Clean up on rock 3?

I don't think this topic needs an introduction because it is by now one of the most discussed and important issues (even if you don't believe in it, debunking it is an issue). However, this post concerns itself with the "what are we supposed to do about it", so it assumes global warming exists (whether it is caused by man or not, it is still a problem if we get flooded).

I call as my aides in this problem...who else, the sociologists! Now while it can easily be argued that these terms and ideas can coincide with other disciplines, sociology has the largest scope. Now that that's justified, on to the future!

By that I mean, the multiple possibilities of the future. The sociologists have identified the five most likely outcomes to issues as large as these.
1) Status quo: things go on as they have, trends are maintained ad infinitum with little change (think conservatism)
2) Authoritarian Control: Mankind decides it can't act on this unless the effort is completely controlled and coordinated(usually by government), basically we don't trust ourselves, so we give up freedom to potentially save our lives...much like the Bush Administration did...
3)Disaster: In short, think "2012" or "The day after tomorrow"...Disaster strikes and we can do little or nothing to stop it. We might survive, but will be forever affected and have to live through the aftermath.
4)Hyper-expansionist: Technology becomes our savior, our panacea. Earth goes on fire? Build to live under oceans. Earth no good anymore? Move to the other end of the galaxy. The girl you like doesn't like you back? Build a better one who will play WoW and do anything you want. I put that quip in there because this one is often the most criticized by those in favor of changing the patrist characteristics of society (feminists, for most people) or changing our ways in general. Because there is no fundamental change in our behavior in this eventuality. We just reach some kind of technological advancement quickly (possibly a technological singularity).

So after all those wacky scenarios (yes, the first one is wacky, the universe tends towards change), what could #5 possibly be? (Sociologists drumroll). It is called sane/human/ecological. Sane. Human. Ecological. Not insane. Not dehumanizing. Not going to cause an environmental crisis. This is the world where we call nature a bitch and then run lovingly into her arms to form a symbiotic bond. Sado-masochistic? Yes, a bit. But this is where I bring in my secret weapon: the anthropologist! The anty-whatta? (you say if you don't know). Anthropologists, basically, study human beings, from their origins to today using pretty much anything they can study to get a picture of our species within space and time. Sound vast? It's meant to be. The fact is, that most species, and even us for most of our existence, were pretty much part of our environment and had everything we needed most of the time (think the Garden of Eden). We were connected to it, lived off it and only took as much as we needed (I tried to find Elton John for this part to sing "The Circle of Life", but all I could get was that ruddy anthropologist). This all sounds pretty nice. But what changed? Population growth and...environmental changes, which led to our food sources migrating and dying off. Agriculture. Ranked societies. Industry. Today. (6 words for 10 000 years, not bad huh).

So there's five scenarios. There could be more, but those are the ones that are the most likely. If you were to ask a bunch of physicists instead, you might get "a quasar kills us all". This is again, just food for thought. One last thing: I'm not particularly religious, but I would encourage anyone reading to go through the beginning of Genesis with the transition from foraging to agriculture as well as the whole patrist society concept of the last post in mind. You might find some interesting things.