Evidence of 3T:
1. Newspaper story about culture war between East and West, between the Middle East and USA, between Islam and Christian/Jewish. The culture wars are still in full swing. Terrorist attack is misnamed as War when it's really a symptom of continuing culture war on global scale.
2. Go to CNN Education page: lead story is culture war about how students should wear their hair during video taping for anniversary of predominantly African-American college.
3. We're in a recession and we're going to come out of it.
4. The silent generation is still influencing political agenda. Congress is still split 50/50 and arguing about everything.

Ultimately its all about demographics.
Richard

On 2001-12-17 11:31, Richard Turnock wrote:
Evidence of 3T:
1. Newspaper story about culture war between East and West, between the Middle East and USA, between Islam and Christian/Jewish. The culture wars are still in full swing. Terrorist attack is misnamed as War when it's really a symptom of continuing culture war on global scale.

Folks, just a reminder: there's absolutely nothing that requires that a 4T end the Culture Wars. In fact, the 4T is usually the culmination of the Culture Wars in its early stages.

0. Starting at zero, the last Crisis (I should have started at 1 here, but I did these out of order), we first come to the Depression/WW II Crisis.

Interestingly, the Culture Wars period preceding this Crisis was one of the milder ones, as far as I can perceive. It was wrapped up early with the decision to follow Roosevelt, though in fact Roosevelt was extending some of what Hoover set in motion.
In my opinion, the Great Power Cycle Culture Wars were already essentially over before the Catalytic event.

But then, the Misionaries always were, for Prophet/Idealists, rather restrained and calm sorts. They certainly had their passions and excesses, but for Prophets they were a level-headed bunch. This may (and I say may) have been part of why Missionary and Lost came together so relatively smoothly when the crunch came.

Now, the Depression/WW II Crisis was quite possibly the most successful in centuries, at least from the American/Western point of view. Let's take a look at a few others.

1. The classic example, the Civil War Cycle.
The Culture Wars between North and South were not settled so the 4T could start, the 4T settled the period's Culture Wars, by demonstrating that the North was militarily more powerful.

It should be kept in mind, too, that most of the Southern culture (and later actual) warriors were unrepentent later in life. They knew they had lost, but they still for the most part thought they were right, especially the Southern Transcendentals.

2. The Revolutionary War. Culture Wars between the metropole (England) and a diverging American culture. Settled when the War itself established that while the American English might not be actually stronger than the English English, they were strong enough and positioned in such a way (politically, economically, and militarily) that the English English could not impose their will.

We tend to forget, because our ancestors won, that the Revolutionary War was another 4T that involved civil conflict. It was not, at the beginning, Americans vs. British, but American English vs. English English, with a full third of the American English solidly with the mother country, and another third divided or neutral.

3. Glorious Revolution. Not exactly a civil war, but again, the parallel to the Culture Wars exists, they didn't end until the 4T ended them by a test of strength. It didn't get as far as it might have, since the balance of power was so clear from the get-go, but still...

4. Armada Crisis. Finally we come to one that was primarily international, possibly the last one before the World War II Cycle.

Note that we've had to go back four centuries to find a primarily international Crisis. Arguably, the earlier Protestant Reformation Awakening set in motion the first of the 'near-modern-type' true Culture Wars, though this can be debated.

Whether this period had the elements of a 'civil conflict' depends in part on your definitions. In some ways, the answer is yes, because part of the issue in conflict between England and Spain was religious. In specific, the Armada Crisis had to do with the Tudors and their marital sagas, but in broad it had much to do with the Catholic/Protestant split in Western Christendom. Do we count this as a civil conflict, since until then (at least in theory) Western Christendom was a rather fractious single entity?

5. Wars of the Roses. Yep, another civil war, though not precisely a Culture War. The fight between Lancaster and York was a dynastic struggle within the ruling class. I'm not sure we can apply the Generation Cycle this far back in quite the same way we do now, because so many other factors are also different. It probably existed, but it's operation would have been very different from what we're used to. I'm not sure the concept of a 'culture war' applies here.

So, out of the last six Crisis periods, we note that four contained either elements of civil conflict or all-out civil wars, usually fought over the very issues that animated the Culture War period before the Crisis.

So we should, IMO, be very careful about assuming that a continuation of the Culture Wars automatically means we are still 3T. It certainly might mean that, but we can't count on it (unfortunately).

3. We're in a recession and we're going to come out of it.

Again, this proves nothing in and of itself. It is nowhere required that this Crisis (if we're in one yet) must follow the pattern of the last, which I consider to have been a bit unusual anyway.

4. The silent generation is still influencing political agenda. Congress is still split 50/50 and arguing about everything.

Again, that doesn't in itself prove we're not in early 4T. Congress deadlocked itself right up to the secession in the Civil War Cycle, complete with physical violence on the Senate floor.

Ultimately its all about demographics.
Richard

Not all Generations of the same type are identical in power or collective drive. If the Compromisers had been better at hanging on to power, so that the Trancendentals coudl not drive them out so quickly, what might have followed?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-12-17 20:21 ]</font>

On 2001-12-16 20:38, Susan Brombacher wrote:
We worship serial killers too. Crazies like Charles Manson and Ed Gein have actual fans--and fan clubs.

What's especially weird is how many of those fans are female, and seem to obsess over them sexually/romantically. Don't ask me why, but it's a fact.

OK, folks, some have been noting a beginning of a resurgance in 3T news patterns (celebrities, sex scandals, and diets). Maybe so, I've noticed some 3T sign myself.

But..., just when you thought it was safe to knock back with the remote:

http://www.smh.com.au/breaking/2001/...X058CU6VC.html

That looks very 4T to me. It also looks like a truly bad idea, IMO.

Furthermore, if this is an early 4T, for a hint of what might be about to undergo transformation:

http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pag...heading=europe

What will the EU look like in 2020, if this is the Crisis beginning around us now?

But then, the Misionaries always were, for Prophet/Idealists, rather restrained and calm sorts. They certainly had their passions and excesses, but for Prophets they were a level-headed bunch. This may (and I say may) have been part of why Missionary and Lost came together so relatively smoothly when the crunch came.

This could be because the Missionaries were raised by Nomad parents (Gilded). There were no true Heroes to raise them because of the Civil War anomoly. Being raised by Nomads rather than Heroes would seem to have a deep impression on a Prophet generation and probably dilute their idealism or at least suppress its outward expression to some extent.

[Mr. Turnock] "4. The silent generation is still influencing political agenda. Congress is still split 50/50 and arguing about everything."

[Hopefulcynic] "Again, that doesn't in itself prove we're not in early 4T."

[Baaaaa] What the hell are you afraid of, Hopefulcynic? I know you're smarter than this. If S&H are right, then Mr. Turnock is right, and you are wrong. They're ain't no way we be 4T with "Rummy," and a bunch of Silents running the show! Damn! Why is this so frigging hard for everybody at this site to understand! Get the hell over it! This generation still rules!

On 2001-12-17 21:28, Marc S. Lamb wrote:




[Mr. Turnock] "4. The silent generation is still influencing political agenda. Congress is still split 50/50 and arguing about everything."

[Hopefulcynic] "Again, that doesn't in itself prove we're not in early 4T."

[Baaaaa] What the hell are you afraid of, Hopefulcynic? I know you're smarter than this. If S&H are right, then Mr. Turnock is right, and you are wrong. They're ain't no way we be 4T with "Rummy," and a bunch of Silents running the show! Damn! Why is this so frigging hard for everybody at this site to understand! Get the hell over it! This generation still rules!

I'm not afraid of anything in particular, Marc, except the Boomers getting behind the wheel without supervision. :smile:

When I said 'this proves nothing', I was referring to the deadlocked Congress. Boomers are just as capable of deadlocking as Silents are, only when Boomers do it there is less private winking and nodding and more yelling and screaming.

Seriously, the question is how long the Silent will retain control. I'm not sure whether we're 3T, 4T, or balanced between. The Silent don't have as solid a control as they probably wish. They've already been passed over for the presidency (though it's certainly conceivable that there could yet be a Silent President, though not likely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that we're not plunging headlong into 4T as fast as some Boomers (and even a few Xers) are calling for. A few weeks ago, I was hearing Boomer commentators talking about the need to nuke Afghanistan, or bomb Mecca. Now, a remarkable silence from them, except that the same voices are calling for expanding the war here, there, and everywhere.

Now, that may well be advisable, but we're not to the point where going to full WW III mode is called for yet. The Silent are holding onto some of these Boomers (metaphorically speaking, and no insult intended) by the leash, and they're straining to get loose.

Depending on how events go, the Boomers may or may not get completely loose in the immediate future, and it may or may not end in big problems, depending on which Boomers end up making the decisions. I can tell you now that my fellow Xers and I aren't yet in a position to hold them back if they get loose from the Silents, so if the Silents lose their grips, even slightly, things may escalate in a hurry, for good or ill.

I probably sound a little like a Silent here myself, but there are times when a lack of decisiveness is simply because there's not enough data to make an informed call. A 3%/4T call right now is guesswork either way.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-12-17 22:52 ]</font>

Fourth Turning always look a lot like Third Turnings. Maybe the reason for this is that we are not in the full Fourth Turning period but the transition from Third Turning to Fourth Turning. In effect, we are in The Fourth Turning...that is we are really in the Turning to the Turning, not the Fourth Turning full blown period. I know this sounds confusing but this is because we use the word Turning to describe what should we really be called era. Like the last Fourth (1929-46). That might actually be considered the last Fourth Era rather than Fourth Turning. The Turning is the initial part of the era. That would probably be from 1929-1931 or 1932. This is the begining of a new Fourth Era..but we are not yet fully in the new Fourth Mood Realignment yet. We are still realigning. My solution to all this confusion..label this the Fourth Realinging. The full realignment will not occur around 2010. Then we will be in the 4th Realignment and the 4th Turning full blown.

My apologies to Hopefulcynic for that rant. You are one of the few 'reasonable' folks posting on these threads, and I appreciate your calm demeanor. Furthermore, much of what I wrote bears little resemblence to how I view the current mix of generational attitudes on the political scene today; And much of what you wrote does, especially concerning the sheepish looking 'nuke em' crowd post-Taliban today.

Still, I think it rather obvious that we are still in the third turn, and I have stressed that my reasons for thinking this rest upon empirical evidence according to the S&H theory. Not because Gary Condit's gonna run for reelection. :smile:

At any rate, thanks for your well reasoned response.

On 2001-12-17 20:16, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Folks, just a reminder: there's absolutely nothing that requires that a 4T end the Culture Wars. In fact, the 4T is usually the culmination of the Culture Wars in its early stages.

0. Starting at zero, the last Crisis (I should have started at 1 here, but I did these out of order), we first come to the Depression/WW II Crisis.

Interestingly, the Culture Wars period preceding this Crisis was one of the milder ones, as far as I can perceive. It was wrapped up early with the decision to follow Roosevelt, though in fact Roosevelt was extending some of what Hoover set in motion.
In my opinion, the Great Power Cycle Culture Wars were already essentially over before the Catalytic event.

But then, the Misionaries always were, for Prophet/Idealists, rather restrained and calm sorts. They certainly had their passions and excesses, but for Prophets they were a level-headed bunch. This may (and I say may) have been part of why Missionary and Lost came together so relatively smoothly when the crunch came.

Now, the Depression/WW II Crisis was quite possibly the most successful in centuries, at least from the American/Western point of view. Let's take a look at a few others.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-12-17 20:21 ]</font>

HopefulCynic68, one of the major culture wars in the 20s and 30s was between wets and drys. Indeed, after 1929, it was still one of the top issues cited by businessmen, above unemployment. It was not settled until 1934, when Prohibition was repealed. So we did have culture wars early in the last 4T.

HopefulCynic:

Folks, just a reminder: there's absolutely nothing that requires that a 4T end the Culture Wars.

That depends on what you mean by "culture wars." During an Unraveling, a lot of issues get batted about by Prophets entering midlife, and most of these are irrelevant to what the Crisis will entail. But not all of them.


In the Civil War Saeculum, along with slavery there were ongoing arguments about women's rights and workers' rights, as well as now-forgotten hoop-de-hoos over alcohol and sexual morality. All of those went overboard in the Crisis, consumed by the one overriding issue of union, which incorporated within it the issue of slavery.


In the American Revolution Saeculum, there was a lot of furor against drunkenness, idleness, gambling, "vice," and the general misbehavior (as Awakeners saw it) of the Liberty generation, as well as over the corruption of England. All those issues went by the wayside when war ensued.


In the Great Power Saeculum, temperance, the teaching of evolution, women's suffrage, and (perennially) sexual behavior were all culture war topics, along with workers' rights and internationalism vs. isolationism -- but only the last two endured much beyond Black Tuesday.


We have a similar situation today. There are a lot of issues that are important to culture warriors of my generation but that don't amount to a fart in a windstorm placed up against war, economic breakdown, or ecological disaster. On the other hand, there are issues which relate heavily to those things.


You are right, I believe, about the Missionaries. Susan B. Anthony, who took part in feminist movements in both the Transcendental and Missionary Awakenings, thought the Missionary activists were more conservative than her own peers had been. I think that may be because the Missionaries were raised by Nomads rather than Heroes.

On 2001-12-17 22:45, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
.........Seriously, the question is how long the Silent will retain control. I'm not sure whether we're 3T, 4T, or balanced between. The Silent don't have as solid a control as they probably wish. They've already been passed over for the presidency (though it's certainly conceivable that there could yet be a Silent President, though not likely.

Beautiful description.
No silent president yet, still possible but not likely = 3T. When its not possible to have Silent President then we'll be in 4T.
The generation constellations are not yet aligned for 4T.

Everyone on this board is talking/ typing/ thinking war and economic disaster. The catalyst is probably not a war or economic event. The catalyst sets in motion a series of cascading events that lead to concerns about personal survival. For example, a significant shift in climate might be a catalyst to focus everyone's attention on global climate change and reducing CO2. That would have a huge economic impact that we've been avoiding and delaying = 3T.

"For example, a significant shift in climate might be a catalyst to focus everyone's attention on global climate change and reducing CO2. That would have a huge economic impact that we've been avoiding and delaying = 3T."

What measures should we be taking right now? And if we don't follow this advice, and what you say happens, what will we do then to fix this problem?

A real interesting sign of the 4Turning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Dec16.html

Mark Lamb writes... Everyone on this board is talking/ typing/ thinking war and economic disaster. The catalyst is probably not a war or economic event. The catalyst sets in motion a series of cascading events that lead to concerns about personal survival. For example, a significant shift in climate might be a catalyst to focus everyone's attention on global climate change and reducing CO2. That would have a huge economic impact that we've been avoiding and delaying = 3T.

After September 11, I was indeed focused on military -- economic conflict. Since the Age of Exploration, the major powers have been able to set up "zones of influence" where they could pretty much dominate lands far from home. They fought major wars in Europe, and numerous "minor" colonial wars abroad. Nuclear war has made the major head on wars not cost effective. Will possession of weapons of mass destruction by smaller countries, their proxies and revolutionaries make zones of influence not cost effective? Will the major powers be able to continue to monopolize a huge share of the planet's wealth?

Yes, the external forms of colonial imperialism have faded. Occupying armies in official colonies are very rare indeed. These days, the wealthy finance campaigns for favorite politicians where semi-functional democracies exist, and out and out bribe the politicians elsewhere. The result is still a vast division of wealth between rich and poor countries, and between rich and poor individuals within any given country.

Can the West (or the major multinationals) continue to arrange the world's economy along current lines, or will guerilla and terrorist tactics force a more equitable distribution of the wealth? This was one perspective possible post September 11th. My gut reaction was that the guerillas and terrorists might be able to force a major change in the world order. My fear was that the United States would attempt to use military force to maintain an obsolete world order.

To date, the United States does seem to be successfully using military force to maintain something approximating the old world order. The "problem" is too little real change. While we were ready to sacrifice and work for something new, while the 4T mood was present initially, the civilians of the West were not seriously asked to sacrifice or change. We are still on a peace time economic footing. To keep the economy rolling, we have been asked to spend lots on Christmas gifts and vacation travel. The war seems to be going reasonably at the moment. The initial surge into something like a 4T mood seems to be fading. No great debates on grand policy have developed as an incremental adjustment of old policy seems to be sufficient.

Has there been a real shift in the world order? A little bit. The Somalia / Balkans / East Timor pattern of foreign international intervention against warlord governments has been reinforced. The notion of "the problem is far away, not our problem, just ignore it" has lost credibility. When next we see massive human rights violations to the point of a collapsed economy, it will be a little easier for a "coalition" to step in. The need for "nation building" seems to have been accepted. One can't just kick the bad guys around. One has to give the good guys a chance. The good guys have to be local good guys. If Somalia was a fiasco, the lessons learned continue.

I begin to sense a "domino effect." LBJ got entangled in Vietnam to prevent a one country at a time expansion of Communism. I start to get the feeling that when and if Afghanistan falls, Dubya might start looking for the next domino. Eventually, there might be no more rogue nations either because the rogues are too scared, too bombed out, or have learned to hide their rougeness. The established world powers aren't waiting for a revolutionary movement to change the world order. They are striking preemptively.

I too think another catalyst will come. I still see the problems as global and international. The military and economic aspects are real. So are the ethnic, religious, ecological and political aspects. It is vaguely possible that Dubya's Domino Doctrine might defuse everything. As poverty and ethnic strife breed terror, Dubya might be forced into nation building the world, one hot spot at a time. I have trouble believing it. He is too much of the rich elites, and for the rich elites, with no appreciation of the ecological perspective. He is putting band-aids on the power keg. This has worked for several months, might work for several years, and could plausibly work through two full terms.

Still, if all he manages to do is delay the explosion, you have to give him credit for reasonable short term success. Perhaps the "Long Boom" isn't over, just interrupted by the September 11th recession, to be remembered as one of several minor half forgotten Long Boom economic glitches. Perhaps Afghanistan can be made peaceful and prosperous. Perhaps Sadaam and bin Ladin will die peacefully in their sleep. Perhaps the pattern of the anti-terror coalition and nation building is all that is necessary.

Perhaps. Color me dubious. Another catalyst is possible. After recent events, the idea of a focused and determined nation aggressively attacking problems is certainly plausible. Mark is correct in saying that the next catalyst might not be an extension of the economic -- military problems, and might cause an entirely different perspective on the world's problems. I'll mention a super-plague (whether natural or a weapons release) as another galvanizing event that might shake the world economically, politically, morally and otherwise.

Still, all the problems are intertwined. The Somalia - Balkans - Middle East - OKC - USS Cole - WTC - Afghanistan chain seems to be dwarfing other spirals of violence. Until another catalyst illuminates the world situation in a new and startling way, this dominant spiral of violence seems to illustrate the most plausible major axis of the crisis.

On 2001-12-18 22:53, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Mark Lamb writes... [I] Everyone on this board

Ah, I never get any credit.
Unfortunately, Richard Turnock wrote that generalization. Did I really say "Everyone"?
Auugh! (sliding out the door quietly so no one will notice)........

On 2001-12-18 11:04, Marc S. Lamb wrote:
"For example, a significant shift in climate might be a catalyst to focus everyone's attention on global climate change and reducing CO2. That would have a huge economic impact that we've been avoiding and delaying = 3T."

What measures should we be taking right now? And if we don't follow this advice, and what you say happens, what will we do then to fix this problem?

This morning an article in the newspaper said 2001 is going into the record books with one of the highest average global temperatures. Storms and increase in violent weather patterns are consequence.

Actions now: research and get familiar with The Natural Step and Sustainability. Begin to reduce energy use and convert to using renewable energy sources. Calculate your household CO2 load on the environment then begin reducing it, buying renewable energy and investing in mitigation (like planting trees).

Actions if this becomes a catalyst to fix the problem? Great question and I can't predict all the things. We will have to think in terms of systems because the time delay between adding or subtracting CO2 from the atmosphere is 13 years before the global average temperature changes. As a result, it took us decades to add CO2 and it takes a long time for trees to grow big to capture enough CO2 to make a difference. I see global climate change driving the economy and war from 2005 through 2025.

Suppose Boomers frame the problem in moral and ethical language and organize Millennials to implement sustainability activities in homes and businesses. One example might be Federal Government organizes teams of Millenials to help people reduce energy use, install solar panels and plant trees. I can envision the coincidence of climate events, science, Boomer values, Millenials needing jobs, multiyear recession, etc.

This is one scenario. This is not "the answer." Given the global interest in sustainability and The Natural Step, a Boomer driven value agenda, and coincident climate events, this is a plausible scenario.

The global climate change catalyst scenario also fits the "Individual vs Community" theme from S&H for the next 4T. Success in the next 4T requires empowering individuals to make decisions that benefit the community. Stopping the rise in global average temperature will require everyone to take actions, penalties for those who don't and the community benefits. There would be a lot of conflict between the wealthy and poor nations, wealthy and low income in the USA. The culture wars would fade. No matter what your culture, everyone is affected. Leads to spending 2005 through 2025 resolving the "Individual vs Community" theme from S&H theory for the next 4T.

I'm leaving now. I have family business to attend to. I won't be back for awhile. Thank you everyone for both your support and criticisms- particularly I would like to thank Jenny, Stonewall,Mark Lamb, Justin' 79 and Bob Cooperman.
I will always value having read T4T. The exchanges were not always pretty but no one ever said that talking with Boomers and Xers is. This only makes it all the more enriching. Happy holidays or winter soltice to every one.

I am sorry you have to leave. Good luck in your endeavors.

Too bad we never got to "talk" more.

On 2001-12-18 06:25, Marc S. Lamb wrote:



My apologies to Hopefulcynic for that rant. You are one of the few 'reasonable' folks posting on these threads, and I appreciate your calm demeanor. Furthermore, much of what I wrote bears little resemblence to how I view the current mix of generational attitudes on the political scene today; And much of what you wrote does, especially concerning the sheepish looking 'nuke em' crowd post-Taliban today.

Still, I think it rather obvious that we are still in the third turn, and I have stressed that my reasons for thinking this rest upon empirical evidence according to the S&H theory. Not because Gary Condit's gonna run for reelection. :smile:

At any rate, thanks for your well reasoned response.

No need to apologize, Marc. I probably did sound as if I were desperately defending the 4T hypothesis. The fact is, I'm leaning a bit more your way now than I was a month ago.

However, what I said about the Boomers straining to get loose I stand by. There's now a steady drumbeat for Iraq/Sudan/Somalia/Iran/Saudi Arabia/etc, as if some people are subconsciously afraid the whole chance for big action will fade away.
We should be so lucky, for now.

Jenny Genser wrote:
HopefulCynic68, one of the major culture wars in the 20s and 30s was between wets and drys. Indeed, after 1929, it was still one of the top issues cited by businessmen, above unemployment. It was not settled until 1934, when Prohibition was repealed. So we did have culture wars early in the last 4T.

Granted. Obviously not all the issues of any given Culture War period are carried over into the 4T, in any Cycle. I do maintain that a national consensus had evolved over the alcohol issue before the actual repeal of Prohibition, probably before the Stock Crash of
'29.

Our current major Culture Wars issues have not, as yet, formed any stable consensus, though some seem to be moving a bit that way.
The trouble is, in part, that Generationally it's simply not yet time for 4T.

Brian Rush wrote:
We have a similar situation today. There are a lot of issues that are important to culture warriors of my generation but that don't amount to a fart in a windstorm placed up against war, economic breakdown, or ecological disaster. On the other hand, there are issues which relate heavily to those things.

Granted, but two points: whether something is relevant or not depends in part on the consensus opinion. It's quite possible for a consensus to form around a purely imaginary connection, with probably disastrous results. Further, whichever faction of a Culture War wins tends to carry along with it some of its 'secondary' goals as a by-product of success. The Roosevelt Administration's success in WW II enabled several ideas unrelated to the war effort, but which various players in the Roosevent faction were fond of.

Richard Turnock wrote:
Everyone on this board is talking/ typing/ thinking war and economic disaster. The catalyst is probably not a war or economic event. The catalyst sets in motion a series of cascading events that lead to concerns about personal survival. For example, a significant shift in climate might be a catalyst to focus everyone's attention on global climate change and reducing CO2. That would have a huge economic impact that we've been avoiding and delaying = 3T.

Here is also a potential example of what I mentioned above about what might be a false connection. We don't know, as yet, what percentage of the current global warming trend is attributable to human activity, and it's concievable that a 4T consensus could form around the idea that humans are responsible, even if it turns out that we are not.

(BTW, I am not saying either way which it is. The jury, in spite of what you see in the media, remains out.

For example, there has been a broad warming trend in place on Earth for at least the last several centuries, bringing us out of period sometimes called the 'Little Ice Age'.
Before that, the world was notably warmer than it is now. There are records of French grape producers asking for Crown protection against the British grape industry, centuries ago. It was also during this period that the temporarily successful Greenland colonies were established.

So, how much of current activity is natural, and how much human? And either way, how severe will the effects be if it continues?
Answer: Nobody really knows to both.

Addendum: There is now some evidence, too, of a warming trend on the planet Mars, complete with a shrinking northern ice cap. Connected to Earth's warming trend? Again, nobody knows.)

On 2001-12-18 18:01, JayN wrote:
A real interesting sign of the 4Turning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Dec16.html

There are factions in the United States (and across the West) who have this driving compulsion to limit freedom for 'our own good'. 911 gave them their latest excuse.

Another thing that might single a shift toward 4T: weird political alliances. The opposition to this idea has come from such groups as the ACLU in alliance with people such as Bob Barr and Dick Armey of the GOP hard Right.

OK, folks, another aspect of the 4T is that it (in theory) forces us to pay attention to matters larger than our own parochial interest. So, assuming this situation blows up, how will the American public react?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/12/19/india.htm

After all, they're both allies of the United States as the moment...

Most of the Boomers I know, myself included, are NOT "straining to get loose", or calling for the "drumbeats" of war. Most are hoping and praying for a well-thought-out action to stop further Terrorist attacks, and a controllable, positive, intelligent outcome to the war in Afghanistan.

If the Boomers I know are ready for a 4T change, it would be to assume the Prophet role and address "Ecological distress, with atmospheric damage, energy or water shortages, and new diseases." Or "Economic distress" or "Social distress."

Not war-mongering.

amen.