There, I fixed that for you.

I just need to say that a fuel efficient vehicle doesn't have to be a small vehicle. Science can solve that problem. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgence of big cars as we switch over to electric vehicles. After all, a bigger car means more room for batteries. Its only during these awkward transition periods, when the technology is still immature, that we have this bizarre need to sacrifice what we want to achieve what we must. Frankly I look forward to driving around an electric monster truck sans the expense or stigma that I would have to endure now.

You know, providing tools for the management of communities would probably do a lot of good. Vertically integrate it with individuals' accounts for extra credit. They certainly are developing a broad base of expertise. I doubt that they'd want to actually administer the communities themselves, but I could totally see them providing a comprehensive tool suite that makes running a "Don't be evil" government relatively cheap and easy.

Personally, I think it would be nice if somebody with really keen ideas disrupted the governance status quo.

In my experience, "Net Neutrality," like many things, is not a universally defined concept; it means different things to different people. Although proponents share many of the same convictions, they often differ in subtle but important ways. I'll take a stab at defining In an attempt to enrich the discussion,

On one end of the Net Neutrality spectrum, proponents argue that the internet should be a strictly egalitarian community of peers. They argue that all traffic, regardless of source, destination, or protocol should be treated with equal priority. The argument is that a fair and level playing field is most conducive to competition since start-ups can compete on equal terms with incumbents. Similarly, a pay-for-preference system stifles competition because it favors big money over the small guy. They argue that service providers should be regulated such that they cannot manage the network to show preference to customers or protocols.

On the other end of the Net Neutrality spectrum, proponents share many of the same convictions, but are willing to give service providers license to manage the network in a limited way. While this group would still rail against concepts like "Tiered Service," or "Preferred Providers" they would accept customer-agnostic quality of service. For example, giving VoIP traffic precedence over FTP or HTTP would be acceptable as long as -all- VoIP traffic was treated the same, regardless of who's traffic it was. The whole level playing field concept still holds true for these people, and they don't believe in the pay-for-preference model. The argument is that, while selling preference to one company over another is bad, not all -types- of traffic are the same, and it's O.K. to discriminate by protocol to ensure quality of service.

There are of course a million different opinions along the curve that is the Network Neutrality movement, but these are two arguments I've seen oft championed

I don't agree with all your points, but I did want to compliment you on a civil discourse and a reasoned argument. Well done, sir.

With respect to energy availability in the long-term:
I'd argue that there is a very long way to go before we're constrained by theoretical energy limits and efficiency becomes the chief concern. See the Kardashev Scale.
It's during the transitional periods when practical technology limits the ability to utilize theoretical energy sources that a focus on conservation becomes important. I believe that we currently find ourselves at the beginning of one of these transitional periods. Policy should keep a forward-looking mentality and treat conservation as simply an unfortunate necessity while the next abundant energy source is developed and brought to market.
Lowering my quality of life due to a constrained energy supply is unacceptable. The focus should be on increasing the supply of energy in a responsible manner. Today "Responsible" means not causing irreparable damage to the environment.

With respect to wastefulness as a fundamental problem:
I don't agree that being wasteful is a fundamental problem. In many ways the ability of a person to be wasteful can be a direct indicator of his quality of life. In my mind, a person who lives well should be able to afford "wasting" energy on recreation. That's really the core of my philosophy: People should live better. That said, reckless wastefulness can say a lot about the quality of a person.