Cherenkov

You covered so many ideas and positions that it would be impossible to stay up,so just let me return to one of your sentences which essentially says it all...
"Here is a thought experiment, think of a world without the car. Ahhhhhh. See? So pleasant, so calm."

That is potentially true (although lack of cars in no way ASSURES a pleasant, calm world).  But, of course, it also posits another set of problems.  Two of my three living sisters live hundreds of miles from me.  So a world without some type of transport would mean that I would probably never see them again.  Of course, we could say, well, we will use trains.  I have nothing against that, but of course, trains are not "So pleasent, so calm" either....they are large, consume metal, consume labor to build, consume fuel of some kind...and will in the end result in consumption of at least some resources.

Your other interesting sentence, "Yeah, I can see why it is so important to separate morality from our little technical projects. Wouldn't want to have to think about consequences or some such wooly-headed idea."

Some may feel that way, but that was decidedly NOT what I was saying in any way.  But giving up technology is a moral choice with real consequences.  Just tonight, I spen 5 hours laying on my back in an emergency room with serious blood pressure issues.  Without the technology to try to cope with this problem, I would for all practical purposes be gone from this world, and "peak oil" or "carbon release" would not trouble me.

Before this century, life really was "brutish and short".  Suffering was MUCH more commonplace in all locations in the world, and options were few, except for the very wealthy.  Saying that we should STOP technical development is indeed a very, very cruel blow to inflict on somebody else (and most folks who say it still have cars, TV's, computers (including access to TOD! :-), air conditioned homes, and central heating.  It is easier to say we should stop technology, as long as someone else has to give it up  (I have spoken before about the elitism implied in many of the "no fossil fuel, no carbon, no tech" arguments.  It is, to say the least, extremely disturbing)

If you say to me, "All scientific indications are that carbon release should be reduced by X, and that fossil fuel should be reduced by X to achieve this, unless non carbon release energy can be used, indicating a possibility to X reduction in fossil fuel....", then we are simply arguing about the value of X...this is a technical discussion, and it DOES take in the moral discussion (i.e., that humans and the environment will suffer if we exceed X), and does not simply dismiss the suffering of humans.

On the other hand, if someone says, "I demanb 0% percent carbon release, and I don't care who has to suffer to achieve it!", that would be a moral position and could be seen as no more moral than "release the carbon, I want to drive!"

W.H. Auden once said that the measure of any culture, (and he meant all the way back before the oil age) was, "Variety achieved with Unity retained."

Such it will be with the post fossil fuel era, and the future.  It is human nature not to accept less that the most that can be sustainably achieved.  The argument, and it is at THE VERY HEART of decisions being made RIGHT NOW, is what can be sustainably achieved?  

So, there are those who can point and laugh all they wish.  As long as they are still driving, using electricity, and on TOD, it will be assumed that they mean for "some one else", the proverbial "they" to give up any hope at variety of life so they can continue to live the way they please.  It will be seen as elitism.....so just stay out of the street while pointing and laughing or there is a risk of being run over!

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout