I Dream of Global Warming

This morning I was the opening speaker for a conference on global warming.....in a dream. I know, I know. Pretentious right? :-P

The dream was actually at least 5 minutes long and it was a very coherent speech given that it was a dream. I wish that I could reconstruct it perfectly, but I'll have to do my best.

Not being qualified to talk about the science of global warming, I wanted to draw an essential distinction between two extreme worldviews that make up the debate. There are some people who believe that nature has inherent value. The ideal state of nature is to be pristine, untouched by human hands. Our very presence violates this beauty and corrupts it. In essence, we are rapists. These people look down upon our technological progress, on industry, on capitalism, and see nature as an unknowable power that should be feared and "respected."

On the other extreme, there are those who see our manipulation of nature as one of our highest virtues. They know that human beings are not automatically given what is necessary for living a good life, rather, we must create our values. From a very basic level, we must first create clothing to keep us warm, fashion tools to capture food, and assemble branches for shelter. This necessity of human nature reaches all the way from the caveman to the man of modernity. Now we have medicine, computers, spaceships, and genetic engineering; but the principle remains the same. This transformation of our environment to suit our own needs has created a previously unimaginable wealth and quality of life. Such a perspective obviously creates a deep respect for progress, industry and capitalism.

One of these extreme perspectives is completely correct. For each of us to live the good life and attain happiness, it is the latter perspective that must be respected.

I suspect that most people fall somewhere between these two perspectives. I am afraid however that many leaders of the environmentalist movement itself believe in the former, rather than the latter. It is essential to remember this when we assess the claims of politicians and advocacy groups calling for industry to be transformed by near-socialist regulations. Is it that they deem such regulations necessary for saving humans, or do they want to put a leash on the virtuous transformation that is "raping" the planet? Does the intensity of their disgust cause them to overstate the case for environmental harm in the hopes that we will cave into fear?

But, it is certainly possible than in our eagerness to improve our environment, we forgot to look at the long-term picture. Will our efforts create disaster in the future? I'm certainly open to the possibility that humans are a significant contributing factor to global warming and that steps should be taken to prevent severe problems in the future. In the words of Sir Francis Bacon, "nature to be commanded, must be obeyed." But it is essential that we assess this possibility while still maintaining the perspective that our transformation of the environment is one of our highest virtues. We should be striving for the most efficient use of nature for our benefit.

End of dream. If only it were real....