That we are greedy and selfish are value judgments. How did that come to be? We have become expert at usurping for ourselves environments, territory, and natural resources from both other species and from other human populations. But this process was well underway thousands of years ago and has continued virtually without interruption to the present day. Were our ancestors that, for whatever reason, began to settle into sedentary villages exploiting domesticated plants and animals, and who spread agricultural practices through continental Europe and along the Mediterranean coast selfish and greedy? How far back do we trace the origin of human greed, if that is even the proper description? I think it’s something else, but I don’t know what to call it. Is it human nature? I don’t like that either. As a practical matter, as noted upthread, moral arguments are generally unpersuasive and met with defensiveness and resistance.

On the other hand, in the very same breath Jackson identifies “growth” as the key problem (much as has our brother GM). Growth may even be the consequence, purposeful or not, of previous good intentions and rational thought. Then again, try undermining this key notion of the industrialized world.

This is my opinion–I don’t expect many others here to agree.

In other lectures, Jackson in fact does outline the kind of action needed to “solve” the problems he addresses (to that list I would add several more perils, but this is not the moment). These actions include (1) capping and reducing nutrient runoff in part by removing subsidies from, and taxing the use of fertilizers and pesticides, (2) capping and reducing carbon emissions, and (3) obtaining fish entirely from aquaculture—mostly tilapia, sardines, and anchovies, oysters and the like. And all of this must happen within 20-30 years. It is clear from his demeanor and tone that he places little faith in those actions ever taking place.

Aaron Huertas
Union of Concerned Scientists

1) Jackson’s style and personality
2) The really great use of analogies and images

But there’s something nobody’s caught on that really struck me as the most powerful aspect of all. It happens in the last 2 minutes.

There’s lots of ways to get involved. How about instead of waiting for some to tell you what you need to do, show some initiative and do something on your own? It could be a small community project like distributing pamphlets about the problem so that people without Internet access can learn about it. There’s also environmental groups that work to protect ocean resources that are always looking for help. It’s not that tough to get started.

On the other hand, it was almost as though you were looking at ‘what I did on summer vacation’ presentation… except you end with a feeling of urgent need to do something about it. He did not leave anyone in the audience feeling that it was not their problem, or that they couldn’t do anything about it. It would seem that he’s all but inviting you to join in some effort, but never mentions what that effort or group is. Like those commercials where you have to watch the whole thing just to figure out what they are advertising. It’s unobtrusively “in your face” and inviting you to get more involved without telling you how, where, when, or what, just what is going to happen if you don’t.

He makes a very important point about lack of outcry from population at large because they’re largely shielded from direct impact (availability and price of fish at the store). Thats similar to public apathy towards energy when gas is cheap. They’re direct experience is telling them nothing’s wrong. I think thats why images are effective – they make an impression which is closer to power of direct experience.

He also does a nice job of ramping up the the examples that conveys the seriousness of the issue, culminating with his prediction of what the oceans will be like in a few decades. As I alluded when Sheril posted this back in June, what he describes is not unlike the environmental nightmare portrayed in the film”Soylent Green”.

- Quick payoff to lingering questions. Long attention spans and memories are good, but to make an impact on people with what you’re saying, it’s good to not give them time to get distracted. His technique was to show a picture, describe the situation, immediately show the impact of human activity, and describe the way human activity caused the change.

- Analogies can be overused and I’ve gotten into trouble with them in my own talks, but they’re absolutely necessary, and using the right one works wonders. Making analogies as simple as possible is crucial so that nobody will miss what you’re talking about or think too much about the analogy and not enough about what you’re demonstrating with it.

I think where the talk falls a bit short is it’s 99% stating the problem and 1% saying we need to do something about it – he gives no specific ideas as to what you do about it. A “call to action” is reasonably useful, because I’m sure there are people who simply aren’t aware of the state of the world’s oceans, but I think in many ways we’re past that. You can’t predict global catastrophe without showing people a way out of it – saying “we’re too greedy” isn’t enough.

Chris, I sort of liken it to the book you wrote with Sheril – it struck me as a call to arms, and provided some general framework on a path forward, but I got the sense you didn’t think it was appropriate or valuable for you to provide much in specifics. In short, “we’re fucked” is a great talking point, but it’s not a communications strategy.

This is certainly unfair to the speaker – he wasn’t asked to solve the world’s problems, just talk about them. But I think this is a point that many scientists still have trouble embracing. Many think it isn’t the role of scientists to proscribe solutions but to collect and analyze data. For those who want to propose solutions, there are legitimate and honest disagreements over specific options. I say we can’t afford to wait any longer for scientists to step up and lead.

What I missed in his speech is how his work (and science generally) provides us with a way forward. What you’re doing with media training is critical and quite good, but I don’t want anyone to confuse it with a comprehensive communications STRATEGY. I think this may be a conversation for another day, but if scientists aren’t ready to explain how their work provides solutions and aren’t ready to spell out what those solutions are, media training is a bit like watching the little Dutch boy do his thing.