So it looks like a solution on the forefront but it's really just a patch up, since the earth has been leeched off to the bottom of the bottle. — Shamshir

That's my take on it. We have a bumpy ride ahead.

I'll just forget all about it and enjoy the moment.

I put my faith in "Mother Nature" who has ways of resolving difficult problems for species. We probably won't like her solutions, and some among our esteemed selves will be subject to her judgements. — Bitter Crank

So is this an agenda to do nothing?

I am if the opinion that there is little we can do but if there is a consensus amongst scientists that it is a massive issue then what has philosophy got to offer?

I may not be explaining myself properly but is philosophy just a talking shop with nothing to offer?

Obviously, if you want to develop further. — Shamshir

This is the nub of my questions. How do we develop?

We have already wiped out the majority of large fauna from the planet.

What is the way forward? I'm intrigued to what philosophy has to offer.

Individual freedom seems to be no longer fit for purpose. Again, I could be wrong and open to suggestions. I'm new at this .

It's a temporary solution like reducing the flow of blood to stall venom. — Shamshir

I've worked out how to quote!!

Why is it temporary? With 6 billion people and, I assume but could be wrong, a limit on how much we can consume to keep the planet balanced then what is the alternative.

I'll take democracy, the voice of the people; and free markets, the voice of people spending their own money on things that give them value.


This was why I said just carry on and see what happens because I cannot see how the status quo can combat the issue.

That is assuming that there is such a thing as man made climate change.

I'm sceptical of the environmental lobby. I'm unsure if the dire warnings are justified. But there doesn't seem any mechanism put forward to counter the possible consequences of climate change.
Or is it just carry on as we are and if it happens it happens.

think now it's a question of whether you want to die trying to reduce the catastrophe or die making it worse

That doesn't make a blind but if difference to the issue. So if I may as well make it slightly worse and enjoy it. I don't see any moral imperative to change if there are people using way more resources than me. Hence, the rationing question.