From the "no-duh" department...

A recent study indicates the people are attracted to beauty. Duh.

Evolutionary Chemistry

Props to CH for alerting me to this.

Global warming, debate, and the nature of a university

Last night I was invited to participate in a panel discussion of An Inconvenient Truth by the GSBM student group NetImpact. Along with about 70 graduate students from the business school, the law school, and School of Public Policy, we watched the movie and then discussed some of the political, commercial, regulatory, and personal implications of it.

The panel was composed of several faculty from a variety of political views and training. It was an encouraging and entertaining exchange of perspectives about what many view as an important topic of discussion. It reminded me of one of the reasons I'm so happy to be at Pepperdine. I find this is a wonderful environment for discussing important issues. As a Christian University we have the freedom to discuss the role of faith, values, and ultimate beliefs in talking about these issues. And, as a University committed to the academic pursuit of knowledge, we are not confined to narrow interpretations of what questions we should ask, how we answer them, or what topics we talk about.

Finally, I was especially happy to have the opportunity to watch the movie and engage in this discussion with Matthew present. It is great to see the wheels turning in his mind as he grows.

Oh by the way...my primary contribution to the panel? As you know, I'm not a scientist, a politician, or an economist so my insights were limited. My major point of view is that the current global structure is self-motivated to keep the current technologies in place that support their hold on power and wealth. Therefore, it is important for all global-citizens to voice their opinions about the kind of world we want to live in. Otherwise, the rich and powerful of our world will marshal their extensive resources to defend the status quo. In the words of Alcoholics Anonymous..."if you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting." I find it ironic that in events like this we sit around and discuss the issues and try to calculate "is the morality of this issue such that I should act, or can I just wait-and-see?" That posture assumes that "wait-and-see" is morally neutral. I argue that the status-quo is never morally neutral. It serves the interests of those currently in power. If we want to see a change in global environmental policy, we can't look to the current global leadership to achieve it.