re: #306 thedopefishlives

As Obdicut just pointed out, the answer would be neither. Option A is unacceptable due to the cost, as you obviously intended it to be. Option B simply does not fill the basic requirements. It is equally unacceptable because it will not do what I need it to do, no matter how environmentally friendly it is. These are the kinds of voids that we need to start filling if we want environmentally sustainable options to become competitive and even popular.

So what you’re saying is, you wouldn’t try to find a way to live within the limitations of green technology, even if that would avoid the devastation of 90% of the world’s population.

I happen to believe that option A is “more unacceptable” than option B, but maybe there’s a need to drive a truck more than 20 miles that outweighs the lives of 6.5 billion people?