When tomorrow's historians finally set upon the 20th century with their usual rigorous gusto, they will likely see it in a light unglimpsed by us.
They may, for example, note the enormous effort we devoted to looking in the wrong direction and worrying about the wrong things. They may contrast the anxiety we felt about the possible effects of the atom bomb with our casual disregard for the actual effects of the oral contraceptive pill.
They may report that the unintended consequence of personal liberation was social implosion and conclude it was the pill, not the bomb, which posed the greater threat - certainly in the First World where unsustainably low birth rates compelled compensatory immigration, the consequent rise of Islam as a potent influence throughout Europe and, ultimately, hastened the decline of Western power and influence.
These same historians may also ponder the overweening influence of academics - especially social scientists - recording that their unbridled affection for the theories of Marx and Freud not only kept the influence of both alive in public policy long after they'd passed their use-by date but also undermined our intellectual confidence precisely when we needed it most.
Equally they may observe how the rise of the academics corresponded with collapse of the traditional Christian churches. Compromised by bloodshed and defended by the bloodless, their influence on behaviour and attitudes was, at best, residual by the century's end.
However, while the churches may have waned, the religious impulse did not, as future analysts of our troubled times will surely discern.
They'll point out that faith, like nature, abhors a vacuum and record how speedily the void was filled with new creeds such as worship of the Environment.
The perspective of distance may see them marvelling at the precision with which the clarion call "Save the planet" satisfied the same deep-seated need to worship that "Praise the Lord" once had.
But "Save the planet" won't only resonate with future historians. It's already resonating with us, as this week's great parliamentary debate about emissions and such most amply demonstrates.
We've become as agitated about our environmental sins as our medieval counterparts were about the insults their transgressions offered to God and we're flagellating ourselves as diligently as ever they did.
You don't need to be an historian to identify the link between the rise of feminism and this new religion. Only the most curmudgeonly of chauvinists would deny that environmentalism is the most obvious example of that more caring approach to life and its underpinnings which the political emancipation of women was predicted to produce.
Ironic then that just as our politicians are wrestling with the sinful issue of emissions, new evidence should emerge from the Czech Republic which shows, on an individualised, gender-specific, preferential activities basis, that women may be making a disproportionate contribution to climate change.
Its impossible here to report all the findings - which have, of course, been suppressed by the mainstream media - but let's consider a few salient snippets.
The fact that European women do 72.4 per cent of the cooking and 78.63 per cent of the washing up afterwards probably demonstrates traditional roles but the carbon consequences are nevertheless noteworthy.
As is vehicle use. What the Czechs show is that a combination of extended life expectancy and tasks like taking children to school or visiting the supermarket mean women are responsible for 61.077 per cent of all emission-intensive, stop-start, round-town travel miles recorded.
But it's discretionary areas like grooming and hygiene where the carbon gap becomes genuinely worrisome. Apparently, the average European woman showers an alarming 2.795 times more frequently than her male equivalent. She also remains in the shower 4.21 minutes longer with the water at a higher temperature.
It's estimated that such habits results in the annual burning of 41.6 million tonnes of fossil fuels that would otherwise not be needed. Then there's the "garment gap," which is massive. It turns out, for every garment the average Herr has in his wardrobe, there's a equivalent 5.19 in hers.
And if the eco-impact of this is palpable, the consequences of the multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry are even greater. It's estimated (in Europe) that a breath-taking 79.3 per cent of all unguents, creams, lotions, sprays, defoliants, hair lip and eye enhancers are purchased by women.
It's the enviro-adversity of manufacturing those items - including waste (an estimated 356 million tonnes of discarded packaging per annum) - which should be agitating our legislators.
Especially since the cumulative effect of these and other inputs means the AAFWFCF (Average Aggregated First World Female Carbon Footprint) is either 1.7 or 1.9 times greater than its male equivalent, depending on variations in computer modelling.
If this Czech research can be corroborated, then any feminist worth his salt should be very alarmed. And every parliamentary feminist should be focusing more on changing female behaviour than this daft and costly business of trading emissions.
It would be ironic indeed to find some future historian concluding that we missed our best chance to "Save the planet" by failing to insist that women behave less like themselves and more like unwashed and smelly, ill-clothed and grubby old blokes!!!