We only really have a choice between sensible guidelines that address sustainability, and senseless guidelines that dismiss the obvious. We only really have a choice between protecting our kids' food and water, and consuming it all. We only really have a choice between addressing a clear and present danger, and the shortsighted stupidity of ignoring it.
The forests that produce our oxygen are in turn dependent on animal species that are sustained by them, and pay it back in various ways, such as by dispersing seeds. The vast interdependence of life is a bedrock principle of biology, from bees to buffalo to banyan trees. As glaciers melt and sea levels rise, our fellow species and we will sink or swim together.
I don't appreciate the whole free will thing, but I am stuck with it. If you want to play let's make a deal, I'm ready any time. The future's on the menu, and I can really cook. So dinner is at my place, and I'll save you a seat at the table. As for saving anything else -- well, I guess that all depends upon your appetite.
When the beverage industry, for instance, helpfully points out that no long-term, randomized trial has specifically implicated their sugary concoction in epidemic childhood obesity, we might consider that no such trial has ever implicated any given snowflake in an avalanche fatality, either. Perhaps avalanches are actually innocuous.
We already have evidence of declining levels of empathy in the population at large, with frequent recourse to technological interfaces rather than direct eye contact one of the reasons invoked. The doctor-patient relationship has degraded too much already in my opinion. I would hate to see it technologized out of existence.