How to talk to people about human health, happiness and security (or what some people call "the environment")

I'm in the business of trying to get people to see that we could be happier, healthier and more secure with some adjustments to how we run our country and our lives. How we live our lives affects how we run our country. How we run our country affects how we live our lives. This is why I believe that both personal and collective action, both lifestyle changes and the advocacy for regulatory change, are important to the activist.

I guess that's what I am now, kind of. I used to be a writer. I'm still a writer, but I seem to have become an activist.

Anyway, what I'm an activist for is promoting human health, happiness and security, especially as affected by the resources we suck up and the pollutants we pump out. This is a fancy way of saying I'm an environmental activist, except that by saying human health, happiness and security, I'm framing it terms that a wider audience cares about.

In part, for my thinking in this area, I have the authors and thinkers Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger to thank. If you care about, ahem, environmentalism and/or politics and/or promoting any sort of social message to the public, you should read their book Breakthrough: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. If you don't have the time or the attention span, you can read an article about them and their book in Wired.

If you don't even have the time or the attention span for that, then I've boiled down one of their central messages to one tiny sentence: Instead of trying to convince people that your issue is important to them, you should be trying to convince them that their issue is important to you. In other words, if the public supports you, you will give them something of concern to them in return.

So, for example, let's say you have a wonderful vision of how, 20 years from now the waterways around your major city could be swimable--free of poop and toxins. Part of what you need to do for that is keep storm water out of the sewers and to do that you need more trees on the street to absorb the water before it gets to the sewers.

Now how do you get the local PTA to support green streets at the community board hearing? You don't try to bash them over the head by telling them how they should care about water quality. You show them studies that show that kids who have more trees on their streets are less likely to suffer from ADHD and perform better in school. If they support you, in other words, you will give them something of concern to them in return.

This is no revolution in thought. Everyone knows that you should speak in the language of your audience.

To this point Nordhaus and Shellenberger add the fact that language like "saving the planet" comes from the  environmental movement of the 1970s which was born in times when the people the United States felt very secure and able to turn their attention to higher order needs like meaning and fulfillment.

People in the US are now richer, Nordhaus and Shellenberger say, but their wealth is more provisional. The rise of contract work and the decline of lifetime careers mean that people are more concerned with the lower order needs like security. Saving the planet does not appeal to people who are busy saving themselves.

So what Nordhaus and Shellenberger say is that we should talk to the people in the language of the times which, for now, means not saving the planet but saving ourselves. Talking about green jobs, for example, is smart. And that is why, starting off this post, I don't say I'm in the business of environmentalism. I'm in the business of the health, happiness and security of human beings.

Because you know what? However you parse it, it's the same thing.

 

Comments

[Student Doctor Green]

Brilliant idea, I'm definitely going to have to check this book out. I think lots of people are already getting saturated with the "green" message but like you said putting things into a mutually beneficial context could be much more effective.

[Missy]

Thanks for your site. I've just recently discovered it, and find it a very thought-provoking read as I take baby steps toward a greener lifestyle. I look forward to reading this book and think it might help me find the words to get my family on board to help make greener choices.

[Sean]

While this kind of phrasing may appeal to a much broader audience, it is not the same thing. Part of the environmental advocacy should be about raising environmental awareness so that people will restructure their priorities and subsequently put the long term needs of the environment on even keel with their own short term needs and desires. To sell the planting of more trees by appealing to parents' concerns about childhood adhd(and where does this address the singles, the couples without kids?), does nothing to raise awareness about the real reasons you're promoting those actions in the first place. How do you initiate long term change (both politically and with respect to peoples' attitudes) if you constantly need to find new ways to package your environmental message in ways that will appeal to a narrow audience?

[Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man]

If you get the trees planted, Sean, then the trees themselves will deliver that message for you. As for the people without kids, I don't think they'll be at the hypothetical PTA meeting I was discussing. But if, for example, you were at an AARP meeting, you could talk about the studies that show that trees decrease crime. If you repeatedly show special interest groups why environmental measures are good for them, then they will begin promoting the environmental message on your behalf.

None of which is to say that there shouldn't many approaches. If you want everyone to eat ice cream, your job will be much easier if you provide a whole bunch of different flavors.
All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man

[Mark Powell]

I think you're right on target with this post, thanks. BTW, I also read Breakthrough and think there's much of value in it.

I especially like your concise statement: Instead of trying to convince people that your issue is important to them, you should be trying to convince them that their issue is important to you.

[Lab Rat]

People are like lemmings; if they see you doing something good, they will follow...if, on the other hand, you are doing something bad, like looting after a disaster, for example, the basic mentality turns into mob mentality.

Mob mentality needs to be focused on all the good things like health, happiness and security...the problem with this premise is that health, happiness and security mean wildly different things to everybody, even within the same household.

Colin, you need the audience, you need the science, you need the proof, you need the numbers, you need the credibility, and you need the charismatic personality to pull of getting the masses to think more along the environmentally-minded activists.

The only way I can see this paradyme shift beginning in this country is to hit people in their pocketbooks or begin rolling blackouts like we had here in California before the big Enron stink bomb.

People don't realize what they've got 'til it's gone.

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

I'll definitely be reading this book. I have a tendency myself to use the term "save the planet", and it often isn't very effective when talking to some conservative friends who insist the planet doesn't need saving. Thanks for the recommendation!

[Adam Kamerer - JoyChaser.com]

This idea vaguely reminds me of something a biologist friend once told me: animal rights groups will sometimes try to put a mammal on the endangered species list not because the mammal is particularly in danger, but because it shares a habitat with an insect that is. The reason being, of course, because people like cute fuzzy mammals and don't like creepy-crawly bugs.

The same principle applies here, I think. You're giving people something to rally behind by presenting the "product" you're selling in a way that appeals to them. Even if it doesn't "raise awareness about environmental concerns," getting the trees planted can be a foot in the door towards getting people to be more environmentally conscious -- once you have the trees in place, for example, suggest to the city that the rampant litter has a negative impact on the health of the trees they just spent several thousand dollars planting. People like to protect their investments.

[judith]

Thank you, thank you Colin for this post. I feel that it is one of the most important, practical pieces of information you have posted. It is about finding the ANGLE, the twist, the perspective that takes a message home or sells something to a special interest group or segment of the whole. That is what media is so good at. I took a publicity and media relations course and remember that as being huge. So you nailed it and have given us a great example of how to employ some strategy when we are frustrated. Meet people with their concerns and they are already on your side!

[Adam Brock]

I don't quite agree with everything Nordahus and Shellenberger have to say - they seem to be uncomfortably quick to bash their peers - but I'm really glad they're around, shaking up the discourse. Which is why we at NYU have invited them to be the keynote speakers at our Focus the Nation community forum on January 31st.

[Flick]

There is something sad and pathetic about letting critics of environmentalism redefine and limit the scope of the environmental agenda to saleable feel good messages. Green idea marketing seems as fundamentally manipulative and dishonest as all other marketing.
The ecological devastation occuring now has its roots in the realm of human activities and overpopulation, but the importance of its effects extend far beyond things that currently interest many humans, though in the long term (or perhaps not so long) will prove to have huge impacts on our species and our cultures' health and viability.
The idea that we humans are the end all and be all of creation is a core source of the ignorance, arrogance, and destruction toward our ecosystems that characterize most actions of our dominant cultures. Encouraging people to always think of human interests first just encourages these patterns of selfishness, greed, and short term thinking. As we can extend our compassion to other humans, none of whom are quite like ourselves, why is it such a stretch to extend beyond that to include all life forms? They are as worthy of respect in their own right as any humans. If you can see the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life then you have a basis from which to work effectively on root causes of environmental problems, as opposed to trying to close the earth's gaping wounds with technofix bandaids.
While I think that reaching out to people by finding common ground to build initial communication bridges makes good sense, throwing out the deeper message because it inconveniently and unsurprisingly doesn't resonate with most people habituated to a self-destructive consumer mentality is giving up on the only things that can make a real difference in the long haul. We need to be educating ourselves and our children to love and respect the earth and all of its creatures, respect and encourage diversity, and to pay attention to nature, looking for the interconnections and patterns so that we can understand and work with them in some semblance of harmony and effectiveness. Many cultures have done this in one form or another. It is absolutely critical that we do so. The evidence of what happens when we do not are all too apparent.
If you are embarrassed to call yourself an environmentalist how can you be fit to lead? Your affinity for marketing is truly troubling to me. You may think that adopting their methods is smart and effective but I think that it is more clever than wise, and that you run a high risk of becoming just another advertiser selling a higher grade of crap. If you could get out of the city for a few years to an area that is still somewhat intact you might see what I am talking about. Humanity is a much smaller chunk of nature in most of the world, and though we don't like to think so, living in a relatively vibrant semi-functioning eco-system can make a huge difference in who we think we are. As a refugee from the big city I know this first hand. If all we usually see is people, people seem to be the whole world, all that counts. That is a seriously distorted view and an ecologically dangerous one to act from.
The best way to talk to people about the environment is have a normal discussion, not to try selling them a bill of goods. You have done so much good just by living your life thoughtfully in a public arena and talking honestly about your experiences. Please give the marketing stuff a rest and restore my confidence in you.

[Jace]

"The idea that we humans are the end all and be all of creation is a core source of the ignorance, arrogance, and destruction toward our ecosystems that characterize most actions of our dominant cultures." - Flick

You're a human, right? So that argument is flawed on the face of it (reading it to be advocating a viewpoint in which humans are ^not^ the end-all be-all of existence). See, the only way humans wouldn't be the end all and be all of creation is if there were valuable things that exist in the absence of humanity. Not just the physical absence, but the complete, utter, total nonexistence of humans.

Obviously, that is impossible. Any argument you make for value with nonexistent humans is rendered invalid by the fact that a human is making that argument. The only reason an abstract Nature may have value is that we humans assign such value to it. Without humans? It's nothing. It may still physically exist - impossible to determine, but possible - but it will have no value, no worth beyond that. To another intelligent species, maybe, but none of us are another intelligent species. All human.

What you may be getting at is the view that ^certain aspects^ of human behavior are taken to be the end-all be-all of existence. Possible. But even taking your statement at face value, you miss completely on two of the three.

Destruction? Destruction is inevitable, for any species to exist, ever. A specie's mere existence is predicated on it out-competing and thereby killing off any number of other species that came before it. It is all a matter of degrees. Humans may be able to cause less destruction without sacrificing utility. It's certainly possible. But to advocate eliminating destruction entirely is ridiculous - not only is it misguided, it is impossible.

Arrogance? Not as such. See above - humans ^are^ the end-all be-all of existence in the most inclusive reckoning, so of course the rest of the world is inferior to the existence of humanity in this regard.

Ignorance? Possibly. But it is hard to see how you get from anthropocentrism to solipsism. It could be argued just as well that viewing 'man as the measure of all things' would lead to a greater zest for the understanding of the universe.

"Encouraging people to always think of human interests first just encourages these patterns of selfishness, greed, and short term thinking."

No, that happens because people are stupid; and because strategies can have trade-offs between short and long-term gains, as well as on different scales of consideration. If no human had an interest in the environment, do you think that anybody would be caring about the human impact on it? (A rhetorical question. By definition, they wouldn't.)

"As we can extend our compassion to other humans, none of whom are quite like ourselves, why is it such a stretch to extend beyond that to include all life forms?"

It isn't. But having compassion for another entity has nothing to do with whether or not they matter in any grander scheme. From an anecdote on Hobbes - "Because I was in pain to consider the miserable condition of the old man; and now my alms, giving him some relief, doth also ease me." (On giving coin to a beggar and being asked whether or not he would have done so had Christ not commanded it.)

"They are as worthy of respect in their own right as any humans."

In their own right, perhaps. A snail or a dolphin is certainly as worthy of respect in their own right as a human is in ^their^ own right. Of course, as humans, we cannot consider them in their own right, rather only in a human right. And in that regard, the conception of a snail or a dolphin's context of 'in their own right' is nonexistent.

"If you are embarrassed to call yourself an environmentalist how can you be fit to lead?"

Because perhaps words have meanings - cultural connotations - beyond those that you pick and choose for them? If you were to a political thinker in Germany, advocating a nation-wide program of redistributing society and economy to a community level, would you really call yourself a national socialist? By the book, it certainly means what you are trying to do. But just try doing that, and see what happens. Someone can shun the label of environmentalists because they do not want to share it with groups such as Earth First or Greenpeace, without sacrificing anything other than a quixotic disconnect with reality.

"If all we usually see is people, people seem to be the whole world, all that counts."

Well, yes, because they are. See previous points.

[Flick]

Jace, you may be wonderful at engaging in arguments, but sadly that is by no means an area where I have any background, interest, or amazing skill, so I'll leave most of the philosophical showboating to you.
That said, I think the main issue you have with what I wrote stems from having a very different value system. Our basic underlying views of what is important and how the world works are probably not enough alike to come to much agreement. All words that I could use are inadequate to the task of communicating when your intention is not to attempt understanding. Words are a clumsy substitute for the multidimensional concepts and emotions they so poorly represent, and I suppose that is doubly so because my background as a visual artist has fostered an associative way of thinking rather than a linear approach. But words are what we have here, so on a few points I will at least try to defend myself.
Valuable things did exist long before there were humans in existence. You are right that the concept of value did not exist and is a human invention, but it is an invention that describes a phenomenon that occurred countless times before humans arrived to discover and name it such. Think of an amoeba. It is simple enough. Does an ameoba value its food? As demonstrated by its actions in pursuing its food I believe in its rudimentary way it does. Whether you agree or not the point is that we humans did not pull our concepts out of thin air. They describe events and relationships that have been occurring long before we arrived on the scene. We think that because we make up the names that we invented the phenomenon, but really we are creating flat convenient abstractions to describe aspects of existence that extend way beyond anything we could fathom. Some other animals value their offspring and some don't appear to, but clearly the phenomenom our concept describes (caring, for instance) predates us.
About intelligence and intelligent life forms. Look into studies of intelligence in other primates and perhaps dolphins if you are looking for an intelligence that even you might recognize, but I see intelligence as a continuum that reaches back down at least as far as our buddy the ameoba, who might be described as hardwired by some but who never the less must decide which morsel of food to pursue if there are two morsels to choose from. There must be some simple criteria in play. You could argue that instinct and will are not intelligence, but much of what we do ourselves is more instinct and will than anything else. And what is instinct if not hardwired intelligence. And when intelligence is not hardwired it is will that gives it its semblance of intention and sets it free. The amoeba has both and yet we don't see it as intelligence. Can it learn? Certainly many creatures besides humans can learn, if that's the real issue in proving intelligence. Decisions, decisions!
Even an inanimate non-living object can learn if the right rules are applied. There is a game played against a set of cups holding pieces of paper with moves of the game written on them. The operative rule is that any move that proves to be a mistake results in removal of that slip of paper from the set of cups until eventually nothing but right moves remain. As the games continue the set of cups becomes smarter and smarter, and eventually unbeatable. This serves as a grossly simplified demonstration of one of the ways that creatures evolve as bad moves are eliminated.(and no, species do not go around killing each other off intentionally, hey sometimes they even co-evolve, making all us crazy hippies smile) In any case my contention is that any behavior or special quality you can show me in humans has its roots or functional equivalent in other creatures. Well, maybe there is one way that we are truly different from other species. We are the only species I can think of who need so desperately to set themselves apart from the other species as "Special" Could that possibly indicate a tiny bit of insecurity on the matter?
Also although Earthfirst and Greenpeace may have quixotic tendencies and sometimes tend to exotic places does this really place them in such a disconnected reality? Do they have relevance? How many fewer whales are killed these days? Who brought that to public attention and kept the pressure on until action was taken? Greenpeace (and recently the disconnected wacky government of Australia) are still keeping the pressure on Japan. Do you remember hearing about any recent open air testing of atomic bombs in the South Pacific? Didn't think so. If you get a test for plutonium and you come up low don't forget to thank a hippy terrorist from Greenpeace.
Lastly, someone can shun the label of environmentalist all day long and if the shoe doesn't fit, chuck it back in the closet. But environmentalism and particularly deep ecology go way beyond happyface greenwashing and "human health, happiness and security" because these things depend directly on the overall health of the planet and the ecosystems comprising it. We are gutting the earth for materials to pursue "human happiness" at any cost. We are turning our nation into a facist police state in pursuit of "security". In the name of "human health" we dump scads of antibiotics into the sewers and waterways and stuff the rest down the throats of domestic livestock, endangering the world with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. That's because we rarely bother to look at the bigger picture. What I'm trying to say is that the term environmentalism, while carrying some baggage, at least gives some clue as to interest, scope, and agenda, while remaining flexible enough to sweeten to taste. It is not a term that skulks and covers for a hidden agenda, and counter to those who make their dubious livings in journalism declaring things dead and everything you thought you knew is wrong (oh, not really! I just wanted to get your attention!) Environmentalism is still a noble and essential pursuit that I, for one, am proud to be associated with. I hope there are many others who still feel that way. I'll get off the soapbox here.

[Jace]

"Valuable things did exist long before there were humans in existence." - Flick

Nope. Things that are now valuable may have physically existed before humans were existence, but they only became valuable retroactively once humans arrived.

"Does an ameoba value its food?"

Yes, an amoeba might. But firstly, the very concept of 'value' is a human creation. Try describing how an amoeba 'values' its food without resorting to human constructs. Impossible. Secondly, you miss the point entirely. It may be possible for such behaviors to manifest in the non-human world. But so what if they do? They don't matter. There is no absolute value to anything save when considered in the context of humanity. An amoeba may 'value' its food - that doesn't mean anything unless that 'value' matters to human beings.

"We think that because we make up the names that we invented the phenomenon, but really we are creating flat convenient abstractions to describe aspects of existence that extend way beyond anything we could fathom."

Wrong. When the phenomenon is the names, abstract symbols and thoughts being formed, 'making up the names' is the whole enterprise. Also, your whole point about 'aspects of existence' 'way beyond anything we could fathom' is ridiculous. Look over the side of a boat sometime. If you can't see the bottom, do you automatically assume that there are miles and miles of mysterious ocean beneath you? Or is the water just a bit muddy?

"About intelligence and intelligent life forms. ..."

About the whole thing - first, you missed the point entirely. To reiterate: "To another intelligent species, maybe, but none of us are another intelligent species. All human." It doesn't matter if another intelligent species exists, or even if they have a comparable concept of 'value.' They aren't humans, and we are - their concepts have no meaning without humanity.

"Even an inanimate non-living object can learn if the right rules are applied."

You mean, rules that embody the concept of learning? In that case, you can have everything learning, so long as these rules are created by an intelligent entity that understands learning. Or, if the object independently evolves the rules outside of the influence of another intelligence. So the example is either ridiculous or meaningless.

"and no, species do not go around killing each other off intentionally, hey sometimes they even co-evolve, making all us crazy hippies smile"

Species do go around killing each other off. If it isn't 'intentionally', guess what - as nonsentient entities, the vast majority of them are immune from all such higher mental notions. There is a limited amount of resources - the existence of one set of species inevitably results in the destruction of others. Oh, and those co-evolved species? They kill off other species too - they just do it ^together^.

"In any case my contention is that any behavior or special quality you can show me in humans has its roots or functional equivalent in other creatures."

And, that doesn't matter, because the point isn't that humans are completely distinct from other lifeforms, it is that, as humans, there's no set of absolute or other-than-human values.

"Could that possibly indicate a tiny bit of insecurity on the matter?"

No, it indicates that mirror tests and tool use aside, we're the only species intelligent enough to articulate such truths.

"Also although Earthfirst and Greenpeace may have quixotic tendencies and sometimes tend to exotic places does this really place them in such a disconnected reality?"

Actually, yeah, that's more or less the definition of quixotic.

"Do they have relevance?"

Never said they didn't. The point is, first, that there is a considerable amount of popular pressure against such groups that commit acts of terrorism in the name of the environment. To ignore that liability is to do needless damage to your cause. You can praise Hamas or the PLO for certain humanitarian efforts, but you better expect people to shy away from you because of those organizations negative aspects. And second, just because they may have some positive impact, doesn't make them clean of all their other failings.

"We are gutting the earth for materials to pursue "human happiness" at any cost."

Yes, because, by definition, human happiness is one of those few cases of absolute good. What you seem to be confused about is what exactly contributes to human happiness.

"We are turning our nation into a facist police state in pursuit of "security"."

Which has precisely what to do with the environment?

"In the name of "human health" we dump scads of antibiotics into the sewers and waterways and stuff the rest down the throats of domestic livestock, endangering the world with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria."

Again, human health is one of those absolute values, right behind human happiness, and again, you don't seem to have a wide enough view of it.

"It is not a term that skulks and covers for a hidden agenda"

When all it provides are clues to interest, scope, and agenda, and still has flexibility to change to fit? It can absolutely cover a hidden agenda. The only way for it not to is to be much more specific about what it is, which takes you once again away from the 'environmentalism' label.

"(oh, not really! I just wanted to get your attention!)"

I'm not sure why you felt that this meant something.

"Environmentalism is still a noble and essential pursuit"

Given that you just argued how environmentalism can mean practically anything, that means more or less nothing.

[Flick]

Hi Jace, Thanks for addressing my concerns in such rigorous detail, though I still disagree with you on almost all of it. I think you dislike what I think and how I think more than anything. The rationalizations supporting your dislike remain unconvincing on the whole. I need to devote my time to more productive undertakings as I'm sure you do as well.
I agree that terrorism is a stupid and counterproductive tactic, though I understand the frustration that would tempt a person to resort to it. I think Greenpeace and Earthfirst fall into two seperate categories on this. I support Greenpeace in what they do and how they do it. Creative harrassment to gain publicity for an issue may be impolite and possibly illegal on some occassions, but it is not terrorism. I have done some work for them as an outside contractor and they helped me out on an environmental art project once, so I am fairly familiar with them and their history though I haven't been keeping track so much in recent years. To my knowledge Greenpeace has never condoned or participated in any action that could be reasonably construed as terrorism.(Although the French government once blew up a Greenpeace vessel docked in Aukland,thus associating them with a bombing, but they were the victims of the attack). I have heard one person refer to them as eco-terrorists. He was mistaken. As to Earthfirst, their tendency to go too far would be why I have never joined them, so on that one thing we agree. Who would have thought that was possible? See ya in the funny papers!

[Jace]

"...though I still disagree with you on almost all of it."

And that would be for what reason...?

"I think you dislike what I think and how I think more than anything."

Because they both seem to be wrong, at the least misguided, from what you've been saying.

"I support Greenpeace in what they do and how they do it."

Even if they don't fall under a strict definition of terrorists (although, they are being investigated as such in the E.U., and Earth First / ELF and their ilk are certainly sponsors of terrorism) their methods are hardly acceptable - they fake the facts that they use to support their positions, they carry out trespassing and vandalism among other illegal activities, and in the years after they spearheaded the campaign to ban DDT in the Third World, the malaria rate skyrocketed as much as 1000%. Ten times. Millions died.

That sort of thing is why many rational thinkers and activists are loath to adopt the label of 'environmentalism'.

[Becky]

Jace, just out of curiosity, how old are you
My shift key doesn’t work, so please forgive the lack of decent punctuation.
Imagine a question mark there, and use your imagination to fill in the rest.

Did it ever occur to you that there might be more to the world that doesn’t fit into your equation
Or mapped out vision of the world
Maybe the point of arguing is to learn new things rather than to sledgehammer your opponent
Don’t get mad about that, just think about it.

I agree with you that the things around us are constructs of the human mind, but I think that they are constructs that our mind created to help us navigate a world that would be too convoluted for us to handle without them.
I think your argument also would make more sense based around individual perception- the whole ‘if the tree falls in a forest and there’s no one there to hear it does it really make a sound’ question. You say no.
What if a jack rabbit hears it
Still no, because they don’t understand human hearing. You would say they wouldn’t exist because without us there is no human concept of jack rabbit.
But wouldn’t they exist in form regardless
Wouldn’t they have their own jack rabbit-y concept of themselves, regardless of how simple it may be
And why would the human concept hearing be relevant to a jack rabbit. What does this jack rabbit care if a human is present or not present to confirm the human concept of jack rabbit

What I’m try to say is that yes, the world as it appears to us humans only appears to us humans, but there are other things on this planet capable of perception. You could make the same argument about jackrabbits. If all jackrabbits disappeared, what world would there be left
Certainly not the Jack rabbit world, or any world relevant to jackrabbits.
But to us humans it would keep turning in a human way.

And also, who is to say that there aren’t creatures out there who are much bigger and more intelligent than us, that we are simply not aware of, as an amoeba is not aware of a human
Would this make our existence and intelligence any less valid
Our achievements and failings any less real

Plus, I can’t believe your boat analogy. If the water is murky all it means is that we have no idea, and it does not reaffirm either way. It means we should keep searching and find out exactly how deep or how muddy that water is. It means we are ignorant, and there is still more that exists beyond our perception.
Which coincidentally you were arguing against.

If you respond, please don’t just repeat the same argument you already made. If that’s all you have to say, then you’re wasting your time.

[Flick]

Jace, The reason I disagree with you on so much is that we are likely bent in very different directions in terms of values, core beliefs, how we think the world works, etc.(you see mud, I see two miles of water) In other words I think you are as mistaken as you think I am, and it's more because of who we are than a factual misunderstanding that can be easily corrected.
I also have little regard for this style approach to exchanging ideas about a subject: (adversarial stance, disregarding main ideas in favor of dissection of opponents statement into bits taken out of context, twisting and intentionally misunderstanding them a bit to make them appear ridiculous and them holding them up and sneering at what's left of them in order to convince yourself that you have "proved" something.) You imply things and then deny that you said them. You supply information that makes your side of the argument look plausible and ignore or omit information that supports alternative conclusions (see wikapedia's several pages on the malaria, ddt, Greenpeace controversy, it is much more uncertain and complex an issue than what you presented.) In short you do all the things I or any other sloppy human being would do to support an argument. But you seem to have little self awareness in this regard, only a misplaced trust in your powers of persuasion. It's offputting and counterproductive. Though you inspired me to look up a few things and I will try to me more objective about Greenpeace, there are more civil approaches to discussion than the debate club model.
I feel angry and frustrated by a lack of connection in this sort of exchange. To be forced to defend each detail of all statements is cumbersome, distracts from main ideas, would take a books worth of space to address all issues raised adequately and is rather inappropriate to the format as well (we are clogging up Colin's blog with irrelevant blather.) Besides it seems to produce more acrimony than insight. I think the blog form is a great place to put ideas out there and share the things that we have noticed about the world, and to take in ideas and information that are new to us. But it might be best to not go for each other's throats every time we disagree.

[Jace]

"Jace, just out of curiosity, how old are you" - Becky

Totally irrelevant.

"...aspects of existence that extend way beyond anything we could fathom." - Flick

"It means we should keep searching and find out exactly how deep or how muddy that water is." - Becky

And that searching is impossible if we start off by assuming that the depth is nigh-infinite.

Becky, the core point is that it is impossible for humans to argue that humanity is not the end-all be-all of the world. This can be be filtered through any number of abstraction layers, but it all goes back to the sort of situation described in the Hobbes quote. The practical effects in terms of behavior may be similar or identical, but the structural validity of the position is severely undermined otherwise. Read any overview of existentialism for an elaboration of this.

"(you see mud, I see two miles of water)" - Flick

No, you see a fundamentally immeasurable and indeterminable depth of water:

"...aspects of existence that extend way beyond anything we could fathom."

The point isn't that you see the mud, it is that the cloudiness of the water forces you to find other ways to discover details about its depth, rather than chalk it up as 'unfathomable.'

"adversarial stance"

Requirement for debate / discussion.

"disregarding main ideas"

No, if anything, kept coming back to main ideas.

"You imply things and then deny that you said them."

Such as...?

"(see wikapedia's several pages on the malaria, ddt, Greenpeace controversy, it is much more uncertain and complex an issue than what you presented.)"

And it was never intended to be a presentation of the entire issue. You stated that you supported Greenpeace and what they did, thus, I presented a selection of Greenpeace activities that seemed to be on their face negative - trespassing, vandalism, faking data, apparent ignorance of human impact, etc. Perhaps the question should have been made explicit: Does your support of Greenpeace and what they do extend to such actions as those?

"But you seem to have little self awareness in this regard, only a misplaced trust in your powers of persuasion."

Persuasion? The point was never and is never to 'persuade'. Statements are made, responses and counters to those statements are made in reply. If something is right or wrong, well, then it's right or wrong. You can't get a truth value from popular opinion alone.

[Flick]

Becky, Thanks for the supportive post. I love your Jackrabbit-y world view. Jace, hi, much more civil! I wrote you a monsterously huge post but it got late and I decided to re-think some of it and try to edit it down some. If I get it fixed up I'll send it. Peace be with us. Flick

[heather cronk]

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that a site like PledgeBank.com is useful for -- it's noble to make a decision to shop local, but it's hard to understand what kind of impact it's having. Using new media sites to promote collective action ensures that no one has to act alone, and everyone can put their noble ideas into action in the comfort of a group.