Erring for Future Life
This past weekend, I've heard the phrase "culture of life" quite a bit more than before, not to mention quite a bit more than I'd like.
We've also seen the introduction of the Bush Doctrine of Erring: with tough questions, one should err on the "side of life" (which is all for the best in this best of all possible worlds).
Well, it just struck me that this has been my own philosophical bearing for awhile about an important question, just not one dealing with the "culture of life": it deals more with the "culture of future life".
I've watched the controversy about "global warming" for a number of years, indecisively, from the sidelines. I'm not really that type of scientist, so I don't have environmentally expert views to offer. Overall, my sense is that it is too hard to say definitively whether we face global warming based on only a century's worth of data, since I'd expect fluctuations to dominate on that time scale, obscuring any real trends.
On the other hand, I am easily convinced that humankind's presence is significant enough to influence long-term weather on the Earth significicantly. The indications that we may be doing so to our detriment are suggestive, if not conclusive in my mind.
Out of prudence, then, I'd decided to err on the side of future life and think that we should be taking steps to reduce our environmental impact. Perhaps the President, now that the scales have obviously fallen from his eyes, will start "erring on the side of future life" and support a "culture of future life" on the planet.