It turns out Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hanson are both Boomers. Hitchens said in a speech that he was born in April 1949, and Hanson was born in 1953, according to the info at the site http://www.fresnostate.net/Classics/Biographies.htm.

Both of them sounded definitely Boomer to me. I could tell just by their topic of writing that these people were Boomers. They have something of vision and see deepness and symbol in all these events. It was the Boomers who were emotionally affected and caused to reevaluate every neuron cell in their brain by what happened on September eleventh. It's Boomers who have been making the gospelic calls of "Everything has changed!" For them, these symbols have depth and vitality, and a pair of towers collapsing brings with it a thousand questions to ask. While these "implications" of permanent change have been lost on Xers or Millennials, Boomers have no difficulty in seeing implications or changes from 911 where there aren't any. Christopher Hitchens was clearly swept up emotionally by September eleventh, as were so many Boomers, because Boomers' emotions are so keen. These Boomerish traits cause him to attach a symbolic significance and dogmatic report of the significance of that day in September, even when he doesn't get all his facts right. For instance, Hitchens writes that "the few [sic] voices dissenting against the U.S. invasion of Iraq have been stilled", yet not even Bush and Ashcroft's most repressive dreams have been able to effectively carry off a speech code censoring dissenters. Not even the press has been "stilled" or punished when any of its constitutents wanted to advocate saying "when" when it came to Iraq. Even among those in politics the support for extending a war into Hussein territory was far from unanimous. Polls show support for the war flagging when the question comes to whether to extend it into Iraq.

I read a post once written some time ago, and many pages back that observed how Boomers had been the most prepared of the generations prior to September eleventh for a Fourth Turning. Even though in moving into the particular roles the generations will have in the next Turning, NONE of the generations are prepared, I wonder if it really is true that Boomers have been of late the most prepared for a Fourth Turning MOOD (as opposed to role-wise). The post stated how Boomers were already, prior to 911, speaking in favor of honor and duty and return of old-fashioned values and have values primed for giving up civil liberties, being as regimentary as they are. I can see this in how quickly the flags went up, in the way this generation sounds as if they WANT a major change, just dying to declare that a new, more reactionary set of values is finally here. It was always there on the inside, all it took was an event that gave them impetus to prove it, even though it wasn't an event catalytic to the 4T, for them to show it, right in the middle of a turning. In terms of their generation-appropriate role, however, that's a different story.

As for the Pearl Harbor mood, it is correct that back then America had already long been IN a 4T mood, so the actions after Pearl Harbor should reflect on a nation that had been (more or less) prepared for it. To see whether 911 was the catalyst, therefore, we should be checking and comparing to 1929 rather than 1941. Did people of all ages sense a mood change -- a very real mood change? And continue to write about it long afterwards? Was it something that the Lost and Progressive generations felt and wrote about? Did they say the new mood had not gone away, deep into 1930 and even into 1931? Did even the Lost feel different -- and keep feeling different by the middle of 1930? Was the declaration of a change something felt to be real, and not just something declared by a moralistic bunch of Missionaries hoping to use the event long afterwards as an excuse to tone down booze-bootlegging and other horrible vices? I wonder how much info on this we have? What was there that distinguished it from the events around 1920, which were also big on desecrating the First Amendment?

Even if he got the question of Pearl Harbor wrong, Jack has some good points on what it nonetheless didn't do. I agree with him that we have not had the key long-term psychological changes of a 4T catalyst. Xers don't feel a shred of guilt when they watch a frivolous movie; it just hasn't been spread across the generations the way it should be. The core of their generation's peers aren't chiding them for it, unlike what happened with the Lost Generation in the Fourth Turning. The forceful swing of Red/Blue Zone debates has kept cynicism alive while bills stall and Boomer thought-nannies keep Xers cynical about an overpowering government and system, one that doesn't care about THEM at large. Military enlistments haven't moved a muscle. As for the comeback of religion, it has been rather limited in its manifestations as polls show that Americans say they are praying much more, yet church attendance (the organized religion of 4T conformity) has not increased at all. What we have is more praying, exactly what you'd expect to see after a disaster of this calibre whenever it occurred. A surge of change in thought on politics and resolve to end cynicism and apathy has likewise failed to hit the booths and low election turnouts make headlines. So it's easy to see how this remark on absence of psychological change can be true. My brain cells aren't rewired; are yours?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jensen B. '78 on 2002-03-27 18:26 ]</font>

An interesting case in 3T attitudes is the case of Gary Condit. Amid the 3T hyping of "Americans are putting up flags!" and such came the hype from news reporters saying that no one cared about Gary Condit anymore. We don't remember Gary Condit! Gary Condit's old news. Gary Condit is what people cared about before September eleven. Boomer media hypesters made Gary Condit a SYMBOL. And by virtue of his being a symbol, he was by necessity brought up quite often. By talking about how people were not talking about Gary Condit, people were talking about Gary Condit! Thanks to so much coverage, he stayed alive and well in people's minds and everyone was able to remember who he was. Then, when he got elected to a new commission, or whenever a new piece of evidence about Chandra Levy was found, or some new progress in the investigation was made, people wrote about it and made it into headlines -- and the Americans read it. They new who he was because by talking about Condit vs. 911, the media had used 911 to assimilate its coverage of both into the Third Turning. Even Osama was somewhat assimilated, as was mentioned. As a result, people continued to remember about Condit, because by talking about not talking about him, they were talking about him. By contrast, how many people here have thought anything about even, say, Larry Ellison in the past two months?

On 2002-03-27 18:36, Jensen B. '78 wrote:
By contrast, how many people here have thought anything about even, say, Larry Ellison in the past two months?

I did contemn Mr. Ellison when he was volunteering the use of Oracle to keep track of us all with "free" software from his company. HTH

Last week, ABC threatened in no uncertain terms to cancel "The Drew Carey Show", if its producers failed to make changes in an episode (yet to air) which ridiculed airport security personnel. This is the same network which brought you such enlightened entertainment as the f-word and frontal nudity on "NYPD Blue" just a few short seasons ago.

3T or 4T?

On 2002-03-27 16:50, Brian Rush wrote:
Eric:

I'm betting that the environmental crisis happens first; environmental and economic problems tend to begin or immediately preceed Crisis Wars, according to my reading of history.

Let's take a look at that through the modern saeculum. We haven't actually had an environmental 4T before, but we've certainly had at least one economic one.


Wars of the Roses? Began with a civil war, if I'm reading it right, with economic consequences following upon the fighting.


Armada Crisis? Began with a palace intrigue and climaxed with a big sucker of a foreign war.


Glorious Revolution? Indian wars, internal rebellions, conflict between England and the colonies.


American Revolution? Conflict between England and the colonies, and then an internal breakdown of government effectiveness (with heavy economic consequences).


Civil War? Civil war. Lots of damage to the economy but it started with secession and combat.


Great Depression? This one started with an economic breakdown. No doubts there.


Seems to me, from admittedly casual inspection, that most Crisis eras revolved around internal disputes and conflicts, up to and including civil war, with the Crisis of the last saeculum being the exception rather than the rule.


We should see the environmental issues come to the fore in this 4T about 8 years from now, more or less. I suspect everthing else will be put on the back burner at that point. But we do have some other problems to keep us busy until then.


As for Osama bin Ladin, he had a complicated agenda, and not an uplifting one. But certainly challenging U.S. hegemony (preparatory to establishing Islamic hegemony under his own direction) was at the center of it.

If onr believes, as i do, that the modern saecular era began with the Black Death which wiped out one third of Europe, one can make the case that the Black Death Crisis (1348-81) did indeed begin with an environmental event, followed by economic upheaval, then Civil unrest.

The environmental disaster that started it all was the Plague itself, which resulted from a perfect storm of urban overpopulation, poor sanitation both public and private, and a burgeoning rodent population. The decimation of England's human population caused the collapse of the feudal economy, which in turn led to the Peasant's Rebellion.

I believe that hindsight will eventually show that the Millennial Fourth Turning had already begun by A.D. Twenty-Oh-Two, and that 911 was indeed the catalyst. However, if I am wrong and Eric is correct, the only precedent for an environment-induced Crisis is that of the Black Death. Such would certainly not bode well for the immediate future of America, or of humanity. I fear, however, that Mr. Meece is partially correct at least, that even if the Crisis catalyst was an act of war, it is still quite possible that an environmental catastrophe will be the heart of the 911 Crisis.

Let us pray.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-03-27 20:49 ]</font>

On 2002-03-23 16:12, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

On 2002-03-10 20:16, mmailliw wrote:
Not *ALL* of the students going to these colleges are preppy and conservative; I'm not (quite a few of my classmates are preppy but VERY few are conservative!) When Mallard Fillmore blasts a school (as he did Harvard and Berkeley), that's a sign the school is *NOT* conservative...

Tell me, William, what was the diversity in views like at your high school (and I assume they'd be mostly if not all headed for Ivy league names)? I never went to a prep school, so I only knew a small slice of my student body that was headed for Ivy League colleges. Were there both lots of leftist and rightist students, and how did everyone differ if not? If liberals were plentiful, maybe prep schools are where all those future Harvard leftists are hanging out together.

At Wilde Lake High School (a PUBLIC school; here in Howard County the public schools are BETTER than the private schools), the student body was liberal (democrats = majority party, greens = second party, republicans = fringe party). What makes you think I went to a prep school? Have 1 1/2 semesters of Harvard turned me into a preppy already *barfs at the THOUGHT of it*? Anyway, we send approximately 1 (out of 400) kids to Harvard a year, 1 to Yale, 1 to Stanford, 1/2 to Princeton, etc. (and about 100 to College Park); my brother says that the makeup of the school has changed since 9/11; we went from 93% liberals when I took gov't last year (I took it two years late due to scheduling conflicts but at least I met my prom date in there!) to a 3:2 ratio of liberals and conservatives (1:1 after 9/11!)

On 2002-03-23 16:14, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
Oh, another thing I want to ask William: Is Harvard boiling over with lots of now restrictions on student conduct, rules about what can be smoked in the dorms or what can be printed and said? How are the students reacting to restrictions?

Just the same Cantabrigian restrictions as usual... NOTHING changed there (but the laws - e.g. prohibiting cooking equipment in dorms except for the Harvard MicroFridge - are more than strict enough as it is)

The Irish Potato Famine can be counted as an environmental crisis and as a resource Crisis.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-28 13:36 ]</font>

There is a tendency towards thinkng that Crises are the "worst" turning in terms of turmoil. This is natural if one consider just the recent US saecula. But if we expand to include Europe and go further back we find that both crises and awakenings are tumultuous times. Yes the Revolution, Civil War and Depression dwarfed the nearby awakenings. But if you conisder Europe too, we see that the Transcendental Awaakening there had more turmoil than the subequent crisis. The Puritan Awakening was also an environmental crisis, and it far far more horrendous than the subsequent Crisis. The Reformation Awakening was also pretty tumultuous compared to adjacent Crises.

Finally, the Avignon Awakening (1305-28) which was also envionmental in nature, was one of the worst turnings of them all. It simply was dwarfed the "#1 in badness" Plague Crisis.

Conclusion, some of us here have lived through an Awakening already and this Crisis could be similar in intensity to that (or even less). If it is environmental in nature (certainly a possibility) then it is likely to be bad like the three previous environmental social moments. Only one of those three were bad for the elite, and in today's world, America is the elite. We could have an environmental crisis and not even notice it here in the U.S. Consider, the AIDs epidemic in Africa is already very bad. Its likely to be bad enough for future historians to consider the next 20 years as an environment social moment similar to the Avignon or Puritan awakenings.

External crises like environmental ones, or external threats like the Armada tend to fall most heavily upon the poor, leaving the rich relatively unscathed. It is the economic crises that tend to see the elite get hit. Thus we see the elite take it on the chin in the Hussite Awakening (1406-1435), the War of the Roses, the Revolutionary War, and the Depression and WW II crisis.

On 2002-03-28 05:35, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
There is a tendency towards thinkng that Crises are the "worst" turning in terms of turmoil. This is natural if one consider just the recent US saecula. But if we expand to include Europe and go further back we find that both crises and awakenings are tumultuous times. Yes the Revolution, Civil War and Depression dwarfed the nearby awakenings. But if you conisder Europe too, we see that the Transcendental Awaakening there had more turmoil than the subequent crisis. The Puritan Awakening was also an environmental crisis, and it far far more horrendous than the subsequent Crisis. The Reformation Awakening was also pretty tumultuous compared to adjacent Crises.

Finally, the Avignon Awakening (1305-28) which was also envionmental in nature, was one of the worst turnings of them all. It simply was dwarfed the "#1 in badness" Plague Crisis.

Conclusion, some of us here have lived through an Awakening already and this Crisis could be similar in intensity to that (or even less). If it is environmental in nature (certainly a possibility) then it is likely to be bad like the three previous environmental social moments. Only one of those three were bad for the elite, and in today's world, America is the elite. We could have an environmental crisis and not even notice it here in the U.S. Consider, the AIDs epidemic in Africa is already very bad. Its likely to be bad enough for future historians to consider the next 20 years as an environment social moment similar to the Avignon or Puritan awakenings.

External crises like environmental ones, or external threats like the Armada tend to fall most heavily upon the poor, leaving the rich relatively unscathed. It is the economic crises that tend to see the elite get hit. Thus we see the elite take it on the chin in the Hussite Awakening (1406-1435), the War of the Roses, the Revolutionary War, and the Depression and WW II crisis.

The Puritan Awakening was also contemporary to the Thirty Years' War, mainly in Germany, in which the population has been estimated to have declined by 1/3 during the war, and to have taken a full century after the war to recover to prewar levels. I do believe that it hit all social levels in Germany pretty hard, too, though the lower classes were probably hit harder.

What I was trying to say, is that people turned the story of "people not talking about Gary Condit" into a 3T media story.

I got Fox News on my cable and I was watching the O?Reilly Factor, this guy is so right wing he makes me look like a statist!

Now on a recent commentary about the Middle Eastern conflict, Bill O'Reilly said something unusual. He said that the USA was too dependent on Middle Eastern Oil and the Bush administration was not doing enough to encourage people to conserve oil. Also he said that the USA must achieve energy independence.

Sign of a 3T or 4T?

On 2002-03-28 14:59, Tristan Jones wrote:

I got Fox News on my cable and I was watching the O?Reilly Factor, this guy is so right wing he makes me look like a statist!

Now on a recent commentary about the Middle Eastern conflict, Bill O'Reilly said something unusual. He said that the USA was too dependent on Middle Eastern Oil and the Bush administration was not doing enough to encourage people to conserve oil. Also he said that the USA must achieve energy independence.

Sign of a 3T or 4T?

O'Reilly is actually pretty populist, Tristan. He takes a bit from both left and right and is more of an agitated moderate.

Two events have happened in the past few days that suggest ominous events for late 2002. One was a congressman saying that the Bush administration is preparing for a major attack on Iraq in the summer or autumn. The other was the Arab summit just held in Beirut. The Arabs do not support an invasion of Iraq and in fact they said that an attack on any of their members is an attack on them all.

This sounds like a train wreck in the making, although politicians and journalists are notorious for lying. What it seems to be leading to is a US invasion of Iraq triggering a Saudi and other Arab embargo of oil to the US. Since there is plenty of oil available (for now), this will produce a situation like 1973. That was a Second Turning, however, and we are now on the verge of a Fourth Turning. If so, according to Strauss and Howe, the response to an Arab oil embargo will be "more martial". So it sounds like a major oil disruption may be coming. I certainly hope that something is wrong with this analysis, and maybe it will blow over. But it sounds like the clouds are organizing into a storm.

By the way, it seems to me that we are still in a Third Turning; in what other turning would you see Tonya Harding boxing with Paula Jones?

Jim Blowers

On 2002-03-28 18:38, Jim Blowers wrote:
Two events have happened in the past few days that suggest ominous events for late 2002. One was a congressman saying that the Bush administration is preparing for a major attack on Iraq in the summer or autumn. The other was the Arab summit just held in Beirut. The Arabs do not support an invasion of Iraq and in fact they said that an attack on any of their members is an attack on them all.

I do think this is a empty threat by the Arab states, they would never dare put a embargo on Oil. However I do think a stand off is emerging. Americia needs to keep it's nerve.

[quote]
On 2002-03-27 20:43, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

If onr believes, as i do, that the modern saecular era began with the Black Death which wiped out one third of Europe, one can make the case that the Black Death Crisis (1348-81) did indeed begin with an environmental event, followed by economic upheaval, then Civil unrest.

The environmental disaster that started it all was the Plague itself, which resulted from a perfect storm of urban overpopulation, poor sanitation both public and private, and a burgeoning rodent population. The decimation of England's human population caused the collapse of the feudal economy, which in turn led to the Peasant's Rebellion.

I believe that hindsight will eventually show that the Millennial Fourth Turning had already begun by A.D. Twenty-Oh-Two, and that 911 was indeed the catalyst. However, if I am wrong and Eric is correct, the only precedent for an environment-induced Crisis is that of the Black Death. Such would certainly not bode well for the immediate future of America, or of humanity. I fear, however, that Mr. Meece is partially correct at least, that even if the Crisis catalyst was an act of war, it is still quite possible that an environmental catastrophe will be the heart of the 911 Crisis.

Let us pray.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-03-27 20:49 ]</font>

I agree with you, Kevin, about the Black Death. It's reduction of the population made the survivors richer, helping provide the money that financed the Renaissance. The terror of the plague and the helplessness of the Church was a crack in the Medieval spiritual mindset, making people a little less likely to accept the Church's dogma, especially in the natural world, planting the seeds of the Scientific Revolution. The very high morality among the clergy led the Church to allow less qualified prospects to enter the field, exacerbating the scandalous nature of all too much Medieval clergy, and helping set the stage for the Reformation.
The modern secular cycle had to start somewhere, and I think this is what really sparked it. There was even a kind of circa 1400 Awakening, led by people like John Wyclif and Jan Huss. Since the cycles seem to be slowly accelerating, this would be just about the time you might expect such an Awakening.

[quote]
On 2002-03-28 23:16, Tom Mazanec wrote:

On 2002-03-27 20:43, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

If onr believes, as i do, that the modern saecular era began with the Black Death which wiped out one third of Europe, one can make the case that the Black Death Crisis (1348-81) did indeed begin with an environmental event, followed by economic upheaval, then Civil unrest.

The environmental disaster that started it all was the Plague itself, which resulted from a perfect storm of urban overpopulation, poor sanitation both public and private, and a burgeoning rodent population. The decimation of England's human population caused the collapse of the feudal economy, which in turn led to the Peasant's Rebellion.

I believe that hindsight will eventually show that the Millennial Fourth Turning had already begun by A.D. Twenty-Oh-Two, and that 911 was indeed the catalyst. However, if I am wrong and Eric is correct, the only precedent for an environment-induced Crisis is that of the Black Death. Such would certainly not bode well for the immediate future of America, or of humanity. I fear, however, that Mr. Meece is partially correct at least, that even if the Crisis catalyst was an act of war, it is still quite possible that an environmental catastrophe will be the heart of the 911 Crisis.

Let us pray.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-03-27 20:49 ]</font>

I agree with you, Kevin, about the Black Death. It's reduction of the population made the survivors richer, helping provide the money that financed the Renaissance. The terror of the plague and the helplessness of the Church was a crack in the Medieval spiritual mindset, making people a little less likely to accept the Church's dogma, especially in the natural world, planting the seeds of the Scientific Revolution. The very high morality among the clergy led the Church to allow less qualified prospects to enter the field, exacerbating the scandalous nature of all too much Medieval clergy, and helping set the stage for the Reformation.
The modern secular cycle had to start somewhere, and I think this is what really sparked it. There was even a kind of circa 1400 Awakening, led by people like John Wyclif and Jan Huss. Since the cycles seem to be slowly accelerating, this would be just about the time you might expect such an Awakening.

The more I think about the Black Death and the Late Medieval Saeculum, the more I find the above analysis to make sense. I could perhaps see the Saeculum as breaking down thus:

Black Death 1348 - 1381 (4T) End of Medieval Stasis, beginning of Modern Era Saeculae.

Late Medieval Saeculum 1382 - 1487
Turnings:
Ricardian Period 1382 - 1402 (1T)
Hussite Awakening 1403 - 1434 (2T)
Retreat From France 1435 - 1458 (3T)
Wars of Roses 1459 - 1487 (4T)
Generations:
Lollard Generation: 1380 - 1404 (Prophet)
Henrician Generation: 1405 - 1432 (Nomad)
Arthurian Generation: 1433 - 1460 (Hero)
Humanist Generation: 1461 - 1482 (Artist)

FWIW :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-29 06:53 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-29 07:12 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-04-01 06:12 ]</font>

Something major had to occur to snap Western Europe out of it's Medieval Stasis. It would make sense to me that an event of the magnitude of the Black Death would have been enough to shock Western Society out of it's 'timeless' premodern stasis, while subsequent events ensured that said 'timeless' conditions would not be resumed as in past eras and other civilizations. Of course, I'm following the strict S&H theory here, wherein as often as not, a singular event would set a single saeculum in motion, only for the affected society to return to 'normal' within a century.

I agree with Tim about the Potato Famine, which began the "mid-century crisis" that includes the Civil War. The Panic of 1857 preceeded it here in America. The conflict between England and its colonies in the 1760s was also an economic crisis. The Black Plague certainly seems like another example both environmental and economic. The Dust Bowl of the 30s, while not the only cause of the 4T, was a major factor.

The environmental crisis is due 8 years from now; Brian has it right there. Whether the other problems before then amount to a Crisis is what we'll have to see. My crystal ball says no, but nothing is certain. Interpretations will differ too, whatever happens.

The War on Terrorism is not a Crisis or a challenge to US hegemony, unless Bush manages to make it one. He might. But Osama alone cannot topple or reduce the power of the US; he can only distract us from our true interests and tasks-- as have so many other things in this 3T. I call it the Turning of Distractions. That's about all it consists of.

The greater relative turbulence of European Awakenings is an interesting fact. Back then too, 1Ts were real golden ages, cultural as well as material/institutional. In America, 1Ts are culturally stale. I think there are astrological reasons for these discrepancies.

Meanwhile I see dust falling outside my window. The Dust Bowl is already happening in China; enough to affect us here. The real crisis is building and can't be stopped; after E2K the die has been cast. The sky is falling. America continues to put its head in the building pile of sand.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-29 10:15 ]</font>

Dubya wanted to send Ms. Oprah Winfrey to Afghanistan for <S>spin</S>, <S>propaganda</S>, <S>public relational</S> for some reason or other. We be 3T. HTH

Tim:

What of generational archetypes during that Black Death Crisis?

You'll find disagreements about this from some people, but I concur with the authors that medieval Europe was a "traditional society" without a saeculum. The Black Death was a crisis-from-outside, not produced by generations, which, together with a couple of other factors (most notably the invention of movable type) started the modern saeculum. So, while it was the first modern Crisis era, it diverges from the standard 4T morphology.


Eric:

But Osama alone cannot topple or reduce the power of the US

Agreed. But "Osama alone" is not what we face. Osama's movement is a symptom. The underlying cause is the widespread, boiling opposition to U.S. hegemony. Without that, Al Qaeda wouldn't have any members, except perhaps OBL himself.


Jim is right; we have a train wreck in the making. I said the environmental crisis is eight years away, but that's just the outer limit. It can't wait longer than that, but it could hit us sooner, depending on international politics. The natural oil shortage is eight years away, but an artificial one happened in 1973, and could again in 2003.


The Arab League has delivered an ultimatum. Bush will either knuckle under to that ultimatum or defy it. If he does the first, it will encourage further opposition to American dominance. If he does the second, it will being on a premature energy crisis. Either way, we got troubles.

On 2002-03-26 08:52, David '47 wrote:

On 2002-03-26 04:39, firemind wrote:

On 2002-03-26 02:35, Eric A Meece wrote:
An ice shelf that big hasn't broken off of Antarctica since before the last ice age.

True. Were the actions of us primitive hunter-gatherers responsible back then as well, are was THAT climate change a natural phenomenon?

FWIW, it matters not a whit. You are absolutely correct that climatic change can and has been caused by natural phenomena, but that doesn't make the prospects of another age of climatic extreme any more desirable

It is certainly true that climate change is and has been a natural phenomenon in the past. As a graduate student, I earned extra money identifying microfossils (ostracods) for Dr. Roger Anderson at UNM department of geology. This guy had studied varved sediments in the Guadalupe basin and was involved in the study of glacial lake Estancia (a Pluvial lake that dried up for the last time about 7,000 b.p.).
Varves are like tree rings, they can tell you a lot about past climate because they are yearly accumulations of sediments in lagoon settings. From these and other methods (such as oxygen isotope studies in ice-cores) it is pretty well established that just at the end of an interglacial, climate heats up quite a bit. This heating is enough to change weather patterns, allowing more snow to fall on permanent glaciers. These snows then remain for long enough to become firn and feed the advance of continental glaciers. This then cools the climate enough to eventually stop the glacial advances, triggering another interglacial period. Since continental positions have not changed, it is somewhat hubristic to think that we are really out of the Pleistocene simply because humans invented civilization.

That said, it is also well known that CO2 is one of the most effective greenhouse gases. We are putting a heck of a lot of it into the atmosphere. We are also changing how light reflects off the earth's surface by building acres of parking lots. I think the question is not "are we contributing to global climate change" but rather, "how much are we contributing to the upcoming climate change."

Dr. Anderson used to say: Climate is like a marble spinning in a bowl--it can go up the side more or less in different rotations. But a little push could push it over the side and into a completely different bowl."

Therefore, our manipulations of the earth's carbon budget could make a huge difference in what would otherwise be a "normal" move into a new glacial advance. This could be true not because we are directly making huge changes but because we could be providing the small nudge necessary to put the marble in a different bowl. And then again, maybe not.

Given what we do know--that we are changing the distribution of the earth's carbon budget at a rather alarming rate AND that we probably at or near peak production of the earth's oil reserves, I'd rather take some prudent action now to avoid more drastic consequences later.

Bring on the wind power generators and hydrogen powered cars!

Elisheva Levin

Robert Reed had an intriguing post July 25 '00. He began with South Africa, but then discussed AIDS in Botswana. He suggested that children will be traumatized (like artists?), and as their parents die they will have to learn a Nomadic self-sufficiency.


Could the plague have morphed a traditionalist group into some sort of warped Black Death generation?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-29 21:16 ]</font>