The point of Lightning is that transactions don't go on the blockchain until they need to be settled - payment channels could be open for months or years without being settled if there's no need to access the underlying currency. If everyone uses Lightning Network for the vast, vast majority of transactions (and there's no reason not to), the only times most people would ever have to put something on the blockchain is when the entity on the other end of their payment channel disappears, or they have more currency than they've ever had before.
The issue, if anything, is exactly the opposite - that there'll be little incentive to mine without enough transactions on the chain, and the security of the network will come crashing down.
Lightning Network also provides for decentralised, trustless currency exchanges - so the inflexibility of one blockchain will finally not matter much. You could pay someone in bitcoin and the other person could receive litecoin as easily as you can do similar things with a credit card today.
You haven't addressed my comment you are just blabbering. In order to open and close lightening channels on chain transactions are required. Heck in order to protect yourself from fraud in the lightening model you need to be able to do on chain transactions.
Nothing you said addresses the concern that the people pushing lightening network the hardest are religiously opposed to raising the block size which will make it impossible to deploy lightening on a world wide scale because there won't be enough on chain transaction space to open up these lightening channels.
I'd have to have opened a grand total of one channel over the past four years, personally - I have a suspicion that most people do not regularly gain more income than they've ever had before, as they spend it at a broadly similar rate as they gain it.
In addition to this, as I said, the fact that Lightning Network is a protocol that allows cross-blockchain transactions between any two chains supporting Lightning Network means that if, as you say, Bitcoin has severe problems, everyone will just jump ship to another currency, as there will be far fewer switching costs.
Lightning network design is akin to tacking a vacuum tube communication system onto the outside of a defunct slow steam locomotive rail system.
It's nonsensical, because you might as well just design an entirely new protocol and token network (which is essnetialy what the lightning network is, and there's no reason to tie it to an existing cryptocoin ledger unless you're trying to improve the antiquated design which coincidently you have coin units in).
The issue is that Lightning Network depends on the ability to settle transactions in a double-spend-resistant cryptocurrency in order to work at all - the fraud resistance scheme depends on it, otherwise there is no way to prove that (a) money hasn't been created out of thin air and (b) two parties with a payment channel between them agree on the state of their money.
If you can successfully build a Lightning Network like system without a blockchain, please do.
The issue, if anything, is exactly the opposite - that there'll be little incentive to mine without enough transactions on the chain, and the security of the network will come crashing down.
Lightning Network also provides for decentralised, trustless currency exchanges - so the inflexibility of one blockchain will finally not matter much. You could pay someone in bitcoin and the other person could receive litecoin as easily as you can do similar things with a credit card today.