When my daughter was a child, she liked to play a game she called "Choices." It went from, "Would you rather be an astronaut or a ballerina?" to "Would you rather be a rotten egg or a squashed potato bug?"

Things really got dumb, but her silly game is actually a part of the process of problem solving called "the scientific method." While I'm oversimplifying a lot, the scientific method has long been recognized a good way to get things done.

First, you identify the problem. Then you identify possible solutions. You analyze each of the possible solutions, carefully looking at all the pros and cons. Then you pick one to try, re-evaluating along the way.

It's not perfect. It has an element of trial and error when it comes to solutions, and it's not always possible to have the foresight to identify the best solution first time around, especially when it come to complex issues. It also doesn't include morality, a very basic part of choosing solutions that we ignore at our peril.

But when it's done correctly, including both ethics and a willingness to look outside the box at all the possible solutions, even those that may appear at first glance to be crazy or impossible, it's a method of solving problems that works.

Denial is a big stumbling block. Since the first task is to identify the problem, you have to get clear on what the problem is. And when possible solutions will create large-scale change that is likely to make people uncomfortable, they simply deny that there is a problem.

For that reason, there are still individuals who deny that global warming is a reality, though they aren't scientists. And even though at last political leaders are reluctantly admitting that maybe climate change is occurring, there is still mostly dithering about the problem with little being done to address real solutions.

In addition, those who recognize that the problem exists, and that change is inevitable, are too often looking blindly at the solutions. To end global warming we need to stop burning fossil fuels, they say, but we can come up with alternative energies to make up the slack. We won't really have to change much they console themselves. We can still hold on to our cars and out wasteful lifestyles. We can keep on making money.

Yet when we look at solutions, it's vital to look at the negative as well as the positive, and often ideas can be ruled out in this way. Here's where the precautionary principle comes in. If we don't know what the result would be, or if potential negative effects exist, we move very slowly or not at all. We look for a better solution that itself won't cause problems. We go for the one with the least potential for damage. Better yet, we look for one that is damage free.

The biggest stumbling block with global warming is that it may be too late to look for solutions. We may already be well into the middle of a vast extinction, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, this one of our own making. Many scientists think that we may well be on the cusp of a new geologic age, and I find their position compelling.

Even though the times look tough, and the need to move on this seems rushed, the only way to choose more wisely is to have the foresight to look at the consequences of possible solutions before we move ahead. It is likely that in the case of global warming the only way to stave off problems, or at least to mitigate them, is to drastically alter the way we live. Nobody wants to look at this, even though it appears to be the sanest way to deal with the problem.

As Lester Brown of Worldwatch points out in an article in the July/August Futurist: "In ways large and small, from the growing economic costs associated with climate change to the individual costs of trying to compete for resources in an increasingly resource scarce world, it is becoming ever more obvious that the Western economic model — the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy — is not viable for the planet.

"Instead, the new economy will be powered by renewable sources of energy, will have a more diverse transport system — relying more on rail, buses, and bicycles and less on cars — and will recycle materials comprehensively." (...)

Will those of us who live in the United States hold out and hold on to our cars and to all the things that are exacerbating global warming, or will we choose to change in positive ways? Here's where imagination comes in.

As we look at the possible choices facing us we need to consider not only ethics but also joy. What will give both us and future generations the best and most joyful lives? When we identify the things that we value the most, I'd say that for most of us at least, it's family, friends, and community over stuff in a heartbeat.

We can spend the rest of our days fighting tooth and nail for the last drop of oil, for unsustainable substitutes for it, for the right to keep on driving our cars no matter how much this practice damages the world around us. We can live in grasping fear and terror, clinging to our cars, and a way of life that is not sustainable.

But there are choices. We can choose to learn to share, to co-operate, to see ourselves respectfully as a small part of a universe far bigger than we are. We can cultivate awe.

We can choose to live more frugally, less wastefully. We can make music as we park our cars and plant our gardens. We can walk and get healthier.

We can choose alternatives that won't impoverish future generations. We can work for a future where we can all see the stars at night.

We can make choices that will improve our lives and take us to a livable future.

Jeanne Melchior teaches at Vincennes University Jasper Campus. She is also president of Protect Our Woods, a southern Indiana environmental advocacy group. You can contact her at melchior@psci.net