The Debate On Fossil Vs Electric Is Useless

This post continues some ideas I have presented in this post.

Compared to what we don’t know, what we know is nothing at all. Therefore, it is pointless to debate over things known. On the cosmic scale of things, all human knowledge is close to 0. We can spend our time much more productively if we venture into the unknown.

By labeling fossil fuels as bad, we blind ourselves to what lies ahead in that line of thought. I can tell natural gas is not bad for the environment. What else is there? Have we already seen all kinds of fossil fuels? Do we already know all that can be done with fossil fuels? Do we know all there is to be known about fossil fuels? Do we already know all kinds of fossil fuel-based engines? How can then we turn a blind eye to fossil fuels just because we don't like gasoline?

Similarly, when we categorically think of electricity based engines, we box ourselves into a battery. Is battery the only way to harness electricity? Then, some criticize this line of thought because some elements required to make batteries are dangerous. Chances are there are hundreds of uninvented battery technologies that humans are ignoring because they are busy debating things known.

How about we get out of both boxes? Engines don't have to be either fossil-based or electricity-based. There may be many other kinds of engines that can be brought to the known world if we at least get out of the boxes of fossil and electricity. Instead of thinking of then as the only boxes, we must see them as two of many other boxes.

In the unknown lies thousands of uncovered ideas, uninvented machines, and untapped resources. As I have suggested previously, what we don’t know is almost infinitely more than what we know. The realm of the unknown is far richer and more colorful than that of the known. We must try new things and explore new ideas instead of debating like cavemen who are unwilling to get out to the cave.