It’s like a collective psychological disturbance. There’s nothing new there except the scale of it. Maybe this is the result of globalisation and technology. I think it will pass, though. But there will be damage to ideas of who and what we are. Too much of society will have been disrupted and too much of that passed on to the following generations as rational thought. My issue over critical thinking in schools is only one aspect of that. There are more if we’re prepared to look. I’d hoped this OP might contribute but it just tends to prove my point.

Capital is largely responsible (it's the key) CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. Why? The reason is that capitalism is, by its nature, based on exploitation of resources, growth, expansion, and profitability. — Bitter Crank

Are there places that do not have a capitalistic society that have in the past or are currently behaving in a manner that similarly seeks to exploit resources for the sake of growth and profit? By what means do you think the sharp turn around that you suggest is required be achieved? What system other than capitalism would work?

Glad it was helpful. :)

I don’t know if there’s reason to be discouraged, who’s to know what will come out of these things? Teaching is tricky in that we can do only so much to equip these kiddos for a quickly changing world. The technology is very scary as it results in such a focus on immediacy and ironically is a constant distraction from the here and now.

No - capitalism never solves problems except incidentally, surely? It exists to make money NOW, not to worry whether the planet is here tomorrow.

Without climate change we would never have evolved as a species. From the oxygen producing bacteria to a meteorite crashing into the surface of the earth. Our intelligence will secure our survival as a species.

If we have the sense to create robots that carry forward enough of our characteristics to count, perhaps, but they better get on with it. Asbestos robots, I suppose.

I would talk about lack of balance in ecosystem and push dialogue toward asking what will really work at convincing leaders they have to do more to put in balance and also show them exactly what is meant by this by being better role models required for problem than they. We shame them.

I think expecting 7 billion people to live on this planet ( with 2 billion more to come) and live sustainable in balance with the rest of the ecology might be a bridge too far.

It doesn't really matter, why should our species continue to survive in the future and why should we believe that our planet will survive the future ? This planet has went through worse problems than global warming and those who are not the fittest will be erased from the face of the earth. If we really want to save our human race ( prove that we are fit mentally ) and many other species, we can start cooperating and instead of just signing treaties and then pissing on all of them later on, we need to start electing leaders that take the global warming problem seriously.
But that's just too much expectation and just too unrealistic, l can't control the pessimist in me.

I think as a matter of course philosophers should be skeptical of anyone saying they can predict that far into the future with any accuracy, especially if these predictions are used to justify drastic changes.

From a nihilistic perspective, it's hard to care too much. I am pretty sure humans won't be around 200 years from now anyway. We should do what we can to make ourselves feel better about it but if it ultimately causes future generations problems or not won't matter to me after I'm dead.

Also, I believe it is real but it seems like a relatively manageable disaster going forward.

I think as a matter of course philosophers should be skeptical of anyone saying they can predict that far into the future with any accuracy, especially if these predictions are used to justify drastic changes. — NOS4A2

I think the predictions are a way of imposing order in a chaotic world. It really is an existential moment on a grand scale.

I’ve said this before, that climate change, our response, is like some sort of Jungian archetype, a great shadow that overwhelms us, an unconscious response to the fears of the modern world, the meaninglessness we’re confronted with.

I think the situation we’re in is about doubts about how we’ve come to conceive of the modern world, what we thought it should be, a theoretical idea of a better world. We know somethings wrong but we don’t know what it is, or we do know and don’t know how to deal with it.

We embraced the idea of the global village, but it turns out that in facing climate change the culture differences do matter. China has no interest in what New Zealand thinks, it has no intention of pulling back on its growth or its geopolitical intentions.

We valued our cultural identity, our independence, but we’re told by global institutions that we must change who we are.

We don’t know who our friends are anymore, we know what’s right and wrong but it doesn’t seem to add up anymore.

We’re not sure anymore who we are except what we’re told we have to be; some sort of global mass of humanity to respond as one to directives from far away.

In a way, I suppose, we’re being compelled to look into the abyss, not by climate change, that’s only a symptom, and so we’re going to try and turn away from doing it. It’s a lot easier to talk about the climate change shadow, something ahead of us, still not real, than to look into the abyss. It’s a sort of transference of fear.