Yes, I agree with all of the suggestions you make and commend you for offering potentially real actions and solutions, rather than simply raising issues or, even worse, simply bemoaning them.
However, (yes, there's always a but, isn't there?), although I recognise it is a small thing and perhaps excusable given the importance of the concepts & action discussed, I do find your anthropomorphic characterisation of natural events somewhat detracting from your points.
More importantly, there is a major issue to which you allude or imply but that, in my view, needs greater attention, particularly in relation to how it can possibly be achieved. The issue to which I refer is that of bringing about a change not only to people's awareness but to their predispositon to focus on the self and their immediate context & to be influenced primarily by their primary significant others and local traits and mores, let alone the demon of religion and other such belief systems.
I suggest that the milleniums of conditioning that has increasingly dumbed down societies in their recognition of the importance of the affective area of human existence, is necessarily the first and most important issue with which we need to deal. I say that for without change to how people think, which is dependent on how they have been conditioned and schooled, there is unlikely to be , ( I think, no chance of there being), sufficient mass of momentum to create the changes you suggest.
That most already accept that a handful of individuals control as much wealth as over half of the World's population and that individuals in the so-called 'developed' world are so ignorant and greedy that many will resent and rail against a disadvantaged group receiving some allowance that they don't, are just a couple of examples of the dire state of the current ability of the majority of human beings to think rationally or put aside self and consider others from the standpoint of the affective domain.
It will perhaps seem to be nit-picking but I must also challenge your closing sentence for, as much as I would like to believe the statement, I don't. My view is that what we have known and know as 'civilisation' has, in reality, forever been a structure that has taken without return, whether that be of humanity or of other species and the natural world.
In my view, there has probably never been any appreciable amount of civility in civilisation and certainly there is little or none any longer.
I apologise if this comment sounds negative for I do value all that you write and find that it always stimulates my thinking and questioning. I would not follow you otherwise. At the same time, I feel that to return your willingness to share your insights, at least in some small measure, it is only reasonable that I share my own. I make no claim that they are other than that.
