Ken and John kick off this show with their usual lively dialectic. They consider this show’s title and reason that an answer of “yes” is obvious enough. However, what exactly is meant by the question? To tease out its complexities, Ken has us imagine the dilemma of an aging father with a serious illness. Should he live comfortably for the next five years, or be thrifty so he can leave his daughter well-off after his death? The latter course of action would benice, but would the former bewrong? John points out that there is a dis-analogy here; the daughter will have a chance to be well-off regardless, but certain consequences of global warming are irreversible by future generations. Ken puts pressure on John’s stance by pointing out that the father’s dilemma concerns his existing daughter, whereas global warming affects non-existent persons in the future. How can we possibly owe an obligation to non-existent persons?

凯瑟琳·迪恩·摩尔被邀请加入讨论。她一开始就驳斥了对全球变暖现实的怀疑，她断言，数据对所有人都是可信的，除了那些不可战胜的无知人士，对其原因的质疑与我们的义务无关。接下来，约翰追问我们义务的来源是什么。凯瑟琳将子孙后代、地球、感恩、正义和道德正直(等等)列为责任的来源，但肯质疑对不存在的人或抽象概念负有道德义务的可能性。Kathleen defends her point by suggesting that wearein moral relationships with non-existent future generations because our actions harm them. John also points out that we do have obligations to abstractions like truth.

A slew of audience questions allows Kathleen, John, and Ken to continue to explore the concept of our obligation to stop global warming. Kathleen elaborates on her beliefs by saying that a solution to global warming might not be reached until humans realize that the fullness of our identity lies, not in individuality, but in the interdependent network between ourselves and our environment.

The show concludes with a consideration of practical matters. Ken asks who will have to give up what in order to remedy the problem. Each individual has a part to play, but mainly, the ideology of constant growth projected by global industries and government must be rethought. Hard intellectual work must be done to solve this problem, and not just by climate scientists.

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 6:10): Rina Palta discusses the grave implications of global warming with Philip Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University.
  
• 60-Second Philosopher(《寻求》第48章16节):伊恩·肖尔斯承认，对未来负有责任的想法让他紧张，他提到了纳粹主义、马克思主义、琼斯镇，以及沿途的狂喜。