Yeah, it's hard to test psychological theories. But all we really have to do is watch out for people who make dire predictions about the environment without substantial evidence. Sure, that's not perfect but it'll catch most of the offenders.
> Unless we value ecology above economy, economy will terminate itself and ecology both.
Doesn't every reasonable person "value ecology above economy"? Choose between A. rich + living in a desolate hellscape with no plants/animals and B. not rich + living in a nice green area with lots of nature nearby. Everyone is going with B! As soon as hunger and cold are no longer serious problems, every reasonable person starts to prioritize nature.
The tragedy and irony is that even if every "reasonable person" wants the right things, with some combination of socio-technical inertia, incentive misalignment, power maximization, and ignorance, sprinkled with unreasonableness or malice or plain bad luck or what have you, we can still hit the rocks anyway.
This is Moloch, or a wicked multi-polar trap, or the metacrisis, call it whatever you like. For a species in the thrall of an energy windfall of massive proportions, concurrent with an intelligence (if perhaps less a wisdom) explosion, it's the problem.
> Unless we value ecology above economy, economy will terminate itself and ecology both.
Doesn't every reasonable person "value ecology above economy"? Choose between A. rich + living in a desolate hellscape with no plants/animals and B. not rich + living in a nice green area with lots of nature nearby. Everyone is going with B! As soon as hunger and cold are no longer serious problems, every reasonable person starts to prioritize nature.