Monday, February 15, 2010
"The Curse of Akkad": Question for the Class
When Kolbert ends section I of Field Notes by reporting on a conversation with biologist Chris Thomas, she has directed our attention toward the future. "Part of it simply is," Thomas says, "we've got one planet, and we are heading it in a direction that . . . we don't know what the consequences are going to be." As we turn from that sobering conclusion and flip the page that reads "Part II Man," we find that Kolbert is asking us to look to a past that is 4300 years distant. Comment on your experience of reading the chapter and--perhaps--how your reactions to her choice changed as you read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading Thomas's concluding comments for Part I, I was feeling overwhelmed by the actual and projected extinctions driven by climate change. When I began to read about Akkad in Part II, I almost got a little upset because of the transition from such staggering projections and insights to a seemingly lighter and trivial story from an ancient empire. As I continued to read I appreciated the history and the small break it provided, though it soon ended in a complete desolation of the civilization; I was not surprised. The story provided me with a needed break, but also opened my mind to a very real possibility that we face in the future. It actually drove the point made by Thomas in Part I home even further: here is an example of what might happen to our planet if we do nothing to reverse our damage.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific descriptions and simulations presented in the rest of the chapter would not have had the same impact and would not have seemed as possible if I hadn't read about an actual empire that was destroyed by prolonged drought and climate change.
In contrast to how Teresa felt about the section, I did not experience a positive paradigm shift while reading Part II. In fact, I was slightly put off by the whole section. Though I hate to admit it, I was a bit bored by the chapters about Akkad. I found myself focusing on other topics not related to the material whereas the previous chapters demanded and commanded my attention.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the importance of bringing the past into the present, I was not as inspired to change any of my actions or thoughts while reading Part II as I was during Part I.
I would have been content to have talked about more up-to-date droughts and flooding and other climate/weather related disasters. Perhaps the story was just so far back in history that it didn't pull on my heart-strings, perhaps it was that Part II became so much of a story versus the previous combination of history/good writing/impact/"now" that I was disappointed in my lack of reaction, and perhaps it was just my take on things. I look forward to the rest of the book with high hopes that it will return to the previous writing style.
I think that, for me, reading the chapters about Akkad was a little bit like reading a novel where you see the main characters trying to put together the pieces of a puzzle, but by the time they do it's too late (except that in most novels, they're generally able to put the pieces together in time). As I started reading about the situation which occurred in Akkad, that made me start to wonder, are we too late?
ReplyDeleteI know many scientists have made comments on this idea, some of which we have discussed in class. The general consensus we seem to hear is that, even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, it will take many years for the ones we've added to the atmosphere to leave it. There were certainly parts of this chapter which did seem very dry to me, but the general impression it left me with is wondering if we have gone too far to turn back...if we will be simply another Akkad.
One thing I found really interesting was that they pointed out how certain parts of the world (such as Northern Africa) used to have a much wetter climate than they do now. It seems weird to think about an idea like that, considering that most of us have grown up with the idea that N. Africa is this very dry place, and we then realize that it's the fault of mankind. Also, growing up in the region of the Great Lakes, it's difficult for many of us to imagine what a drought or even water shortage would be like. However, such crises are already happening in some parts of the world and seem to be imminent in others. While this chapter was not the most interesting to read, it certainly left me with some big questions.
In contrast to some of the other comments people have left, I LOVED THIS CHAPTER! I am the weird history major, ancient studies minor, so it shouldn't have come as a surprise. I like numbers and data as well as the stories Kolbert told in the earlier chapters, but I could definitely tell that I was more interested in this chapter. I read through it faster than any of the other chapters, and I was disappointed when I knew it was over.
ReplyDeleteI felt that this chapter shared a lot of information in the background, though. First, it showed that temporary climate changes have wiped out civilizations, so what will a more permanent, global change do? Second, think about how little warning the people had. There weren't any signs of a major change until it was too late to prepare for the droughts. It's evident in how the people stuck around for a few years before deciding they had to leave. Finally, when the people reacted, it wasn't the way people today would expect people to react. We put a lot of faith in the advancement of technology as people of the ancient world put into religion. Can we be sure that it will save us? If it takes too long, will the people revolt against our leaders as the people in the past did? Our technology is helping us, and it says "DO SOMETHING NOW!"
I absolutely loved how Kolbert ended part one. However, as Andi said, hearing of an ancient civilization's experience with climate change wasn't as impacting as (and I'm sorry for jumping ahead) hearing of the floating houses in chapter six. I did enjoy the chapter, and it was devastating to read about the destruction of multiple civilizations. However, it doesn't impact me as much because what we experience with climate change will be nothing like what past civilizations experienced. This chapter did contain one theme which stood out to me: we will never be able to beat nature. I think as a society, we fall into the pattern of thinking we are above it, but as this reading illustrated, this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI found this chapter quite interesting. I feel that Kolbert uses this chapter to show/ warn us of what could happen if we don't do something about climate change now. These ancient civilizations were quite suddenly struck with drought and fell into ruins because of it. If this happens again in the next few years, will we be any more prepared?
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that struck me in this chapter is how quickly things can change over a short (relatively) period of time. How small differences in climate can change things on such a wide scale. Whenever I read about how the average temperature changed by 1 degree, I never took that to be a big deal, but this chapter helped me realize what a difference that could make.
I found that, going from the end of Part 1 to the beginning of Part 2, that I was a little put-off by the transition to the story of the ancient civilization. At first I didn't understand how this related to climate change. Obviously, this confusion passed quite quickly as I kept reading. By the end of the chapter, I was quite intrigued. I agree that this chapter really drove home the point made in Part 1 that is what could happen to us if we don't do something to stop and reverse the damage that humans have done to the climate.
ReplyDeleteI also had a bit of a hard time at the bit of the chapter. I knew enough from reading earlier things that it would all come around to climate change eventually, but it was lacking what interested me during the first part, characters. It presented history which was mildly important, but what was really important was the drought. Once she started meeting scientists and discussing things with them again I became more interested.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out to me most is that I had never heard of the drought before, but I had heard of many of the ancient civilizations it devastated. It is strange to me that such an important event wouldn't be taught to students with the rest of the information about those cultures.
I like how Kolbert goes into climate change in history. It was interesting to read the story about Akkad, but it is a bit scary to think that this could happen to us. I think it is a good point for her to make. I did not like all the numbers in the middle of the chapter. I found it hard to get through but it did make a good point about how climate change could affect us.
ReplyDeleteI was one of the ones who did enjoy the story about Akkad, for two reasons. First, while most of my interest in archaeology and ancient civilizations comes from TV, it's enough that I can read about these ancient peoples and places and still find them fascinating. Even just the kinds of measurements scientists can use to figure out what happened 4300 years ago are pretty interesting. Some of it is definitely thinking outside the box.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I really don't like being a pessimist. The Curse of Akkad shows us how climate change can occur rapidly and be devastating when it comes. At the same time, however, life did not end. Today, no one outside of historians really knows about Akkad. It hasn't been held up for centuries as the event that forever stunted our potential as a world. Climate change in some way, shape, or form is pretty much inevitable at this point. Humans are resilient, however. No doubt a lot of people will be hurt, but we will survive. And, perhaps, in the surviving, we'll learn how to keep such devastation from happening again.
I definitely agree with Elizabeth P.'s comment - it is disturbing to think that if such situations happened today, would we be any better off? Are we truly prepared to deal with what can happen? I really enjoyed this section. I though Kolbert did a great job showing how advanced this "ancient" civilization was. The Akkadians "levied taxes, then used the proceeds to support a vast network of local bureaucrats. They introduced standardized weights and measures... Akkad's wealth was reflected in, among other things, its artwork, the refinement and naturalism of which were unprecedented" (94). Even a society with "unprecedented" levels of art and structure can easily fall victim to a drought so severe it can be classified as a "climate change" (97). It is easy for me to think such things cannot happen to our society today - "we are so much more advanced than older societies." Yet these socities though thtemselves to be just as advanced, just as untouchable. I also found Rind's comments on page 111 to be very applicable: "as global warming gets going, once you've adapted to one decade, you're going to have to change everything the next decade. We may say that we're more technologically able than earlier societies. But one things about climate change is it's potentially geopolitically destabilizing. And we're not only more technologically able; we're more technologically able destructively as well." As he says, its impossible to predict what may be coming, but we definitely need to take the warning signs, as part one shows us and ends with, and use them to build an idea of what this unpredictable force is capable of.
ReplyDeleteLike Jason, I really enjoyed reading this chapter. It was a nice addition to the previous sections and, I thought, a clever way to start off the chapter on man. I have always thought that it is important to look to the past, as well as the future, when solving problems because so many connections can be made between what has happened and what is happening. Additionally, I thought that Kolbert made a huge impact on (some) of her audience by showing the mass destruction of an entire civilization. For me, this was just as upsetting, if not more so, than the end of the previous section.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the historical reference in the chapter. I thought it pretty cool how Kolbert can tie in past civilizations to such a real problem today. The only problem I have with these ancient empires is that yes there may have been a drought or some other natural occurence that may have happened. But how does that relate to burning coal, or using gasoline? Neither of which, to my knowledge, were done thousands of years ago. Also I find it suspicious that if an area is going through a drought and people are dying, why wouldn't the people move?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Also during this chapter I couldn't help but wonder if the Akkad is the civilization Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is a part of in the Scorpion King. Is this the same civilization?
I have to agree with Jason on this one...as a history major I have to say that I really appreciated the fact that Kolbert used a very relevant/related event from the past to illustrate what could happen again. Looking into the past is extremely important when trying to predict future events. The simple fact that an entire civilization could be wiped out not even by a global climate shift, but by simply a local one, should serve as a warning to us about the even more serious and devastating consequences of a larger change. I know that “ancient history” is not everybody’s cup of tea, but one can NOT ignore the events of the past as they provide a precedent for the events of the future.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my reaction to this section, I found it absolutely fascinating that in the layer of “lifeless” soil that was uncovered in the archaeological excavation, that even the earthworms had died. That is a pretty serious drought! I also found it interesting to see how an ancient civilization attempted to explain such a natural phenomenon by attributing it to a curse resulting from grievances against the gods. Fascinating to me, but understandably not the most exciting topic for everyone.
As many of you have already expressed, this chapter did not keep my interest as much as the first few. As Wally mentioned, it seems as if the residents of the city did nothing to lead to the city's destruction. In that way, that situation is different than today when we are causing the changes in our atmosphere. So I don't think, although interesting, that Akkad was extremely pertinent to the rest of the topics in this book.
ReplyDeleteAnother quick note about the river-- To me, looking at maps or even standing next to a river, its path seems permanent. And the more it flows, the deeper it cuts into the earth to define the path. In reality, as Kolbert found, rivers can dry up and no longer exist. They can also change course unexpectedly. It reminded me of a more recent issue about the Rio Grande river. The U.S. and Mexico border was defined as this river in the constitution, however it has changed course and caused land disputes. I now realize how immense changes in nature can be and how we can sometimes do nothing to stop it. But in this case, since we are the cause, there is no excuse to not cease the distruction we started.