Lovelock and Love Lost?

There is an interesting interview with the also aging James Lovelock (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange) author of the Gaia hypothesis. This essentially viewed the Earth as being a 'super-organism' that was essentially self-regulating. He accurately predicted, in 1965, that the environment would be the main problem by the year 2000. Although (after being initially unfashionable) currently regarded as an environmental guru, Lovelock believes that extreme weather will inevitably become the norm and predicts that around 80% of the world's population will be wiped out by 2100. He essentially believes that it is too late (he feels we are past the tipping point) to do anything about these events (we should have started in 1965). Lovelock takes a dim view of carbon offsetting ("a joke"), ethical consumption ("a scam"), green lifestyle ("ostentatious grand gestures"), recycling ("almost certainly a waste of time and energy") and wind turbines (a "waste of time"). As one might expect, the inventor of the CFC detector (important in relation to the impact of these chemicals on the ozone layer) is markedly more enthusiastic about nuclear power (to the horror of some 'greens') as well as technological development in general (although he does not believe that this can prevent his 'Armageddon' of 2100). Lovelock's basic message is that one should "enjoy life while you can" (a bit like the late 1930's leading up to the 2nd World war). He regards the predicted 'mass kill' as being only the latest 'disaster' involving our species and a means of "separating the wheat from the chaff" (implying somewhat dubiously that the 'best' will survive). He is, however, 88 and that might be good enough for him. I wonder whether it can be good enough for the next generation who will not want to feel that they have absolutely no control over events (a bit like going back to medieval times?).