A good point, but the original bicycles actually were seen as a device that would only increase the health and mobility of the populace.

Are you really so sure that sooner or later this technology will be ubiquitous? Is this the same reality in which every single person has a flying car? The fact is that in very dense urban centers walking is and will probably remain the preferred method of travel. You can still move around and travel in a tightly packed crowd. On the other hand all the free-moving vehicles humans have thus far devised require some measure of space to operate. I think what we'll see more of are automated systems of travel, like the moving walkways you see in many airports. But even these will always remain relatively expensive compared to a concrete sidewalk.

I'm not so sure that's the point either. That might have been the original (if not necessarily well conceived) idea. As it stands now the point behind organic food is mark up what are essentially inferior food stuffs. I know it makes most people feel like they are doing a good deed by paying twice as much for organics, but in truth the issue is a lot more complex. You could make the case that certain types of farming which is deemed organic might locally be "better for the environment". If we assume that the types of farming deemed organic were ubiquitous, we have quite a different story on our hands.

What's perhaps more interesting about organics is how it captivates people's hearts. Indeed, many people who are otherwise skeptical tend to employ some degree of the appeal to nature fallacy.

Why do people always assume that scientists ignore ethics when conducting their research? If you exclude the extremely vocal nutjobs, most debate about the ethics of science comes from the practitioners. It's rare that ethics are never considered. Granted, there have been some botches in the past, but outside forces should never be the regulators of science. (Look at how the US dropped the ball on stem cell research).