We should be talking about present problems more, and climate change relatively less. Here is the reason:
Randall Collins, in "Sociology of Philosophies" (p 38+) describes intellectual conversations as analogous to a wide plain dotted with people shouting for attention.
He goes on to describe how to get attention, and how there will always be only 3-6 effective shouters, due to the limitations of human attention. He calls the plain the "attention space." Current cognitive science supports this view of divided human attention.
Below the fold I describe a plan to increase effectiveness of shouting for attention, and thereby minimizing human death and pain by more efficient use of the media, including DailyKos, for progressive causes.
Progressives have much on their plate. Hundreds of organizations appeal to us to change the world. This leads us to confusion about which to support with our time and efforts and money. But there is a common plea in all these appeals: they wish us to help them reduce human suffering.
What we need is a way to measure suffering, and then we could decide how to contribute. Physical pain, mental pain, and lifespan seem universals to me.
I'm stuck at that point. The engineer in me says that this is the point where we brainstorm for solutions. That's where you come in. Help me decide. Here are examples of the kind of problem we have to solve:
Trillions spent on current problems would automatically strengthen worldwide society in ways that would ameliorate the effects of climate change.
Should we concentrate on disparity of income, since rich people are parasites on poor people?
Should we work to make corporations either non-persons or moral persons and reduce their bad effects on legislatures by keeping them from buying legislators through election bribes (donations)?
Would supporting the United Nations peacekeeping operations would reduce the arms trade, and free up effort for pollution reduction, since one of the main arguments against nuclear energy is proliferation, and nuclear is much less polluting than hydrocarbons?
Paranoia is very paralyzing and inefficient. If we diverted our paranoid defense money into pressuring China to build nuclear energy plants instead of coal-burning powerplant, wouldn't that greatly reduce both immediate and longterm pollution, and the deaths and harm that result from it?
Clearly, some of these depend on others. Can we simplify our appeals, and settle on maybe six key issues from which the others flow?