I suppose there will be some comments on this post. Some of those will center on mankind's obligations, based upon his/her consciousness of being. Inasmuch as I treat our existence as a fluke of evolution, rather than divine interventionism, I find any pontifications about the wrongness vs. rightness of "wrecking the earth" moot. I have written some things about this---but no one is listening----much, or yet. Pontifications can go either way, it seems.
Here is my own synopsis of the wrecking of the earth, in 500 words or less:
1. We will wreck the earth (for a time, anyway), because we can. Consciousness is our advantage, and our probable doom.
2. Carrying forward #1 a bit, our human consciousness, with all its advantages, carries particular disadvantages, among those denial, rationalization (are they the same, essentially?), arrogance and vanity. We seem to believe we can DO anything; FIX anything---some seers in faith have called these things vain imaginings. I agree, although not for the same reason(s).
3. The things that live on earth are but a fraction of those that have ever lived here. Mankind's centuries(?) are numbered, for the above-enumerated reasons and more. This is why science is searching for a way out; a place to go; and some way to get there. Scientists are realists and smarter than most of us---if anything can preserve the human species, science will do so.I'm not counting on it, though. I won't be here. And you won't either.
Dinosaurs had no say in their demise. We have all kinds of say, but it won't matter a flip. Chris Hitchens has died. I am sorry for that. Everything changes. Except human vanity-and rationalization...

PHILOSOPHERS IN A DEMOCRACY
Ken the optimist sees in the trials and tribulations of the present (and the future), the opportunity for philosophers to play an active role in solving the problems because of our unique thinking abilities and rationality and openness to other points of view. John makes a few off-handed remarks criticizing the abilities of a democracy to solve its own problems. Every time the guest philosopher was asked about this, she avoided the question.
Democracy, and even the quasi- or ultra- democracy we have in the USA, will never ask for the help of philosophers; the principle of democracy being that wisdom resides in the majority opinion, with certain limited protections designated worthy by the majority allowed for minorities. And critics of democracy see its nature as a subterfuge to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority so as to manipulate them, and let the ruling group get away with its agenda.
Philosophers are interested in points of view different from their own, as a way of testing and improving themselves, and to get closer to their elusive goals of truth and justice and morality, etc. Members of democracies will not tolerate such people in leadership or advisory positions.
Sorry to tell you folks, Communism is the only state system where a philosopher might be consulted on state issues and policies, because only in that system is expertise solicited and it can become policy. Communism is about the state planning the path of progress, for the benefit of the society as a whole. To this end, the planning needs to be rational and thought out. These are the domains of the philosopher.

Is it wrong to wreck the earth? Should this be seen as a moral issue? I don't think so. It's not that climate change is not an important problem. It came out of that climate summit in Copenhagen a couple years ago that if the earth warmed up by, I believe it was 1 1/2 degrees centigrade, half a billion people in Africa would be displaced. That's "billion" with a "b". Now, who needs half a billion suicide bombers? So it's hard to think of a much more important question than climate change. Shouldn't it be made a moral precept, then? If that's not important enough, what would be? Maybe it's not in the Ten Commandments, but that's because global warming was not an issue in those pre-scientific days.
Moral precepts tend not to allow for exceptions. Maybe that's because they are distillations from many years of trial and error. "Thou shalt not steal", for instance, does not allow for any exceptions. But if you needed a loaf of bread to feed your family, you would probably be willing to make an exception, just for once. Now, climate change is not a simple issue. But making this into a moral issue would be a simplification, almost a compromise. To take one facet of this issue, saving energy, it's often said that we should all save energy - wasting energy puts more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that contributes to global warming. But I have my doubts about this; it sounds like oil company propaganda to me. The more time we spend saving energy rather than transitioning to better forms of it, the more the oil supply will keep dwindling, the more the price will go up, and the more profits the oil companies will make. If we relied only on clean, renewable sources, then Europe and China and everyone else could waste just as much energy as we do, and everybody would be happy. The only limiting factor would be how much you felt like paying for it. Now, opinions can differ on things like this; the point is that the issue is too complicated to raise it to the moral level.
I suspect that making something a moral precept tends to be a way of saying you just won't listen to any counter-arguments. But practical problems like this are full of twists, turns and surprises. Science and technology bring up so many new facts, questions and possibilities that trying to reduce a problem like this to a taboo just wouldn't work.

Dear John and Ken,
You know you guys annoy me. You say you "question everything" but you don't. You guys always take capitalism for granted. Even though you might describe yourselves as leaning left, you take capitalism for granted as a good thing. I could go back to several shows I have listened to, including this one, and this would be the case. Find some radicals and Marxists to interview.