Just finishing the book Island on Fire by Alexandra Witze and Jeff Kanipe about the eruption of Mt Laki in Iceland in 1783 and how the smoke and gas from it harmed Europe and possibly altered history. It is also about catastrophic volcanoes in general and how they were able to affect weather. One volcano, for instance, from 780,000 years ago - long ago, yes, but our genus Homo ancestors were then alive and kicking - lowered the world temps by about 10 degrees (F or C, I forget - it is a big difference, but both are very high) for a decade and by several degrees for several centuries. This would have affected our ancestors in a very big way, killing many and changing and limiting the gene pool, helping lead to who we are today.
In other words, lots of stuff in the air can lead to big changes. I try not to get into politics here, but most know where this is going necessarily - to global warming. It is odd that it is claimed that human pollutants are warming the world while volcanoes cool them, but I leave that to the scientists. The idea is that certain activities, whether natural in cause or not, will cause changes in climate. As for politics, we all know that climate change is so ensnared in debate that it is impossible for the open minded to find the truth. There is good reason for that. For one, lots of egos at are stake, as are lots of dollars. For another, climate is a complex thing - in this book, the authors speak authoritatively of temp change with volcanoes, but it is a different matter concerning the "little ice age." This was a period - from the 14th to the mid-19th century - during which much of the earth cooled considerably, radically changing much of world history. Yet, know one knows why.
The arguments have gotten far beyond egos and money, though; for many, it has become a holy war of world views. It is startling that from such an academic debate such vituperation should have arisen, but that is the way it has always been. We laugh now that thousands have been killed over the idea of the Virgin Birth, or over which descendant of Mohamed was given his ultimate blessing. But on this issue, billions of dollars are at stake, as are whole ways of life. People are up in arms over dust particles that may or may not be changing the climate. Certainly, those of the future will laugh at all the hubbub we now have over this.
Or maybe not. Changes in view over the Virgin did not bring about ultimate catastrophe, but the issue of the Islamic Imam might give us nuclear war. We just don't know for sure how things might shake out. That the Treaty of Versailles after WWI would lead to an even greater war would have been unthinkable in 1920 - yet it did. But fluoride in the water has not led us to become mindless zombies - at least not yet. One economist predicts a great boom or bust and he is declared a genius - until he almost invariably misses the next big change. We are, apparently, neither too tightly constrained by the Powers that Be to make great changes to the world, but neither do we often know what great changes our actions will make. It is as if we are clumsy oafs in a china shop, where one turn knocks down a table with a crash, while another only opens the door, neither intended. And if we think we know where reasonable precision and blind fate (whether it is truly blind or not) diverge, think again. That would be to know the future, and we oafs are far too oafish for that.
Which might give us pause before we commit to revolution or war for a certain belief. Perhaps sometimes the idea itself might be worth it, but that is generally not true with the outcome. Ask a Russian how the proletariat utopia worked out. Our certainties can lie in optimism or pessimism, or in a belief that the world is primarily good or evil, and any of these can work out for us, depending on how we view the world. But most things beyond the basic human stuff - that, say, using drugs leads to dependency - are beyond us. Which is a good thing. Life should never be boring, and we know we have a lot to learn. FK
In other words, lots of stuff in the air can lead to big changes. I try not to get into politics here, but most know where this is going necessarily - to global warming. It is odd that it is claimed that human pollutants are warming the world while volcanoes cool them, but I leave that to the scientists. The idea is that certain activities, whether natural in cause or not, will cause changes in climate. As for politics, we all know that climate change is so ensnared in debate that it is impossible for the open minded to find the truth. There is good reason for that. For one, lots of egos at are stake, as are lots of dollars. For another, climate is a complex thing - in this book, the authors speak authoritatively of temp change with volcanoes, but it is a different matter concerning the "little ice age." This was a period - from the 14th to the mid-19th century - during which much of the earth cooled considerably, radically changing much of world history. Yet, know one knows why.
The arguments have gotten far beyond egos and money, though; for many, it has become a holy war of world views. It is startling that from such an academic debate such vituperation should have arisen, but that is the way it has always been. We laugh now that thousands have been killed over the idea of the Virgin Birth, or over which descendant of Mohamed was given his ultimate blessing. But on this issue, billions of dollars are at stake, as are whole ways of life. People are up in arms over dust particles that may or may not be changing the climate. Certainly, those of the future will laugh at all the hubbub we now have over this.
Or maybe not. Changes in view over the Virgin did not bring about ultimate catastrophe, but the issue of the Islamic Imam might give us nuclear war. We just don't know for sure how things might shake out. That the Treaty of Versailles after WWI would lead to an even greater war would have been unthinkable in 1920 - yet it did. But fluoride in the water has not led us to become mindless zombies - at least not yet. One economist predicts a great boom or bust and he is declared a genius - until he almost invariably misses the next big change. We are, apparently, neither too tightly constrained by the Powers that Be to make great changes to the world, but neither do we often know what great changes our actions will make. It is as if we are clumsy oafs in a china shop, where one turn knocks down a table with a crash, while another only opens the door, neither intended. And if we think we know where reasonable precision and blind fate (whether it is truly blind or not) diverge, think again. That would be to know the future, and we oafs are far too oafish for that.
Which might give us pause before we commit to revolution or war for a certain belief. Perhaps sometimes the idea itself might be worth it, but that is generally not true with the outcome. Ask a Russian how the proletariat utopia worked out. Our certainties can lie in optimism or pessimism, or in a belief that the world is primarily good or evil, and any of these can work out for us, depending on how we view the world. But most things beyond the basic human stuff - that, say, using drugs leads to dependency - are beyond us. Which is a good thing. Life should never be boring, and we know we have a lot to learn. FK
RSS Feed