That would be logical, but if you really look to current trends neither Europe, China or the USA are really willing to prevent that. They just want to do enough so they can say look we did something. Every big economy already lacks behind the Paris Agreement. Neither are 90% of the people willing to pay for it or even have a windturbine within 10 miles of their home. Only scientists and environmentalist want to stop these trends and are willing to sacrifice income for it.

It's hard to tell how morals would have evolved without any form of religion or superstition (since they've been present for millions of years, maybe even before humans were a seperate species). However, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't have any morals at all. Humans are a social species, and just like wolves or chimps or any other species that live in a group, we learned by evolution that we need to work together and that we can't just kill eachother for instance. Of course, wolves would still kill eachother in a fight, but so do humans - no matter how religious. Actually, we got a lot more civil and humane when we took a step away from religion in the 17th-18th century.
Another example: due to rationalism and trust in science, the Greeks moved away from their traditional religion, which helped in establishing democracy. There were even philosophers who were against slavery (since rationality showed that all people are equal), while no religious person even thought of that (since they were no able to improve the random morals of their religion, due to its dogmatic nature).

Realistically speaking it's our growth in consumption that will outstrip our growth in population and that's the bigger issue IMO since people want higher standards of living ... 

@Topic 

Science has yet to reach it's greatest power of them all, beyond the creation of biological or nuclear weapons but rather the manipulation of cosmos while religion is no more than a social construct ... 

Science is near absolute power and religion is just a bunch of platitudes ... 

-Apathy is death. 

-Apathy is death.

-Apathy is death.

-Apathy is death.

-*droid noises*

I think you're considering two very different things in the same way which is a mistake.

Religion is ignorance and so whatever actions are made in the name of it are always the result of ignorance regardless of the action being good or bad. You can decide you don't want to kill anyone cause you believe there is a hell and you will go there if you kill people so in this case ignorance pushes you to do good or you can decide that anyone not worshiping your God is worthless of life and so it is your duty to kill every one that does not agree with your religious views and in this case ignorance pushes you to do something bad.

Science or knowledge on the other hand is the pursue of objective truth and it does not in and of itself possess any sort of moral judgement. Scientists don't pursue knowledge in order to impose a philosophy that can be described as good or evil to anyone. They pursue knowledge because they want to know what the universe is all about, why we are here and their wish is to be able to understand the universe through disciplines such as mathematics, biology, astrophysics etc. The people who wish to pass judgement over others by using science are rarely if EVER scientists themselves. The guy that decides to put a bomb (created thanks to science) in order to kill people he considers bad or unworthy, well that guy is NOT a scientist and he usually does not give a damn about science itself, he ONLY uses (and abuses) the knowledge humans have obtained through science in order to pass judgement and kill people he considers to be unworthy, usually unworthy of his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

In short, religious people who kill, do so in the name of religion but I have never heard of a scientists using science to kill people who don't dedicate themselves to science, never heard a scientist say: All who don't love and pursue science must die or are unworthy of living or anything like that.

So long story short, Religion is intrinsically speaking a threat to mankind, a threat of ignorance and everything that ignorance implies whereas science intrinsically speaking is what can save mankind. Science is never a threat to humans, it's ignorance that is the threat. A wise person like Einstein while responsible for the knowledge behind nuclear weapons, certainly never would use nuclear weapons if he was in charge. The one using those weapons is either politically or religiously motivated but NEVER scientifically motivated.

And it's science's fault we have to stop it from happening in the first place. Vicious circle.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You don't understand what science is if you say stuff like that.

Science is KNOWLEDGE, anyone who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the danger of global warming will want to create solutions that do not cause said warming, that's what science is all about. Those who keep polluting cause they are making a lot of money out of it do not care or understand science, they are politically, economically or religiously motivated but NEVER scientifically motivated.

Science is the solution, ignorance, greed, religion, money are the problem.

You're confusing science with morality, reason and motivation. If you elevate science above it's problems and attribute these problems to other domains, then of course science is innocent.

Science in it's pure self IS innocent, but that's the case for religion as wel. The time for positivistic pure interpretations of science and other systems is over though. We ought to look at real world use cases and their consequences.

Our current modern world is under a lot more danger from scientific hubris then religious fanaticism. Some in the world of science think themselves as above ethics. This is dangerous.

You're the one mixing science with morality as you are trying to see morality in science. I don't elevate science above anything, science is above all those things you mention because science is knowledge, yet you are trying to describe science as if it had some kind of moral agenda which it has not.

Religion lays judgement on everything, including other religions, the very reason for religion to exist is to decide what is good and what is bad so religion CANNOT be pure or innocent, it INTRINSICALLY poses values and segregates different values.

Science is the fact of figuring out how things work, what matter and energy is, how combining different elements work etc. Science is INTRINSICALLY pure. NO ONE will kill you or force you to follow a path in the name of science, if they do, they do in the name of religion, politics, money, greed etc... But no one that is motivated by knowledge will want to force you to follow a path BECAUSE of knowledge itself.

This thread makes me realize that a lot of people don't understand what science really is, they think it has some kind of agenda like politics or religion has, when in fact it's quite the opposite. In fact the very title of this thread demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is.

You're treating science as some sort of dogmatic ideal. You're wrong as someone can be on this. It's a tool used to understand the unknown and to ultimately used to create things from our imagination. It's just a means to an end. It's not a quasi-religion that offers answers to everything and can solve everything. It depends entirely on the goal that they had in mind when they asked whatever question and tried to research into it, what comes from it. 

As human civilization and technology has advanced so has our ability to create wondrous and convenient things but on the other side of that, our ability to damage and pollute our environment has also increased.