[JetezLeLogin]

In some sense any technology is adopted or ignored based on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof. If we're about encouraging people to move to less-harmful technologies, making them genuinely better and irresistible seems like the avenue most likely to actually work. Making a quasi-moral issue out of it, unfortunately doesn't seem to work because we're not necessarily moral creatures, and what you get instead is a lot of sanctimony, insincere virtue signaling, hypocrisy, not to mention outright resistance. (Edit: Also see: "religions" LOL) Meanwhile an argument about the urgency of future self-preservation doesn't work either, because of that word "future" - we suck at looking ahead. Making & using tools, that's what we're good at. Evaluating tools based on what benefits they give me right now, that's what we're good at. Although we are good at disseminating, absorbing and believing in ideas too, so that's the bright spot in terms of some kind of widespread voluntary change. But on my more pessimistic days when I don't believe an abstract concept can change consciousness that much, I figure the transition to better technologies is going to have to be based on their own advantages - like your friend's electric powerplant on the boat.