Ok, so let's play a little mind experiment... someone invents a powered exoskeleton that is lightweight enough to be unobtrusive, and powerful enough to make a difference in terms of how far you can walk or run in a day (this actually isn't fantasy, they exist already in various basic forms). People obviously start using them, and they start showing up on running and hiking forums talking about the gear. How do you think this would be received by runners, when someone says "well it's still running, if I don't move my body then I don't go anywhere - it's just an assist". Some runners start asking whether or not this really belongs in the running forum, and then someone inevitably pops up with sob stories about how they had some medical ailment or other and this contraption allowed them to keep running with their kids or club buddies. And so the naysayers are effectively silenced by the "have some empathy" card, so nobody feels that they can say anything, for fear of being labeled an insensitive jerk. And the machines get better and better, and people have to put less and less effort in, and eventually you have people who are basically putting in no effort at all overtaking thru-hikers on mountains with cheerful "hey, how's it going?" as they power up the trail leaving a cloud of dust. As the first wave of "worthy purpose" early adopters gives way to the masses of people who just like to do stuff without putting a lot of effort in. Runners who don't choose to "assist" are left in the dust of history by the "enhanced" humans who are evidently "the future" of running. Why not do it? I mean, you can't argue with someone who had a heart attack and can't run any more and just wants to still participate with their buddies in their weekly run. Who can argue with that? Who can argue with letting people who can't run by themselves get out there and run? Who can argue with letting a totally disabled person participate in the "running experience", even though this means that the "assist" is now effectively doing ALL the work? Who can argue with this same technology then being adopted by the greater population, because who doesn't like easier? Who can argue? I mean, you can't have anyone being excluded, that would be mean.
I guess if you think that would all be just fine, then e-assist bikes are fine too. Because this is where we're going. What we have here, basically, are arguments based on "have some empathy, you total jerk" and "I have had a heart attack and this lets me still cycle". I am being called a dick head and a jerk for suggesting that one of the fundamental distinctions of "cycling" is "not using a motor". Oh well.
Technology is reaching a point where we have to start having these discussions, about what "enhanced" means exactly. In the past, we had no choice, really - cycling was cycling, and motorcycling was so obviously different that there was really no problem distinguishing the two. But now we have this new thing that really starts to blur the lines. It's not really a bicycle, but it doesn't really seem like a motorcycle either... it's going to cause more headaches as it gets better down the line, trust me. The question for the community is going to be, where do we draw the lines in terms of definitions? People who say it doesn't matter are ignoring the fact that we came together here in this forum under certain assumptions about what "bicycle touring" means. I'm sure people would have rallied and rejected anyone who started coming here to discuss motorcycle touring. So there is definitely a certain assumption being made by everybody in this group that some aspect unifies us - the reason why we are here at all as a "group". I always thought that one of those unifying aspects was that bicycle touring is a fundamentally self-powered activity. You do all the work yourself. I thought that was just so self-evident and obvious that it didn't even need to be explicitly stated, but now here we are with a disruptive technology that is making us look at what we do, and questioning what it means. It's going to be interesting to see where this goes. I'm sure that as the technology improves to the point where it is adopted by the lazy masses, and not just by the guy who had the heart attack or the guy with a congenital disability, then people will start to question. There will start to be splinter groups who are more militantly "retro". It will happen eventually, inevitably, people will start to say "Hang on, this isn't really cycling any more". Yes, right now you have to put in 70% of the effort, but it'll be like boiling the frog - the motors will get better (they are already at a point where they would look like science fiction to anyone from the 1970's). Soon you'll only have to put in 20% of the effort. Then 10%. Then the pedals will still be there, but only as a totally optional activity. The batteries will get better. As they get better, more people will use them, and the early, obvious "it's a disability, have some empathy" cases will be replaced by the overweight and lazy people who just can't be bothered (and that's human). And then the fun will really begin.
This is an interesting process, we are hashing it out and trying to figure out what it means to be a "bicycle tourist". I hope we can all stay polite and try to keep a broad vision and perspective. I regard myself as a fairly empathic person, but I am not ruled by "think of the children" type arguments, sorry. Step back a bit and see where this is inevitably going, and see if it's a place where you want to be. I guess either way we can't stop it, but it can't hurt to try to hash it out in the meantime. Good luck to us all.
Neil