Not with this statement alone, but with a conclusion that is clearly not logical, the way I see it: that "most people" must know this a priori, or, in other words, that one needs their agreement. On the contrary, the principle, or truth, is more important here; from it an impulse could emanate and result in a better relationship between man and nature. A caste of philosopher-kings could emanate such an impulse, as Plato explained in his Politeia.
Yes, yes, those Philosopher Kings who shepherd the people
You have made an assumption as regards implication, choosing, thereafter, to simply ignore the statement in favour of the incorrectly assumed (and incorrect) implication. Why must people know something to be able to participate in it? Why must they even know that they're participating? Every day, people support destructive activity of the worst kind - they are participating in the promulgation of what we, in a morally dualistic moment, might call "evil" - and they have absolutely no idea that they're doing it.
On the other hand, how could they not have at least some basic understanding of their participation or lack thereof? If a man were to show them the fruits of their action/inaction, explain both cause and effect, then the average human could easily understand.
Surely any "impulse" which might emanate from a principle or truth would, essentially, be a form of understanding? Nobody is going to start acting differently just because one person, or one group, has discovered the truth about something. Truth isn't so magical a thing as to be able to operate without a mind to contain it.
Nobody is saying, and nobody has said, that the majority need suddenly see Nature and the natural world from the perspective (and with the intelligence) of an ANUSian. What has been said is that any move towards a more sustainable relationship between man and nature will require most people to participate.