My problem with e-bikes is that they will not last 20-30 years. Common for normal bikes. The battery pack lasts 5 to 6 years and comes with only a 2-year guarantee. The longer lifespan is only possible with good care. What happens with all these dead battery packs? I also observe a boom in cycling up mountains (I live in the Bavarian Alps). As a hiker, I get pushed off the paths regularly. I also encounter more and more people on the 100-km/hour roads with their e-bikes. These people would not dream of using a normal bike on these roads. So, I have quite a different view when it comes to e-bikes!
I can absolutely understand your problems with e-bikes. However, while regular bikes can theoretically last 30 years, nobody I know who actively uses a bike for everyday mobility has one that is 20 years or older - so while they might in theory last that long, usually they get replaced by a newer bike after about 10-15 years. Just like most cars get replaced by a newer one before they are completely broken down.
The batteries can last longer or shorter, that also depends on the use they are getting, and the care they are getting. I can't say how long their lifetimes actually are these days, but for the car batteries for e-cars, the makers stated a shorter lifetime than actually happened, to be on the safe side. Dead battery packs will hopefully get recycled to re-use the materials. (Yes, this is by far not done as fully as one should hope.)
Finally - I'm sorry that you have to cope with idiots in the Alps. E-bikes should not be a facilitator to be rude and endanger other traffic participants - neither hikers nor others. Whether electrified or not, mountainbikers should not push hikers off a path. Also, intensive mountainbike use can be hard on nature, and I'm not a fan of that. I am, however, one of the people who do use a bike on the 100-km-hour roads. A normal bike, I might add; sometimes there is just no other choice if you want to get from A to B. One can be of mixed opinions on that, and depending on the road it can feel quite unsafe, but nobody complains about a Mofa going there with its 30 km/h, and an e-bike is not necessarily much slower...
Something often overlooked is that without an "all or nothing" approach it's incredibly dangerous being a lone cyclist surrounded by blind drivers (1/8 licence holders in the UK don't meet the sight requirements). Cycle lanes here also have a spectacular tendancy to end around tricky road features, funneling cyclists into the path of cars, to the surprise of both. Better public transport and cycling infrastructure would remove many of the 1/8 from car driving while also making cycling a better option for others (including the 1/8). There will always be situations where motorised transport is better, but when the geography and infrastructure support it, there's a lot to be said for "adult tricycles".
I interpret "but some people can't" or "what about heavy transport" as a defensive reflex. Like "I have considered it and there might even be a way to make it work, well, sometimes, but maybe not and I haven't yet gotten around to actually trying because, life"; or something.
Because that's what I do if something that is objectively the correct thing to do seems like the Chinese Wall of unmanagable inconvenience right now.
Yes, it definitely sounds like a defensive reflex! What puzzles me, though, is that apparently it's not possible to say "well, it does not work for me in my current situation", but that the whole thing has to be condemned as absolutely the worst idea ever, and completely unsuitable for any situation.
Also... I totally get the Chinese Wall of Unmanageable Inconvenience issue. That's a very fitting way to describe it