Yet, wherever one looks, the evidence of growing crisis cannot be ignored. In terms of climate change, there seems little understanding of how close we are to a "tipping point" - and that's assuming that it hasn't already been reached - a "tipping point" that arises as the great polar ice caps melt away.
And then there are the continuing projects to destroy vast areas of natural habitat, and to replace it with commercial crops.
Depressingly, one must then add to this catalogue of impending disaster, the cavalier attitude that we humans continue to demonstrate on issues that reduce the chances of survival of species that are already threatened. By continuing to use fishing methods that predictably mean the persistent depredation of marine mammals, such as various species of dolphins, the trawler industry demonstrates how little we care about such "trivial" issues and how much priority we give to our own (supposedly more important?) short-term search for profit.
The common characteristic of these attitudes is that everything pales into insignificance when measured against the commercial exploitation of the world's natural resources and creatures. If, as I suspect is the case, the general response to this phenomenon - even from the perpetrators - is a shrug of the shoulders and the question "what else do you expect", then it shows how much we depend on government to intervene.
If, however, governments demonstrate (as our own Government seems to have done) their unwillingness to act decisively and their impotence in facing down, in the interests of the planet's survival, the business lobby, where else are we to go?
If big international corporations have enough muscle to whip governments into line (as the fossil fuel industry has seemingly done with Trump's administration in the US), what other remedy or discipline is available to ordinary citizens so as to ensure that proper responsibility for the earth's survival is recognised?
A clear answer to that question is being offered by a British lawyer. Polly Higgins has launched a campaign to create a new international crime; following the precedent of the emergence of genocide as a crime that could be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court, she proposes a new crime of "ecocide" - that is, the crime of acting in such a way as to destroy the world's ecology and natural balance.
Her proposal would make the "rapers and pillagers" criminally liable for the harm they do to the rest of us and would create a legal duty of care to protect the environment.
Her argument is that governments have demonstrated impotence in the face of the large-scale rape and pillage of our natural environment; so why not, she asks, pray in aid the provisions of international law. Why shouldn't ordinary citizens, alarmed for example by the large-scale destruction of areas of rain forest by commercial interests, be able to launch a prosecution against the perpetrators for a crime against humanity - just as they would do if they were responsible for a murderous attack on a particular group of people?
Her campaign is gathering momentum, although she herself has suffered a setback, having been diagnosed with cancer. She is confident, however, that her campaign will survive her, and will eventually succeed. She has set up a group called the Earth Protectors to carry on her work. We must hope that she is right. As a former teacher of international law, I can only applaud. Our children need some protection against the destruction of their future.
•Bryan Gould is an ex-British MP and Waikato University vice-chancellor.
