Following a recent discussion somewhere else, I feel compelled to write down my perception of truth. The discussion was centered around how much or how little humans impact the world climate. There is, of course, Al Gore’s side of the story – which he didn’t come up with by himself, but of which he is the most vocal and/or popular proponent.

There is also the other side, which more or less claims that the temperature shifts we experience are caused by a natural phenomenon, outside of our sphere of activity. The debate goes back and forth.

What strikes me is that the second side is quite often abused by lazy people1, who use it as an argument to validate using their petrol-guzzling SUVs.

My own take on this issue is quite simple: regardless of how little or how much fabrication there is in the “truth” about human-induced climate change, it’s better for us if we preserve our environment – it’s what sustains us, and if we destroy it, we destroy our basis for life. So even if our impact on this environment is negligible in the grand scheme of things and doesn’t immediately threaten our lives – it’s there, because we can measure the effects of human pollution on it. Given that it’s there, and destroying our environment is harmful to ourselves, the only sensible choice is to stop destroying it.

Truth, in this context, really doesn’t matter much – what matters is a sensible choice.

If truth doesn’t matter all that much, why are we so obsessed with it? What is this thing that can get us to wage war on each other, if it’s not really important?

It’s the holy grail of human comfort, and in more ways than one.

  1. I think we’re all lazy in this respect: changing one’s life-style is a scary prospect that nobody likes. []