I agree with Thomas that it would be nice if we could identify multiple forms of government that can handle these ecological issues -- it would be much better to be able to make comparative assessments of those forms of governments and their capacities and legitimacies than to contemplate, say, the prospect that no existing form of government may be able to handle these crises or that no combination of current governments may be able to work effectively together to tackle them in concert. But does our ability to assess the impact, if any, of those crises no the legitimacy of our government depends on knowing that "another, non-democratic form of government" has the capacity and realistic prospects to address those issues? On the one hand, knowledge of that sort could cause us to create a comparative assessment on which the urgency and significance of those crises makes that non-democratic form of government preferable to our own. Whether or not that sort of comparison could also motivate an...

The eventual demise of humanity seems inevitable, so that mereprospect doesn't seem noteworthy. That our activities cause some damageto other things also seems inevitable. Surely,however, we are responsible for enviornmental damage that we cause. Even if some damange is unavoidable, we can--and should--find ways tominimize this damage here on earth or wherever else we find ourselves. Preparingfor emigration off-world seems a hasty response to me, but not becausewe are likely to destroy celestial bodies. Rather, Hawking's conclusonsthat there is nothing we can do to avoid an environmental catostrophehere on earth seems hasty and counter-productive: we don't have thetechnological and financial resources to move the population to anotherworld, but do have the means to reduce the damage that we are doing tothis planet. Therefore, I would think we would be wise to focus onthat. There are many interesting philosophical questions here.For example, when assessing the environmental damage that we...