if you had the time I'd prefer for people to sort themselves among several continua and try to think about how to resolve the inevitable conflicts of viewpoint. Some ideas that come up from looking at the whole Eco-centric/Techno-centric mess: CONTINUA OF VALUE - [Only nature has intrinsic value] vs. [Both nature and humans have intrinsic value] vs. [Humans have intrinsic value]. In the middle viewpoint, trolley problems which pit the interests of human beings against the interests of natural systems probably cannot be resolved to satisfaction. - Preservation of things of aesthetic value, such as flourishing ecosystems, are [not worth infringing on human interests] or [worthwhile above all other human interests]. (People who believe nature has intrinsic value can skip this question.) CONTINUA OF FACTS - The health of human economic sphere can be decoupled from the health of the surrounding ecosystem [not at all] or [completely]. (This, along with the previous continuum, pinpoints the instrumental and aesthetic value of nature.) - Present ecological problems are [significant] or [insignificant] in the instrumental sense. - Ecological problems can be resolved via [ingenuity and technology] or [contraction of the human economic sphere]. (Discuss in what sense the required action is a contraction.) - Ecological problems can be resolved [relatively easily] or [only at the cost of significant human privation]. (Discuss the nature of the possible privations required.) CONTINUUM that I can't classify as either one or the other - Present ecological problems are [significant] or [insignificant] in the aesthetic sense. (People