Jane McGonigal is not simply comparing games to real life, but is talking about tapping into those abstract qualities that gamers bring to bear against game challenges – applying that determination, hard work, and idealism to real world endeavors.

It can, has been, and will continue to be argued that games are simply games, that they are designed to be won, and that the real world has no such safeguards against failure.  But the game McGonigal most talks about – World of Warcraft – ultimately has no point.  It has no happy ending. It is game that never ends, which works well for the developers, who continue to make millions upon millions of dollars every year.

You can overcome the most epic of epic challenges, but soon thereafter the game resets to the way it was before that challenge was met, to enable others to do the same.  There are people who continue to play Warcraft even though they have achieved the maximum level, have defeated the ultimate boss, and have done almost everything there is to do in the game.

But they will go through it all again, with the same determination and idealism, to help another player have that experience.  In the real world that could translate into people helping those less fortunate – i.e. at a “lower level” – after they have solved their own challenges.  It is not about pity or guilt, but about mutual understanding of a problem, and collaboration to solve it.  It is this kind of idealistic, high-minded, cooperative determination that McGonigal is suggesting we need to employ to take on world challenges.

That all said, I’ve often meditated on the issue of climate change.  Like I assume is true of most people, I have not bothered to look at the scientific evidence for or against global warming.  The real reason I tend to believe that it is a real phenomenon is based entirely on the proponents and opponents.  Huge corporations, pro-corporate ideologues, and those who think free market capitalism can solve all ills if left unchecked, tend to be the ones who dismiss global warming as a bunch of nonsense.  Because I am largely cynical towards corporations, it is to be expected that I would take the opposite side in the debate.

It is easy to see why corporations would be opposed to any suggestions that climate change is a real problem – because environmental checks damage their profit margin.  On the other hand, I could not fathom any reason why anyone would invent such an elaborate fiction about the dangers of climate change.

After what started as a search for books on writing science fiction and fantasy, I found myself at the political blog of acclaimed author Orson Scott Card, to whom I am ideologically opposed on a number of issues.  Since I am not one to reject any argument out of hand, and certainly not without listening to it first, I read some of what he had to say about climate change. I agreed with him that it is important for people to question things, especially those positions that we accept simply for the people who represent those positions – namely politicians.

Each side – those who fear climate change and those who dismiss it – says that the “science” supports their argument.  And I have little doubt that if I were to really examine said “science” that I could be convinced of either position.  This is partly because I lack the scientific knowledge to challenge their assessments.  But it may suggest that there is no conclusive and irrefutable evidence as to humanity’s ultimate impact on the planet.

What’s interesting to note is the change in language amongst those fearing climate change. The science supporting the deniers apparently shows that the Earth was at its warmest many years ago, and that we have seen one our coldest winters in 2007.  This would suggest that overall the Earth is not “warming” at all, a point that the deniers emphasize.  It would seem that those who fear global warming acknowledge this, which may be why the header for their argument changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.

It may not be so much that the Earth is warming, but that the climate is changing in ways that may prove detrimental to life.  If this is true, then it is no less grave a situation, but this change in language cannot be disregarded.  Orson Scott Card seems to think that the motivation behind the climate change agenda is to push forward a broader socialist agenda.

As I mentioned earlier, and in an earlier post, people tend to align themselves with platforms more than they take positions on individual issues.  Personally I support a more socialist government and economy – not going as far as communism, but ensuring that every person is allowed  a bottom line of basic prosperity, with the possibility for greater wealth.  And if this represents a “comeuppance” for those who have long held the lion’s share of power and wealth, then all the better.  However, since I am forever skeptical of politicians and platforms, I had to consider what Card was suggesting.

Politicians will say or do anything, take any position, if it means that they are able to remain in power.  The Democratic and Republican parties underwent a complete role reversal as it applied to their positions on Civil Rights, with Democrats becoming the party of disenfranchised minorities where they had once been the party of slavers, and Republicans becoming the party of the dominant majority where they had once been the party of abolitionists.  Did these politicians really all change their mind in one sweeping wave?  Hardly.

Positions changed in accordance with perceived changes in the opinions of the electorate in any given area.  Their own beliefs aside, politicians will take whatever position stands the best chance of getting them elected or re-elected.  While the switch between Democrats and Republicans was something that took place gradually, individual politicians have been known to even reverse their position on an issue in the midst of a single campaign.

This brings me back to the issue of climate change.  If politicians are a product of their electorate, and the electorate is mostly ignorant of the science supporting or denying climate change, can we really expect that politicians have examined the science on either side of the debate?  Or are they simply feeding the electorate what they want to hear – preaching to the choir – in order to convince them that they are all on the same side?

Unlike what Orson Scott Card suggests – that Climate Change is just a ploy to push a socialist agenda – I think that politicians are hardly so clever or ambitious.  I think that they exist in the moment – a moment here defined as the length of time between elections – pushing forward any issue or agenda that allows them to stay in power, and ultimately to serve their own self-interest.

I do not think any politician wants to or expects to bring about any great change for the better, but rather they want what’s better for them or their fellows for the time being.  This is not to say that there aren’t people who legitimately believe in and support a given cause, or that the efforts of real activists amongst the electorate are disingenuous.  It just means that politicians observe the movements of society and culture and ride the waves into office by saying the right things at the right time.

So, maybe the debate over climate change really has nothing to do with climate change at all.  Maybe it is just one of the more recent manifestations of the same power struggle that’s been taking place since the dawn of democracy. Now mind you, I am not at all saying that there are no legitimate concerns around climate change, but rather that people, as participants in any “democracy”, need to be wary of ulterior motives behind politicians and platforms.