Would have loved for this to work, but there might be a few problems.
1. Some people might pass the test and sell it to others who didn't.
2. I'm not sure how education helps here. Everyone who takes heroin/cocaine knows how bad it is. I think people actually think it's much worse than it is.
After taking a "health" class in high school, my friends and I said "wow, I thought drugs are much worse". For example, they showed a recording of a lady taking MDMA and enjoying it in her room. From what I was taught before that, I assumed she must die or commit suicide immediately or must start craving another dose a day later. Same thing with marijuana.
"It's bad, but we can't tell you why except some potential side effects that may or may not occur"
It has to be a threat to life. Otherwise, no fungi that had potential for such energy consumption would have been selected for.
Same with fish or birds. With fish, the ones that can live in a slightly lower O2 environment will be selected for and survive better than the ones who can't. Those that can't would die off because they won't be able to compete as well.
My point is we should stop worrying about the "environment", because what we really mean is for our great grandchildren to have the same environment as us.
I'm not sure if I'll have children. If I do, I'm not sure whether I'd want them to live in the same environment. I'm perfectly content living in a city where there are no animals for example.
Ultimately, if some other people on another continent decide to reproduce like crazy, it would kill all our current efforts with environment preservation and we won't be able to do anything about it.
So not only is it likely that it's impossible to stop these changes, but I wouldn't care if we stop them at all. To me it seems that the only reason anyone can possibly care about these things is geopolitics.
Not sure why you're tired of it since I haven't heard this argument used much.
Regardless, when I say Earth, I mean the rock and likely ecosystems that currently exist and might develop on it. I think these things cannot be easily separated that's why Earth is used.
I posted the clip because it's a lighthearted argument about the reasons we're pursuing environmentalism.
I think a lot of current hysteria it is driven by petroleum politics and geopolitics. Otherwise, both parties in US government would have been pro-environmentalism. Try to think of why someone might have a different position given that they understand the science.
Finally, regarding humans surviving. What is the ultimate number of humans that should exist on earth? How much environmental damage or "change" is allowed to sustain these humans or for "progress" to occur? How many children should humans be allowed to have? Who gets to decide these things?
Should humans be allowed to develop new industries at the expense of the environment?
Some people think that it's best to live in tribes and forego all technology. Some are content living with current tech advancement and keeping population at about what it is now. Others think humans should spread to as many planets as possible.
Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some species might die off but you might get more new species as well. Some new fish perhaps that is good at living in lower oxygen concentration. Also, the fish that lived in the tropics can move to subtropics and so on.
I see it as more of a change that's not really bad or good. As Joe Carlin once said, the Earth will be fine.