Every now and then a rational human being shows up here and pisses in the GL's Wheaties. Doc, the only problem with your post is that it makes sense. Any monkey that's read an economics book understands how and why mass-production works. The problem here is that economic common sense isn't typically applied to "green" policy.

The technology issue is no different. You point out, accurately of course, that the technology to do this on any kind of sustainable scale just doesn't exist. If this were Star Trek, replicators would be found in every kitchen and company break room in America. Unfortunately, we're not living in 24th-Century Earth yet. Much of what these guys preach is based on what they think "should be," not what is. These are the people that think that I'm killing the galaxy by not driving a hybrid, regardless of the fact that the technology is still too expensive for many of us that need larger-than-a-Prius vehicles. But, of course, they won't let reality get in the way of their dreams.

Your last paragraph is something that I've been spitting nails over for years. I'm sick of people looking at my chicken wing or fillet mignon and drawing a moral equivalent to Ted Bundy. Al Bundy, maybe... Seriously though, there's a reason the term "omnivore" was created. What one must understand about some of these people is that their definitions are not what you'd find in the Webster's Dictionary. They define language as it fits their situation. In this case, "addiction" is anything you do that they don't like. We're "addicted" to oil, "addicted" to meat, "addicted" to plastic, "addicted" to religion...whatever the topic of the day happens to be. If you like it and they don't, you're addicted to it, because they know better than you what is good and bad.

I'm sure it's not too hard to see where I fall politically, but hopefully the environmental Marxists reading this will understand that there is a rationale behind what I'm saying.