Reading through the comments, I came across this inevitable (and very, very tired) refrain:
Or you could just oh I don't know buy a bicycle. As much range as you have energy for, fits almost the same places a segway does, doesn't use gas, cheaper, and get this, is actual exercise. Something most people in the places that can afford one of these things can use more of.
While I don't totally disagree with this sentiment, I see it bandied about all the time, almost always in reference to new technologies. The people who make these arguments always do it with an air of superiority, as if they've spotted the underlying truth that no one else has noticed, because we're all too dazzled by the "new shiny". It's a modern sort of pop cynicism that bugs the shit out of me.
While this argument is, on its surface, valid, it usually doesn't hold up if you look at the larger picture. You might as well say "Why watch TV, why not read a book? Cheap, portable, doesn't require electricity or gasoline, and you actually have to engage your brain, something that most TV viewers could use more of." Again, there's a lot of truth to that, but that doesn't make it the win all argument. Television has proven itself to be a powerful medium for communication, education, and entertainment. There's a lot about TV that's not good (don't get me started on people who whine that there's "nothing good on TV"), but there's a lot of good there as well. If nothing else, television has shown people that there is a world beyond their own horizons, and that's a powerful and worthwhile thing.
Let's try another one: "Why drive a car? Horses will get you anywhere you want to go, they require only food and a bit of grooming, it just takes a bit longer to get where you're going. Plan ahead and you don't need a car." Seeing how this argument is just as valid as the ones above, are you going to get rid of your car and get a horse? Probably not.
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments were leveled against cars and TV in the early days (not to mention cell phones, DVDs, light bulbs, power tools, computers, the internet, the printing press, etc.). It wasn't valid then, and it's not valid now. In fact, if people had employed this "reasonable argument" consistently, we'd still be living in caves and hunting with really big rocks because they were "good enough". And that's only if someone was able to suggest that really big rocks would work better than wrestling food to the ground without being shouted down by the clan's resident nay-sayer.
I'm not opposed to debates or questions about the validity of any new technology (I encourage and highly enjoy them, in fact, so long as everyone's willing to debate, and not simply be "smarter" than the other guy). I'm not arguing that "progress" is always a good thing. I'm just asking that people take a moment and examine their own argument before putting down a new technology because what we already have is "good enough". Think before you bash, and don't for a moment believe that you're the smartest person in the room just because you came up with a pithy, cynical critique. Odds are, you're not, you're probably just the furthest behind the curve.
