When Are We Due For It?

History has seen the rise and fall of many large and powerful cultures. Romans, Mayans, Akkadians, none of these historic empires have lasted in much more than memory and artifacts. But their decline and eventual disappearance is often a source of intense study and speculation, since many of them don't have clear records of their declining years. However, recent evidence has shown correlations between shifts in the local climate and the disappearance of these large civilizations.

The Mayan empire existed in Central America for around 2000 years before it faded back into the mists of time. The reason? Well, that is still a matter of speculation, to some degree. However, there are some theories that are particularly prominent.
"Some believe that by the ninth century the Maya had exhausted the environment around them to the point that it could no longer sustain a very large population. Other Maya scholars argue that constant warfare among competing city-states led the complicated military, family (by marriage) and trade alliances between them to break down, along with the traditional system of dynastic power. As the stature of the holy lords diminished, their complex traditions of rituals and ceremonies dissolved into chaos. Finally, some catastrophic environmental change--like an extremely long, intense period of drought--may have wiped out the Classic Maya civilization. Drought would have hit cities like Tikal--where rainwater was necessary for drinking as well as for crop irrigation--especially hard."
 If you take some additional time to look at these theories, it is easier to see that they could all be part of the same sequence of events. If we start with the drought, then that would lead to the exhaustion of agricultural supplies and means, as well as drinking water and possibly a primary means of transportation. No longer able to sustain the population that exploded with the preceding period of high rainfall and agricultural windfalls, the land began to lose potency, and the people began to suffer. This situation usually leads to civil unrest, and considering the leaders of the culture were also holy figures, they might even be seen as part of the cause of the people's misery. This would lead to the breakdown of government and trade alliances, as people stop listening to distant authorities, and start keeping supplies that might have been previously sent to the capital. As you can see, these possible causes don't have to be mutually exclusive, and in fact become more plausible when combined. This particular series of events has seen increased scientific evidence to its viability as well, with the time of the drought correlating with the time frame of the Mayan civilization's decline. As this hopefully demonstrates, a shift in the climate patterns can have a sudden and drastic impact on a society, to the point that it collapses.

Another example of such shifts in climate causing a societal collapse is the Indus (or Harappan) civilization that was established in the area of modern day "Pakistan, northwestern India and eastern Afghanistan." However, climate shifts also contributed to the establishment of the civilization, since the region was formerly inhospitable due to extreme weather and flooding that was strong enough to sweep away what people would try to build. However, as the monsoons responsible for this extreme weather became more gentle over the years, the flooding became gentle enough that it became an integral part of the farming process in the region. However, this process continued instead of halting in this "Goldilocks status," and since the river that supplied and nourished the region was apparently only fed by rain, with no large body source, the decline in rainfall also meant a decline in available water. In this case, as the river dried up, many people moved to other regions. Some were able to continue farming, since the rains still came, they just would not have been able to produce enough food to feed the city populations that had peaked during the prosperous period of the civilization's history. In this case, the fall of the civilization was a matter of time and circumstance. Unfortunately, without much cause to notice the gradual (oh so very gradual!) change in the weather patterns over the years, and no records to provide a warning (writing was developed during its time, but not from the start), the civilization was doomed to fall as the climate continued its drying trend. So, it becomes difficult to blame the fall of the civilization on their lack of foresight, when they didn't have much hindsight either. Besides, the society lasted for around 2000 years, which would probably span hundreds of generations of people, who didn't have any reason not to take advantage of such a pleasant, fertile region. At least their activities (supposedly) didn't contribute to the climate shift, since it was already part of an established trend.

Which brings up my last point- if a society can collapse due to climate shifts that are already occurring due to shifts in global temperature currents and the like, what will happen when something like this happens on a global scale? Unlike the Harrappans, we won't have anywhere to go if we are managing to afflict the climate processes of entire regions of the globe. We have already seen some of the warning signs of radical changes in the weather- the drought over the summer, Hurricane Sandy's impact on a region that normally doesn't see such violent weather, and generally rising temperatures. Unlike the civilizations of the past, we can tell what is driving the shifts in the climate now- heck, we can even identify contributing factors to their climate shifts. The question is, will we do anything about it, to prevent a permanent shift in global habitability, or will we simply continue along our current path of self destruction?

Extra links:
Roman Empire studies
http://www.groundwatergo.com/blog/the-top-5-ancient-civilizations-destroyed-by-climate-change/
Decline of Akkadian Empire at start of 300 year long dry spell

So what is the deal with Israel?

I'll forward this post by saying that I had never really looked that much into Israel and it's history, as well as that of the rest of Palestine. I did know that it was established to some degree after one of the world wars, and that it was smack-dab in the middle of a largely Muslim region, in an area considered holy by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. After some further research that wasn't truly extensive, I now have a better idea about the inception of the country and the conflict surrounding it then and now.

I can understand some of the conflict, since the former minority of the Palestinian region moved in people from other regions of the world as they were escaping other kinds of persecution, to the point that they became the majority. I suppose being able to have their own armed forces under the control of the religiously minded may have been part of the appeal, besides living in the land of people they were related to... very distantly. But so many Jews came to live in Palestine that they displaced many of the people who originally lived there due to religious tension, instead of being able to coexist. Due to the Arab/Israeli conflict in 1948, refugees of both Jewish and Palestinian descent fled the country. After the conflict had ended, the refugees of Palestinian descent were disallowed from being able to come back and claim any of their property. However, this policy was also extended to Palestinians who had not fled, with the introduction of a citizenship status called "present absentee," basically making it so that if a Palestinian left their home, they were considered absent, and their property could be seized and reappropriated for the immigrant populations. Arabs were not barred from moving into Israel, but those returning would be unable to claim their previous holdings. However, it would seem that Jews were somehow exempted from this change in status, thus adding to the tension and feelings of mistreatment in Palestinian minds, and giving fuel to fires of war brewing in other countries.

So far, we have a colony of Jews who had decided they wanted a country for their own religion (guess they thought since there are predominantly Christian and Muslim countries, they wanted one too) and moved into the old promised land of their forefathers to set it up. They pushed out a large population with a similar claim but conflicting... ideals, customs... whatever the religiously minded like to fight over when they meet someone different. But they didn't do it themselves. A large part of the events leading up to the migration to Israel were the result of a movement known as "Zionism." To briefly describe it, it's pretty much jingoism if it had a religion instead of a nation in mind, until a nation was included for them to go on about. They did have a certain amount of vindication for the movement, considering the ethnic cleansing taking place in various countries even before WWI, but they took an angle that expelled another culture from an area with closer ancestral and definite personal ties to the land.

A large part of the issue stems from the fact that they were taking in more Jewish immigrants than they were legally supposed to shortly before the Mandate of Palestine was terminated. However, at that time, Great Britain was in control of the region, and trying to establish the grounds for the self-governance of the region after their planned termination of the mandate proved to be one of the largest problems, since the Arabs seemed adamant about not cooperating with the Jews about... well, anything. The first paragraph on page 6 (you can check via the link) has a bit about how the Arabs viewed the Jews;
"Arab leaders refused this offer [For an Arab Agency, to act along with the Jewish Agency] on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people, adding that they had never recognized the status of the Jewish Agency and had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."
So, they rejected the offer because the Jews already had one, basically. The comparison of these two factions acting like squabbling children comes to mind again...

Shortly before the Mandate terminated, the Arab Higher Committee instigated attacks against "Jewish targets." While the Jews were initially on the defense, they were able to push back and break the coalition, which led to the first wave of Palestinian refugees. The night before the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency declared the establishment of the State of Israel, which at the time (and to a certain degree, now) didn't have particularly clear borders. The next day, they were attacked by a coalition of four Islamic states, to last for about a year before a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders were drawn. Since then, there have been regular covert attacks and overt raids into and from Israel, as well as ten more full-scale conflicts.These have only served to maintain hostility levels, though, as very few of the conflicts actually led to anything changing, and most of the time conquered lands were returned. A productive series of events, wouldn't you say?

So, after all of this, I do feel like I have a certain level of knowledge about the conflict surrounding Israel. While I don't have a particular feeling about who is in the right or wrong on the matter, the one thing that I do find strongly disappointing is the way that Israel is treating the Palestinian issue, especially given some ideas mentioned about possible common lineage in the link about "clear borders." Overall, I just think it's a shame that neither side is willing to relent on their dislike (or full-on hate, as the case may be) of the other, and that due to their history they are so scared of what the other side is planning to do to them. There needs to be a day when people realize if they stop caring about where someone is from, you can come to like them, or at least come to hate them for a more legitimate reason than before.

I suppose a moral can be taken from this: Take your personal meetings on a case by case basis, and you may find that denominations are less effective ways to judge a person than personal interactions. Saves a lot of time and effort that would have been spent on scheming and counter-scheming.

Rainy Days... is the drizzle smoking?

To me, acid rain seems like a highly unpleasant concept. Rainwater, usually one of the most reliably clean sources of water on earth, becoming caustic enough to increase erosion rates of stone and metal. Also, changing the soil of the plants that it waters in such a way that they die off, and few things if any are capable of growing in the ground thereafter. It just seems wrong, like a perversion of nature in a way; one of the most necessary elements in biological systems, and an invaluable delivery system for cycling and delivering water to regions where it doesn't last long on the surface, becoming a vector for killing off otherwise hardy ecosystems. It's a twisted version of the cycle that is so necessary for life.

While rain itself is naturally more acidic than neutral due to naturally occurring weak acids generated from atmospheric gases, it usually falls within a certain range that organisms have evolved to operate within. If the natural acidity is pushed too far, or reduced to a basic nature, organisms typically suffer from various functions becoming inhibited as the proteins and enzymes within the cells of any organisms subjected to the changed pH become inert or inoperable, if they aren't killed outright by possible corrosive effects. Plants that don't suffer from effects such as these are often victim to either toxic compounds being solvated and absorbed, or to atrophy as vital nutrients are dissolved to the point that they flow away before they can be taken up (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html). Bodies of water are also subject to such sensitivity, with similar reasons- fish are susceptible to poisoning by aluminum and acidic conditions, while microorganisms suffer from their medium being changed (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html).

It's not just the environment that is degrading due to acid rain, either. Various man-made structures are subject to damage from acid rain, especially those made from rocks primarily composed of calcium carbonate, and ferric and cupric metals. "Calcium carbonate in certain stones dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid [from rain] to form calcium sulphate." (http://www.air-quality.org.uk/12.php) Calcium sulphate, often known as gypsum, is a much more brittle stone, and is subject to falling off of the afflicted stonework, leaving an exposed area that is subjected to further reaction with acid rain. Besides the effects upon statues, various buildings of note are feeling the effects, including the Taj Mahal, Notre Dame cathedral, and the roman Colosseum.

Acid rain is generated in various ways, some natural. However, natural acidity is usually caused by carbonic acid, a much weaker acid than the sulfuric and nitric acids that typically causes problems. These are often generated by the release of industrial chemicals from smokestacks, or from the exhaust of motor vehicles. Though both can occur naturally, the quantity of these compounds in the air has increased and been generated more frequently, as compared to being generated from less common events such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, which combined produce roughly 1/7th of the quantity of sulfur dioxide released from human activities per year. And while the phenomenon is typically referred to as acid "rain," it doesn't necessarily need to come down in aqueous conditions- sometimes these acids occur in gaseous or solid forms and reaches the ground long enough to either stick to something or react with something. When this happens, it's usually referred to as dry deposition. However, it's effects can be just as much, if not more noticeable in the long run, since the quantity deposited will most likely be fully unleashed when exposed to water, and when that occurs, the dry material will solvate and add up to a much higher concentration being administered all at once. When this happens, the pH drops even more dramatically, and the organisms subjected to this treatment will most likely not be able to cope. And while humans may not be susceptible to direct health effects from increased acidification of the environment, it is the gaseous and dry particulate that can cause various severe health issues, as these will dissolve in the mucous lining of the respiratory system, and cause heart and lung problems.

Unlike climate change, this matter has received political attention and study, though not without it's own share of political turmoil. In 1980, a program was put together to try and assess the extent and impact of acid deposition on the environment. This program was called the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP), and was supposed to perform a long-term study into the matter of acid precipitation and it's effects on the environment, and come up with a "credible evaluation of the consequences of various policy options"  While it seemed to serve it's purpose by the end of it's term, although "advocates from all sides attempted to use the program to support their own policy marketing efforts, or to disparage those of their opponents." (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf). Another study, by the DENR, found in 1991 that large bodies of freshwater are becoming more acidic, enough so that some species of fish can no longer survive within them. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1989, which introduced the concept of "cap and trade," a system where permits are issued for how much of a pollutant gas can be released into the atmosphere by a company per year, and if they don't expect to reach that limit, they can trade those permits to another company for something. This allows for companies with the means to make the large scale changes to their operating facilities to clean their emissions can do so, trading to the companies that don't yet have the capacity to do the same until they do have the capability. It seems to have been a success for this program, and apparently at a lower cost than was initially expected. However, the success may be attributed to certain changes in the industries that were actually subject to exuding the compounds responsible for the acidity in the air. A similar system is being proposed to try and handle greenhouse gases, but part of the reason they are so hard to handle is that they aren't as reactive as sulfur dioxide, and can be harder to contain. There is also the matter of the time that such a plan needs to be effective, as gradual changes come about; climate change is already at an advanced stage of progression, and if this program even had a chance to work here as well, is it too late to help? But that is a different matter.

While sulfur dioxide emissions by human activity haven't been reduced to zero, they have been reduced significantly, perhaps even to the point where our impact on the environment through that vector is minimal. Hopefully our impact will be less than those of natural causes one day, but in the meantime, it's good to be able to celebrate our victories while we can... as long as we don't backslide in the process.