…So can’t we just cull ‘em?

That’s assuming the result I’m seeing is statistically significant and real, of course. And it may not be. But it makes sense, especially in such a divisive debate. Recognizing the kind of argument likely to be made by your opponent is likely to make you assume that the argument is incorrect.

There is really a lot of common ground between liberals and conservatives already.  They both basically agree that the state is powerful enough to do whatever it wants.  They only disagree over what that power should be used for.  Libertarians though, are a different breed entirely, believing that state power is limited.

“Individual narcissism” is taking it a step too far. It’s not just about “ruining it for me”, it’s “ruining it for my family, my friends, my church, my local society, my nation.” With something like environmental protection, there is a big difference in the analysis when you switch the statement between “pollution is bad for its own sake” and “pollution is bad because of its negative effects on people I care about.”

The level of definition that Haidt provides between these differences can go a long way toward having reasonable dialog and “we’re coming at this from different base premises… let’s stop talking past each other and address those.” On the level of understanding, we can move the debate to “does the environment’s present state have value apart from its utility to humanity”? or “should our policies and opinions prioritize people we share country/legal system/belief system with?” and possibly come to some compromise on that position that would allow a compromise on other more specific issues.