That article by Michael Crichton uses incredibly fuzzy logic. I especially like where he shows pictures of horibbly starviung children and uses the totally bogus strawman argument:

"What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now?"

Uh, Michael, because if we keep poisoning the world a large part of it might be wiped out, that's why. As if the two are mutually exclusive! It's like people who say "why are we wasting all this money on saving whales when people are suffering". The answer is simple. There are all sorts of good things we can do in the world. The fact that cancer exists doesn't mean we can't also search for a cure for headaches.

Now IF we were spending billions on worrying about the future without giving any care to the present, his argument might hold water. Or if he wants to argue that we are prioritizing our funds incorrectly (which he is), that argument can hold water. But as it is his entire article if weak.