The larger the human population becomes, the harder it is to feel represented/heard. Prior mechanisms (first past the post/politics) become useless and/or counterproductive. Newer forms of representation threaten more complexity. Thus, older generations become disenfranchised when their old ways are forced to change. People prefer/trust the simple over the complex.

But isn't there a simple answer to the question of how to respond to climate change, in addition to many complex ones? The simple answer is to eliminate combustion of hydrocarbon materials. In my view what to do is not in question, but how the desirable result is achieved. I think the complexity of the means to that end has been exaggerated. A simple small alteration in the relation of product-surplus distribution to voluntary labor, namely of mutual independence, could conceivably do the trick, since production levels could then be determined by labor itself, precluding grounds for non-allocated surplus, thereby reducing resource needs commensurate with appreciable credibility of renewables-transition processes.

When I read about a professor of philosophy from MIT, I snicker a little. Sure, I know there are 'philosophies' of math; physics; science and so on. And, I suppose these are all legitimate. However, considering where we are, on a fictitious scale of survivability, they are no more efficacious than any other philosophic genre. Our continuing worry over climate and depletion of resources is clear and convincing evidence, seems to me. Philosophy is too busy identifying new fields of study, many of those hopelessly cross-disciplinary, too take active interest in solving older problems....(more,later).