against *your* oblivious suburban lifestyle?) In general, the ecocentric-technocentric continuum strikes me as a huge mess. First of all, it couples several logically unrelated issues into the same continuum. When asked to adopt a position along the continuum, people examine the issues they know about. If their positions conflict with how the continuum groups them, then they can't even state a position without compromising their position on one or the other issue. Much more insidiously, if they are unfamiliar with some positions, they will adopt the positions they are grouped with on the continuum without much thinking, as a question of party allegiance. Second of all, it mixes statements of fact with statements of value that dictate how we would react to certain facts. What does the technocentric view tell us if we recognize that we live in a world of limited resources? Nothing, we've effectively defined denial into the view by having the view dictate the facts. The use of this in a time-constrained conference talk is fairly benign, but keep in mind that this *is* the same mechanism that is generally used to turn a handful of issues which might require discussion, into a nice, tidy party-gang conflict where everyone is forced to one or another side and no one has to think. What exactly do protecting the environment, government fiscal responsibility, and gay marriage have in common? Nothing, but just try to stomach the compromises a conservative environmentalist would be forced to make when voting. More constructively,