ten years.

Coal could be used for syngas and/or chemical stocks to replace the oil used there.

We have large supplies of natural gas and coal. Even a small switch from oil would rid us of the need to import it from the middle East... and so goes the entanglements.

Eventually, most vehicles will be electric powered off the grid. Transportation is the single greatest use for oil.

For anyone to say it is OK to kill for oil in the 21st Century leaves me wondering if we have progressed as a species......

If you had children and they had no food and you had no way to pay for it would you kill for it or let them starve to death?