Precisely my point, Harold, though better framed than my effort.
-- Stephan
On 25 Sep 2007, at 13:51, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:
> Stephan and All,
>
> Precisely! It is not as though historians have not gathered a
> bit of data on climate change in the past. (See, for instance,
> Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's book, Times of Feast, Times of
> Famine:..., on the history of climate in Europe.) We can safely
> finesse the policy issue of whether climate change is caused by
> humans or is cyclical. A "Northwest Passage," apparently
> navigable, opened up in the Artic this summer. Huge chunks of the
> Antarctic ice shelf have broken loose over the last 2-3 years.
> Something is happening that augers a rise in sea levels and much of
> the world's population has been settled for the past 500 years or
> so at what we have taken to be 'sea level.' The Jamestown site is
> a minor location of risk, though priceless, compared to many
> millions of coastal dwelling Bangladeshis.
> Ultimately, the differences in approach to these problems are
> not really scientific differences but philosophical differences
> about prudence. The less prudent will leave perceived problems to
> scientists, policy makers, anyone who will/may make the problems go
> away (at least from consciousness.) The more prudent will seek to
> take action against a perceived threat because while almost all
> future events are contingent, weighing probability against
> consequences suggests rational action to ameliorate probable impacts.
> The prudent farmer accelerates his/her wheat or tobacco harvest
> against a threatening storm. This action is based on long
> experience and that experience is the experiential heart of
> traditional conservatism. The prudent society guards its most
> treasured assets against assessable risks. To conserve one's
> assets, personal and societal, is wisdom; at least that is what I
> was taught.
>
> Harold S. Forsythe
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephan A. Schwartz"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Jamestown likely to disappear
>
>
>> It is hardly conjecture. I think historians ought to begin
>> thinking about how historic sites and resources might be
>> preserved and protected. Waiting for the event is waiting too long.
>>
>> -- Stephan
>>
>>
>> On 25 Sep 2007, at 08:41, Pat Duncan wrote:
>>
>>> PLEASE! Let's not start a discussion of this kind of conjecture
>>> on a
>>> genealogy and history list.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jurretta Heckscher" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:32 AM
>>> Subject: [VA-HIST] Jamestown likely to disappear
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American
>>>> settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, as well as the Florida launch
>>>> pad
>>>> that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists
>>>> are
>>>> predicting. In about a century, some of the places that make
>>>> America
>>>> what it is may be slowly erased." Those places also include North
>>>> Carolina's Outer Banks.
>>>>
>>>> That's the horrifying conclusion outlined in an AP story on the
>>>> probable impact of global climate change.
>>>>
>>>> You can read the entire story here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/24/rising.seas.ap/
>>>> index.html
>>>>
>>>> I realize that this is a list dedicated to Virginia's history, not
>>>> its current events. But it's difficult to imagine anything that
>>>> could have as much impact on the study of history as the literal
>>>> mass
>>>> disappearance of historical and archeological sites.
>>>>
>>>> Words fail me. And though I dearly hope I am wrong, I see nothing
>>>> in our nation's condition that suggests that we truly have the will
>>>> to act to stop this catastrophe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Jurretta Heckscher
|