We're losing so much of our planet's biota, and at such a catastrophic pace (eg 58% decline in vertebrate abundance since 1970), that it's hard to know where to concentrate resources. This is an ongoing debate amongst ecologists. There's a fundamental quandary: the problem is planetary, a specieswise response is known to be inadequate, but it's the only one on offer.

The answer is to allow evolution to do its job and produce species capable of dealing with human dominance of the planet, while at the same time doing our best to transition to sustainable energy sources.

Science fiction is an entertainment, not an answer.

As for answers: answers to what? Topsoil loss (about 50 harvests left and counting)? Freshwater disappearance? Billions of sea-level-rise refugees with the inevitable resulting regional wars?

Unlimited so-called 'economic growth' has always been imaginary (it's not 'growth' in anything; it's entropy transfer as we shift from from complex and sustainable systems evolved over millennia to crude early-stage technological systems). It is not so glorious a work of the imagination it is worth destroying our real physical living home for.

The answer is quite simple really. Move offworld! :)

Physically, metaphorically, or biologically.

Evolution (mostly) works too slowly to keep up with human technological change.

That's not how evolution works at all. Evolution is not about mutations and genetic changes, it's about who is the fittest for their current environment. It can happen, very, very fast, like when new species are introduced in an environment. This can be observed in Australia with several species that were imported with human interactions. That counts as Evolution as well.

I think you're wrong, the theory of evolution has been suffering under the oversimplification that is 'survival of the fittest', that also led to e.g. Social Darwinism, which is dangerous and completely bogus.

Evolution Darwin already knew (and even more so we nowadays know) is a complex mechanism, that includes favoritism of certain traits of species over others, which steers a species' fitness for the environment, and several factors play various roles, e.g. epi-genetics.

Aren't you distorting the concept ? if no axolotl is fit to survive in the current wild, then that's it, no more axolotl. Evolution is not only filtering but also adapting, and it takes reproduction to do whatever (be it gene shuffling or else) to improve fitness.

The answer is acceptance.

Bacteria.. Insects... Rodents.

All of us dead.

Presumably they don't want to wreck the ecosystem of other species. I mean you can't exactly order up an empty habitat on Amazon, though I'm sure Alexa is now working furiously on the concept in case any of the Axiolotls have money.