One should work against global warming and avoid extinction from it, even if it is non-anthropogenic

First, I would like to make sure that anyone who might accept this debate realizes that an underlying premise of this topic is that global warming exists and will cause human extinction if left unaltered. You have to subscribe to some very close form of this premise if you want to debate. You can define what your version/interpretation of this premise is in the next post. Therefore use the next post for this task as well as acceptance of the debate, and then immediately begin discussing. I will begin my argument right now as well, however I want to reserve the right to abort the debate without penalty from the voters if I disagree strongly with any of the aforementioned interpretations/definitions you put forth during your acceptance. However, I think it's unlikely to come to this, and I will have a high tolerance for disagreement on this issue and will incorporate any sub-threshold disagreements into the argument. Not to try to presume where the core of this discussion will prove to be, I want to say that I wrote this topic because I wanted to debate someone who might have a more fatalist philosophy on life/ethics than me……….. Global warming is a contentious issue, especially in America it seems. For example, there is debate as to whether or not it is even happening, what the causes are if it is happening, what the effects will be, whether it is caused by man, and what the solutions are. This debate presumes that it is happening, that it would eventually cause extinction of the human species if left unaltered, that it has a solution, and (for the sake of argument) that it is NOT man-made. I propose that humans (individually and collectively) should try to alter this process by whatever means they rationally decide are likely to succeed in achieving the goal of survival of "the species" (while simultaneously not making living worse than dieing). Here are some premises I will build on to defend this proposition: 1.The natural world is all that exists. Humans have been part of the natural world. 2.No one (human) chooses to be born. 3.One may choose to die. 4.One may not choose to never die. 5.We have been born and are alive and we are now self-aware of premises 1 - 5. 6.These beginning and end boundaries of our personal life are the only things that are certain to us. Everything else that happens in between is either a choice or random circumstance. And the choices are open to much debate within ourselves and with others. 7.The details of the beginning and end of the natural world are unknown to us presently. 8.We seem to be able to choose to do something called inquiry or “science,” that tells us about how the natural world works. 9.Science has determined that global warming is happening and will eventually result in the extinction of humans. I think these premises are self-evident (or in the case of #9, an assumption of the debate). I wanted to put them out there as my own anyway, in case anyone has a very dodgy philosophy. I wouldn’t want to fall victim to some weird supernatural cop-out. But I also wanted to put them out there in order to lay a foundation of what is known TO ME, before I go venturing into what is either a working-theory (life philosophy) for me or else a mystery to me. By the way, all of the good philosophies have originally come from a guess at a mystery, and then are defended until they fail. Forgive me if the next bit sounds personal, but ponderings on mysteries tend to get this way. I just want to start at the beginning of the question. It seems to me that everything that happens chronologically after premise 5 (other than death) regarding human affairs and existence is very uncertain and open to either pure inquiry (reasoning) or experimental science. And I’ve tried both and they both make very slow and insufficient progress. With that said, I am in an existential black hole from day to day (as I think most people really are whether they realize it or not; but this is neither here nor there). We are all ignorant of the ultimate knowledge of the true purpose of life (barring a supernatural explanation). I am a scientist and I try to ignore the ill effects of thinking about this existential black hole by doing experiments that seem to tell me something about how things work – where things have been and where they seem to be going. The process of natural science is therefore both 1.) a good way to be too busy and thus avoid the ill-effects pondering one’s insignificance and 2.) a good way to work toward actually defining the extent of one’s significance. I think that global warming related policy in America is the most pressing real-world issue that promotes the nihilistic outlook I tend to have. So it is probably confusing as to why I framed the debate with this topic while hoping to talk about fatalism vs. volition; with the intent of arguing AGAINST fatalism. So let me put out my argument now and then I’ll await a response. ::Begin argument:: (given the above premises 1 – 9) 1.Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect. 2.The greenhouse effect is caused by atmospheric gases that we can alter. 3.If we alter these gases, and slow or reverse global warming, humanity will survive AND thrive longer (in every sense, i.e. economically, intellectually, etc). 4.If we survive and thrive longer, we have more time to do science and discover whether or not our efforts were predestined (by a physical/deterministic mechanism) or were somehow free-willed (as they at least appear to have been to us as we were doing them). 5.If they were free-willed, we will be glad that we made lifestyle choices that bettered humanity. If they were not free willed, then we could not have done otherwise anyway (ie. denied global warming and lived it up, or accepted death, or ANY other choices that are different than what I’ve suggested). ::End argument:: As you can see, it’s a sort of Pascal’s wager style argument – except with an issue more interesting than the existence of supernatural justice. It allows us to discuss many things related to points 1 – 5.