There is a legal term "Mens Rea" or in English, "Guilty Mind". This is a general principle in law that the court must prove that whatever you did was done with intent or at least with a degree of criminal negligence (e.g., no-one intends to have a car crash by driving negligently). I don't know if Brand or Brown's actions qualify as felony but deliberate destruction of someone else's property fits the bill of Mens Rea. There is however the issue of provocation. Everyone has their own thresholds and I suspect if I was subject to the same chronic provocation that some public figures receive I would be sorely tempted to grab the implement of torment and shove it into a part of the tormentors anatomy where the sun don't shine. Fortunately I'm not a public figure (and I don't have much sympathy for Russel Brand)...

Another example of "Moral Hazard" in action? i.e., when we believe we are insulated against a risk we, change our behaviour with respect to that risk. e.g., there is no question that wearing a seatbelt lowers the risk of injury if you are involved in a crash. There is however reasonable evidence that the safety advantage is wholly or partially negated because drivers compensate by taking more risks (http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE%20seatbelts.pdf). Does making more fuel efficient engines a) Cause motor industry to compensate by making higher power vehicles? b) Cause drivers to drive less efficiently because they believe motor is more fuel efficient?

Are we evolving our genes - Or just complimenting them with memes? Who knows Professor Hawkins, Perhaps you should ask Professor Dawkins.

The power density of the fuel supply is only part of the equation.

Gasoline fuels the internal combustion engine which has an efficiency of about 20% whereas the battery fuels an electric motor which has an efficiency of about 90%. This changes the maths somewhat