LN which doesn't exist yet and will arrive far too late to help with scaling when blocks are (nearer to) averaging 1MB.
The 1MB is proving a magnet for spammers as every day the average block size creeps up and makes their job easier. A lot of people have vested interest in seeing Bitcoin crippled. We should not provide them an ever-widening attack vector.
BTC blocks are always going to tend towards full because demand is infinite and supply is not. Get used to it.
The Lightening Network will exist in due course. Meanwhile, the Litecoin Network is entirely capable of absorbing excess transactions should BTC be pushed over capacity (whatever that means...where is JR when we need him to jump up and down demanding 'overcapacity' be rigidly defined in objective metrics?).
Don't fear spammers; they provide incentives to optimize.
Stop fretting about people desiring to see Bitcoin crippled; their attacks should be welcomed because antifragile systems grow stronger when, and only when, presented with adversity.
That min fee at 0.0005 is 14 cents, and most users consider this to be way too high, especially if BTC goes back to $1000 and this becomes 50 cents. I kicked off a poll about tx fees and 55% of users don't want to pay more than 1 cent, 80% of users think 5 cents or less is enough of a fee.
Stop the presses, the Free Shit Army wants moar free shit! So what?
It costs much more than 14 cents worth of electricity/equipment/labor to process a BTC tx. The block reward has done its job, and it's time to start the process of weaning the ecosystem (IE economy) off such giant subsidies by making each BTC tx do more to earn its keep.
So, in 2010 Satoshi was forward looking, when the 1MB was several orders of magnitude larger than block sizes.. Yet today we are no longer forward-looking or care about peak volumes, and get ready to fiddle while Rome burns.

If you could
calm down and stop exaggerating, that would be great.