As a species, people seem irredeemably shortsighted. Think, for example, about the recent economic crisis. After the fact we see the numerous obvious signs that pointed to exaggerated real estate prices. At the time, however, only a small number of eccentrics called foul. We also have a habit of disbelieving authorities. Climate change is the evident example, made more patent by those who choose to say no to overpowering and increasing signs that screams yes. There is also a part of us that prefers to pass the responsibility to others. What I mean is that we find it more uncomplicated to rest easily by thinking that someone, in some shadowy place, is being vigilant for us. It is almost necessary that we believe that these people are on guard and defending our interests. But, are they? And, do they know enough to keep us safe? The good news about Kathryn Schulz’s July article in The New Yorker is that, yes, the experts are there and although it has taken them a long time to solve a mystery, they indeed have the knowledge. The bad news is, that, like climate change, we are choosing not to listen when confronted by incontrovertible evidence. Or, it seems, we are incapable of satisfactorily answering Schulz’s rhetorical question: “How should a society respond to a looming crisis of uncertain timing but of catastrophic proportions?”
Schulz’s article is titled “The Really Big One”. The subtitle goes a long way towards summarizing the subject: “An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when”. These eye-catching words were made more so by the fact that the apocalyptic tone appeared in such a well-edited magazine. Furthermore, the language created a personal connection for me as I had lived for years in Oregon and continue to have friends who inhabit the threatened coast. Worse still: even after having done my undergraduate studies at the University of Oregon, I was blissfully unaware of the fact that the region was years overdue for a tremendous earthquake and tsunami.
Schulz’s article is at once illustrative of some of our society’s worst and best features. It demonstrates our ability to look the other way when confirmation of catastrophe and lack of preparation reach such proportions that solving the problem would mean changing a way of life. At the same time it is a representation of the power of great writing to make comprehensible the experts’ language and evidence, to disseminate the essential, and also to serve as a sort of mirror through which we can see our own failings. Schulz’s article was also so well written and entertaining that it became the most read on the The New Yorker’s website in 2015. This is testament to its high quality, but hopefully it is also evidence that, as a society, we are increasingly becoming capable of confronting our inability to act when we must respond to a guaranteed crisis of unpredictable timing and enormous proportions.
Schulz’s article is titled “The Really Big One”. The subtitle goes a long way towards summarizing the subject: “An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when”. These eye-catching words were made more so by the fact that the apocalyptic tone appeared in such a well-edited magazine. Furthermore, the language created a personal connection for me as I had lived for years in Oregon and continue to have friends who inhabit the threatened coast. Worse still: even after having done my undergraduate studies at the University of Oregon, I was blissfully unaware of the fact that the region was years overdue for a tremendous earthquake and tsunami.
Schulz’s article is at once illustrative of some of our society’s worst and best features. It demonstrates our ability to look the other way when confirmation of catastrophe and lack of preparation reach such proportions that solving the problem would mean changing a way of life. At the same time it is a representation of the power of great writing to make comprehensible the experts’ language and evidence, to disseminate the essential, and also to serve as a sort of mirror through which we can see our own failings. Schulz’s article was also so well written and entertaining that it became the most read on the The New Yorker’s website in 2015. This is testament to its high quality, but hopefully it is also evidence that, as a society, we are increasingly becoming capable of confronting our inability to act when we must respond to a guaranteed crisis of unpredictable timing and enormous proportions.
Click on image to go to Schulz's article
