Not economically feasible? More like restricted access for exploration. I believe in testimony before Congress yesterday, the subject might have been breached.

Again, the "finite supply" argument from the 70's fails the sniff test. Like 30+ years ago, advancements in technology aren't even considered from that perspective, and it's a glaring omission.

I prefer the intelligent approach of redesigning life only when the benefit exceeds the cost. To expect the civilized world to abandon their internal combustion engines in exchange for less efficient, more expensive technologies -- in addition to sacrificing their freedom to get from point A to point B on their own terms -- is utopian.

Again, cars aren't luxuries, they're necessities.

Such points of view aren't grounded in reality because they imply a regression of civilization and individual freedoms rather than advancement. The far majority of people will refuse to advocate such proposals based solely on their personal cost-benefit analysis.