do we deserve to survive?

the more one looks at the world, the more disenfranchised one gets with the state of human rationality. we pride ourselves on being the only sentient beings on this planet, but at even a cursory glance, that belief is quickly evaporated in the face of human behaviour.
what would a rational species do in a situation such as ours right now?
well, as things stand right now, our survival as a whole is at stake, from more than one perspective.
leaving all moral discussion about human behaviour aside, the current decisions being made and the current practice in very substantial matters are very far from rational.
to stick to the two most pressing issues, global climate change and the threat of nuclear war, human behaviour past and present has shown quite clearly that we are not at all sentient to the extent we would like to believe.
a sentient being would regard the opinions of specialists on said matters highly and would act accordingly. but if one looks at public opinion on either matter, it is clear, that human emotionalism is far more powerful than human rationality.
scientists in both areas have more than often warned us about the current state of affairs. global warming is not only a real threat, it is a nasty type of threat. it is fairly unnatural for a human to act on something not immediately visible. though the entire scientific community has been preaching in unison the dangers of enviromental irresponsability, the public reacts far more violently to populism and business-run propaganda based on base fears and the dislike of smarter-than-thou opinions. the massive counter-information campaign in this matter is so disturbingly effective, it begs the question, what are we do-gooders really trying to save?
humanity in our hopelessly optimistic mind is a noble species, capable of great achievements in science, morals and other areas we can all agree are the highest ideals we can strive towards.
if we are realistically to succeed in our endeavour of saving ourselves, we must allow one shameful conclusion. we cannot do so without stooping to our enemies' level of manipulation. and alas, fighting fire with fire in this instance has also proven to be a sisyphus project.
the rational few, who hold little real power over information dont stand a chance against the massive media-juggernaut we face.
humans dont only lie themselves into a false sense of security though, we also choose to simply ignore pressing issues, though the origin of this behaviour is the same as the aforementioned.
one can rant and rave as long as one wants to about the dangers of nuclear war, but as long as our rulers and their most powerful enforcers (mass-media) are against the idea of dismantling nuclear arsenals worldwide, we will never see the dawn of a wmd-free world.
motivations are as plain as the nose on your face. what bully would voluntarily and without force cease to terrorise his peers? power is the most terrible drug known to man. none can resist it and none would ever give it up willingly.
back we go to rationality and its impotence in the face of a violent and power-loving species.
our tactics always make one fatal mistake. we assume that we can abide by the collectively established peaceful means we as a fictitiously rational species claim to strive towards, and achieve a massive change in attitudes and behaviour. in the climate of total domination of our lives by a select few, this is a lost battle from the get-go.
we have every possible systemic disadvantage imaginable. should we use our knowledge, empirical proof and logical arguments to attempt to pursuade, we are battered by emotionally laden rhetoric. should we dare suggest direct action, we are quite literally battered by the other pillar of our rulers enforcing-machinery, the executive arm of government. should we suggest indirect action, the only successful tool we really have at our disposal, our army (the general public, the holders of all real power in any society) is faced with existence-threatening measures (loss of work, alienation, ridicule etc.).
we face a losing battle, my friends. we are left with a simple decision to make. keep up the good fight (good as in neccessary, not as a moral judgement. we agreed to leave that aside), or admit defeat.
the fundamental success of the powerful few lies in a simple truth. a powerful being is only as powerful as he believes himself to be. and after decades of propaganda, distraction and mind-numbing advertising, the human we wish to really exist, himself doesnt know he (potentially) exists.
we cry about waking up said human, but do we really want to? the human we wish to see arise from its slumber is a mental ideal. it doesnt exist. should we awaken the bohemoth it will be a directionless one, leaving a vaccuum of control at the top, which in our utopia we, the rational ones, would wish to fill. the problem is, this model produces the same world we are struggling to dismantle right now. power is a drug, and no human, even a sentient one, is immune.