I think natural phenomena often get written out of the script.
Maybe so, but unsustainable social phenomena are still unsustainable.
Say, for example after the skies clear companies re-evaluate, governments re-think and there is a massive shift away from just-in-time airfrieght deliveries. Then in two hundred years time a peice in the Guardian claims the Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the cause of this massive change in Europe's eating habits, I'd say it was a massive oversimplification, factoring out peak oil, the rise of the Green lobby as an organised political force, anti-poverty campaigns by mainstream and Church based charities, riots by migrant workers paid starvation wages to pre-package fruit salad. The volcano might have blown the lid off, but the can of worms was there all along.
there's still debate about the temperature and rainstorm on 9 Thermidor
There is ... but does anybody truly believe that if the weather had been a bit milder France would still be on its First Republic? Does it account for the Robespierrist's political isolation? The difficulty in sparking an insurrection when government policy for the last year or so had been to promote stability and prevent insurrection? I'm not sure - to me it seems at the most drier weather might have bought them a few more hours. They had just made too many powerful enemies. But that's my take.
I'm certainly not saying we should discount natural phenomena and other wildcard events, I just get increasingly cheesed off when they are used to write off all human social and political impacts, the sort of "geez we're so little and puny how can we have any effect on this big ol' world," statements that are currently passing for wisdom.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-18 02:45 pm (UTC)Maybe so, but unsustainable social phenomena are still unsustainable.
Say, for example after the skies clear companies re-evaluate, governments re-think and there is a massive shift away from just-in-time airfrieght deliveries. Then in two hundred years time a peice in the Guardian claims the Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the cause of this massive change in Europe's eating habits, I'd say it was a massive oversimplification, factoring out peak oil, the rise of the Green lobby as an organised political force, anti-poverty campaigns by mainstream and Church based charities, riots by migrant workers paid starvation wages to pre-package fruit salad. The volcano might have blown the lid off, but the can of worms was there all along.
there's still debate about the temperature and rainstorm on 9 Thermidor
There is ... but does anybody truly believe that if the weather had been a bit milder France would still be on its First Republic? Does it account for the Robespierrist's political isolation? The difficulty in sparking an insurrection when government policy for the last year or so had been to promote stability and prevent insurrection? I'm not sure - to me it seems at the most drier weather might have bought them a few more hours. They had just made too many powerful enemies. But that's my take.
I'm certainly not saying we should discount natural phenomena and other wildcard events, I just get increasingly cheesed off when they are used to write off all human social and political impacts, the sort of "geez we're so little and puny how can we have any effect on this big ol' world," statements that are currently passing for wisdom.