A polar bear walks into a neighborhood tavern, sits down at the bar and orders a whiskey, neat. The bartender, unsure about having a polar bear in his establishment in the first place, is somewhat hesitant to bring the animal a drink, but does so, placing the glass very carefully near the polar bear, goes back to the far end of the bar and resumes polishing glasses. The polar bear quietly sips his whiskey and watches the news on the TV suspended over and behind the bar. About ten minutes go by, and the polar bear signals he'd like another one.
The bartender, more comfortable now with the idea of a polar bear on a bar stool sipping whiskey, brings him his refill, noting, as he sets the glass down, "we don't get too many polar bears in here." "Yeah," says the polar bear, knocking back his drink in one swallow, "at these frickin' prices, no wonder."
If you believe, as I do, that life is a series of systems, and life here on Earth is a reflection of that, then, perhaps, you'll agree we, as a species, have as much impact on the development of our environment as it has on us. I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as those who drew up the Kyoto Accords on global warming and I've watched Al Gore's movie (I still think the Nobel committee should give Walt Disney a posthumous prize for "Steamboat Willie" if they're handing out alternate Oscars, but that's just me) and was as concerned with our place, and conduct, on this planet before watching it as I was afterwards.
I'm not sure we bi-peds have been the best stewards we can be for a planet that is home to so many amazing and unique-to-the-universe creations such as Keira Knightley, Wii (NASA suggests other solar systems, and other planets in our own, have mountains, atmospheres et al, but I'll bet neither Saturn nor Alpha Centuari has anything like Keira playing Wii, or anything even close) and Taco Bell drive-thrus. Not to mention the six and half billion of us running around all over globe, and all the other species who don't have Internet access so we cannot yet read a blog from an Indian Ocean mollusk.
What I get uneasy about in listening to the discussion on Global Warming is how, because it is a complex subject with NO easy answers, we've switched to a facet of it that is a much simpler for us to handle, and that requires little to no research or even facts: questioning the political motivations and ideology of everyone on 'either side of the issue'. Instead of sober analysis of behaviors (personal, regional, national) and a discussion on modifications and changes, we've defaulted to 'oh yeah? I know you are, but what am I?' Sort of like Monty Python's The Argument Clinic instead of the University of Northern Colorado's version (the former is a classic and brilliantly funny and the latter is neither but may be a bit more useful ultimately).
I'm afraid, because we have decided at some level 'thinking' is too hard, to volley slogans, or offer innuendo as substantive fact (and not just about global warming, either. Pick an issue and you'll find fervent and fevered shouting matches on all sides of any question). Repartee and counterpoint have become the weapons of choice in the intellectual game of chicken we play with one another.
I don't know much about 'the truth' of Global Warming or the science that proves or disproves it, but I do know this: today is the 12th of January 2008, and in Norwich, Connecticut (the "Rose of New England" (we can buy real license plates that say that right on the plate, can you?)) it is 46 degrees Fahrenheit at 1040 in the morning.
The only way that polar bear is ever going to see ice again is if he orders that next Seven Crown on the rocks.
-bill kenny
No comments:
Post a Comment