Global warming, dinner, open day and a play
Global warming, dinner, open day and a play
Sunday, 22 November 2009
I have often heard it suggested that young people today are relativists when it comes to issues of morals and ethics, but absolutists when it comes to environmental issues. Although I do not believe that this claim is anything like a universal truth, it is sometimes a tempting proposition.
I have had some great discussions with students in my ToK classes this week, following up the lecture I presented to the 1st Year students on Tuesday on the issue of ‘Truth’ . My aim was to get the students to identify their assumptions and underlying belief positions, and to rise above the tendency simply to believe authorities. My aim was rather to encourage the students to question everything, not in an anarchistic sense or for its own sake like a hard-core sceptic, but to develop a genuine understanding of how we can discern truth from truth claims.
I based by lecture around the question “Are humans a factor in causing global warming?”, and I used two intentionally provocative video clips to stimulate thinking – ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/) and ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020027/). My aim was to get students thinking about the nature of truth by exploring the three types of truth (correspondence, coherence and pragmatism) plus the two subsequent reactions (relativism and fundamentalism). Global warming was, I thought, a convenient truth issue (excuse the pun) to provoke such thinking.
As a geographer, I found it an interesting challenge to pose the questions in as neutral and balanced a way as possible. To do so was a necessary prerequisite for an authentic exploration of how we can know what is true and what is not. In my lecture, I tried not to present an argument one way or the other for anthropocentric climate change; I tried to let the video clips (each of equal duration) speak for themselves. And yet, when I asked them, there were some students who felt that one clip – or the other – was biased. In general, such statements are often a reflection of the speaker’s underlying assumptions or values position rather than the video being analysed, which of course was the very point of the exercise – to identify, and then try and rise above one’s own assumptions and presuppositions. In that ToK context, even a proposition that is so fundamental that it forms part of the UWC Mission Statement – in this case, ‘sustainability’ – can (and ought) to be questioned.
And yet, as a geographer I do have strong personal and professional views on the subject. I have no doubt whatsoever that humans ARE a major cause of contemporary global warming, as my published writings will testify. I also believe that natural factors play a ‘not insignificant’ bidirectional role, both in interaction with human factors and in isolation. What I am unable to do, just as I have not seen anyone else attempt to do, is to quantify the relative proportion of human vs natural factors as causes of global warming. That would be a fascinating (if almost certainly impossible) exercise.
All this bears no relationship to the photographs I have posted in this week’s blog, however. The photograph at the top shows the students who attended dinner at our home on Friday evening. Di and I invite students in small groups to have dinner in our home, and our aim is to have every student in the College to dinner at least once each year. I don’t usually take photographs at these dinners, but on Friday night we had an extra special guest (the chocolate fountain), so I thought it was worth climbing up on to a chair to get a photo of the occasion.
During the dinner, we had a great discussion (among several) about the possible new logos proposed by the UWC International Council. I would have loved to share these drafts with you, but I am not sure whether they are open for public view, so I will play safe and not post them here. The discussion was extremely useful, and revealed a strong student preference for a more conservative logo than the one I would have chosen. In the spirit of utilitarianism (to continue the ToK theme), I expect that I will therefore advocate the logo preferred by my students over and above my personal preference.
The photos below show our second Open Day for this year, which was held yesterday (Saturday). Hundreds of prospective parents and students visited the College, and it was great to mingle and showcase the College. Tens of students did an excellent job as volunteer helpers, assisting as guides, speakers, helpers, first-aid workers, and so on. As a measure of the intense interest shown by parents and prospective students this year, I found myself still answering questions until almost 2:00 pm, even though my second presentation had finished at 12:30 pm.
As a perfect end to a busy day, and a busy week, Di and I attended a student performance last night of Ray Cooney’s play ‘Run For Your Wife’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_For_Your_Wife). Directed by our 2nd Year student from Finland, Maarit Malkamäki, and performed by an enthusiastic cast of 1st Year Theatre Arts students, the play (which I had not previously heard of) was a fast-paced comedy farce about a man who has two wives, two flats, two unusual neighbours, and is being pursued by two detectives. The audience was in fits of laughter throughout the play (for all the right reasons, I am pleased to report!). Thanks Maarit and the team for bringing my busy week to a close on a high point!