Treating the Symptom but Not the Root?

The BBC website posted this article today, "'Climate-proof' crop hunt begins".

The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".

However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?