Counterpunch isn't a loser blog. Big names like Chomsky and Edward Said post there.
Humans are too stupid, and don't care about this kind of stuff. I have a friend working for a research company called Cariri. They go around explaining to the island governments the escalating problem of ocean acidification. Every island responds with a "don't worry, we will deal with that when it gets worse."
This is the same argument George Fitzhugh put forth to defend slavery. It's also the argument used to defend everything from bank bailouts to sweatshops to feudalism and monarchy.
The argument, a kind of social blackmail, goes such: the masses rely upon INSERT PERSON HERE to keep the economy going and provide money and/or food. If you get rid of INSERT PERSON HERE, there will be no jobs, no order and everyone will be worse off. So put up with the way things are.
Historian David Graeber calls this the Love Your Sweatshop Argument: Bangladeshi kids in sweatshops should be thankful that Apple is paying them pennies for their labour. Afterall, without Apple, they'd be broke.
The argument always relies upon a false binary: you're always presented with two wrong options. Due to human dumbassery, this tends to work.
You seem to be arguing that "people don't care about these things" because they are "too busy looking for food, sex and satisfying other basic needs".
Kim, however, is warning that the first layer of Maslow's hierarchhy - the eco-system (which provides food, water, air, absorbs waste etc) - is being destroyed by systems which commodify these resources for short-sighted profit. In otherwords, what is currently satisfying your needs, providing you with life, sustaining you, is unsustainable and will harm (is harming) millions, the planet, future generations and the species.
Kim is arguing for foresight, long-term planning and caring for the future and others. Your comment about Maslow alludes to the opposite: individualism, satiating short term desires etc.
