The Island
Proudly stands the city of Mexico‑
Tenochtitlan
Here no one fears to die in war . . .
Keep this in mind, oh princes . . .
Who could attack Tenochtitlan?
Who could shake the foundations of heaven?
-Aztec poet
The destruction that Katrina wrought demonstrates again how thin is the veneer of our industrial civilization and how dependent the “developed world” has become upon our technological crutches. Of course, a direct hit from such a huge storm packs enough power to wreck just about any city. But New Orleans was struck a glancing blow: it flooded because its elaborate, expensive, and energy-intensive protective measures – the levees that allow thousands of people to live below sea level – failed miserably. Yes, all kinds of people and human institutions failed, too, but better engineering and management might only mean greater risk. New Orleans is hardly the world’s only “modern” city performing a dangerous high-wire act. The Netherlands is strengthening and raising its system of dikes, but how high can they build their walls and how long can they last? What about Los Angeles, entirely dependent upon water piped at great expense across great distances, and still growing? What would happen to Las Vegas or Atlanta or Tokyo if the electricity failed for any length of time? How difficult would it really be for Al Qaeda or earthquake to disrupt those cities’ life support systems? We have proven that we can manipulate our environment and resources to allow thousands of people to live in otherwise inhospitable places. But disasters natural, man-made, and a combination of both prove how quickly such places can become unlivable – especially for the old, the young, the ill, and the poor. Have our very engineering successes put us at risk? Have our technological crutches made us forget how to survive without them? Immediately after Katrina, one New Orleans official insisted that the city needed “gas and electricity” – ahead of food or potable water. We cheered as brave rescue workers hoisted stranded people into helicopters – one at a time, into a high-tech flying machine powered by fossil fuel (when a fleet of rowboats would probably have done more good in less time for a fraction of the cost). That official was right, of course – New Orleans and Los Angeles and Las Vegas and Atlanta and Tokyo and Brasilia and Melbourne as they now exist, and their inhabitants as they now live, require gas and electricity. Like the proud Aztecs of Tenochtitlan, the greatest city on earth, we strut around on our artificial islands and never dream that something (or somebody with nastier weapons and different antibodies) might cut the aqueduct.
1 Comments:
I've heard about "the veneer of our civilization" many times and have even used this metaphor myself. Yet I wonder how accurate it is. The veneer may change but underneath we may remain the same. The civil war editorial that utahgamer cites could have been written yesterday (except for the word "promptitude"). We've become accustomed to thinking the world is all about change. I don't see it. I see constancy: humans continually walking on the knife's edge implicit in your statement "better engineering and management might only mean greater risk." New Orleans, LA, Tokyo, Tenochtitlan, human nature? Same old, same old.
11:35 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home