>> ^Psychologic:
Computers are not evil, but they are damn effective. I see a period of great social unrest ahead, because I cannot think of a transition to a society where most human workers are no longer needed as a smooth one. Not every job can be replaced, but I guarantee that at least 50% of the current jobs will be replaceable within 40 years (at the latest). We may not choose to replace them, but we will have the ability, and I cannot see anything resembling our current economic models working in that world.

Jeremy Rifkin's "The End of Work" is build around this very point. Interestingly enough though, Marx already elaborated on this in "Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy" (1858).

This essence was this: continious increase of productivity through increased mechanisation leads to a scientification of production, which removes the human worker from the process of production, leaving him as a supervisor or regulator. This leads to an increase of wealth, though wealth is not defined as the accumulation of consumer goods, but the amount of "disposable time".

Also known as the 20/80 society as mentioned in Martin/Schumann "The Global Trap: Civilization and the Assault on Democracy and Prosperity". 20% of the working age population will be enough to run the show while the other 80% will have to be entertained.

Most folks will certainly disagree on the assumptions it's based upon and the conclusions it draws, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

>> ^oileanach
The power source is a serious issue I agree. I can't stand it when people suggest that electricity (or similarly hydrogen) is a SOURCE of energy - it's just a means of transmission. Now in a place like France where they have more nuclear power than they can use (especially at night) charging batteries would be a good alternative to burning fossil fuels.

>> ^Kagenin
Quote from his comments:
Here in Southern California (power company: SCE), when I charge this bike, about 50% of the electricity comes from natural gas, 20% from Nuclear, 15% renewable (Geothermal, Wind, etc), and only 9% comes from coal

Nuclear energy and gas/coal are unsustainable/inefficient/old-fashioned/dangerous (esp. nuclear)/centralised (elitist) sources of energy, e.g. read this article by Jeremy Rifkin
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm
Conclusion of the article is that there are a lot better options available: "Instead, we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. And we should establish a hydrogen storage infrastructure to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of power for our electricity needs and for transportation."

Also note:
"By feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain, "you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent"

and read
Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef"
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Beef-Cattle-Culture-Plume/dp/0452269520