So it's just an elementary deduction: If you are opposed to unsustainable practices, then you're opposed to the electric power grid. That sounds pretty medieval to me.

It may be slightly too much to say that it is certain that Homo sapiens will become extinct in a time comparable to time that that species has existed but it is not, in my opinion, unscientific to say that the evidence is such that the odds are so strongly if favour of this happening that it should be accepted as a working hypothesis.

When this happens, bacteria, the real success story of evolution, as well as many other species will carry on as normal.

From a planetary perspective man's passing will not be of fundamental importance and from a cosmic perspective, and these religions tend to imply that their teachings have cosmic application, man's passing will be of utter insignificance.  

Peakguy is entirely correct that the mind set that so readily accepts all manner of improbable propositions in order to avoid acceptance of the oblivion facing him in a few decades is pre-conditioned to accept comforting stories that dismiss or minimise the problems threatening him and to do so in the face of all evidence to the contrary

Crocodile:

It's a religious belief because you are predicting the future with too much certainty, i.e. with a certainty requiring faith. The fact that the dinosaurs  became extinct due to a cosmic catastrophe does not prove that we are doomed to the same fate. We may be different from the dinosaurs. Only time will tell. The scientific position is agnostic: maybe we'll go extinct, maybe we won't. "Doomed" is a religious concept.

I would challenge you to point to a single animal species alive 100 million years ago that still exists in the same form today.

Alligators, army ants, cockroaches, the coelacanth, cycads, the dragonfly,the gingko, the horshoe crab, the nautilus, salamanders, the sturgeon.

Also, change and extinction are different things. If the human race survives by gradually morphing into something more mechanical (a la Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec), I wouldn't say the human race became extinct. There's a big difference between a lineage changing and perishing.

I understand your feelings. There are a lot of oblivious SUV-driving cornucopians out there with too much faith in technology. I find them irritating too. But that doesn't mean we should declare open-season on technology and the human mind. It's too extreme and hopeless to say: "We're just animals, and technology isn't going to save us."

If you ask me we can fix PO even with current technologies...

I agree with you. But then why bash technology? Even really simple technologies like city planning and blankets and bicycles could make a huge difference. So why is there this undertone that science/technology is not going to save is?

It would be nice if everybody just admitted that technology isn't the problem. Then we could talk about the merits of specific replacement technologies, like nuclear power. (Of course, then you'll get the same two sides shaking out again: the people who think sustainability is the top priority, and people who think it's not.)

I'm not really interested in how the future is going to turn out. I'm an agnostic. Maybe we'll colonize the moon, or maybe we'll revert to the stone age and then go extinct. Both alternatives are possible.

I'm mostly interested in the future I want to work for. I want to work toward a future where we have electric power and colonize the moon. I can't give you iron-clad proof that it's going to happen, but I'm working toward it anyway.