The point I'm making--although you can't be blamed for having missed it because I didn't realize it until five minutes ago--is compatible with both arguments. No, we can't be expected to engineer for *highly* unlikely events. But quite a few disasters are more like this one:
Someone failed to engineer for a not-so-unlikely event.

"Very cold weather" in Texas isn't a wild outlier event. It's snowed 94 times in Houston since 1881. This should have been someone's clue that maybe it could happen again.
We--people--tend to be extremely incompetent and accident-prone, and we're running a ton of highly-complex systems that are, basically, beyond our competence. These systems massively improve our quality of life and life expectancy, but when they go wrong ... *disaster.*
And the disaster is bigger than it would have been had the system been less life-improving.

We're also reliant on a lot of luck. (As @YouDrivePoorly pointed out, a CME could undo us. It hasn't been that long since the Carrington Event. 2012? Near-miss.)
"Human incompetence" shouldn't be viewed as an unusual thing, because it really isn't. Nor should bad luck. Rare events cease to be rare when you lengthen the time horizon: sooner or later you get the once-in-a-century storm, the once-in-a-century pandemic,
the once-in-a-century asteroid strike. If you look at each risk individually, you conclude, "It's unlikely that civilization is going to end today." If you look at them in the aggregate, over time, the risk of civilization ending goes way up.
Now, "civilization ending" is not quite as drastic as it sounds; Texas retains the human capital and knowledge that's allowing it quickly to re-electrify and it will soon get the water running again. But Texas was returned to quite a primitive condition--overnight.
And Texans were baffled. They had no idea how to, say, build igloos to keep themselves warm.

We're running a lot of super-complex systems that aren't especially resilient. And we don't have skills required to thrive in a pre-industrial society anymore.
Things are fragile. And many things we think of as "outlier events" are not, actually, all that rare.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Claire Berlinski.

Claire Berlinski. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClaireBerlinski

18 Feb
I can't make sense of the reporting on the blackout in Texas. What's the problem, exactly? Frozen wind turbines? Frozen equipment for burning natural gas? A frozen nuclear power plant? All of the above? Why would a cold snap take down any of these facilities?
Cold and snow are commonplace in northern latitudes, but the power doesn’t go out every time the temperature drops. I’ve read that “gas can’t make it through the pipes,” but why? Nearly half of Europe is heated by gas from Russia. The gas makes it through the pipes fine.
Were these facilities built to hugely different specifications in the belief that it would never get cold in Texas? Why would all three power sources—wind, natural gas, and nuclear—be unable to withstand cold weather? (If indeed all three are implicated?)
Read 4 tweets
16 Feb
Has anyone come across an essay that explains to their satisfaction not *that* China is detaining its Uighurs population in camps--this is established--by *why?* What is the end goal and why does the CCP think it worth the international opprobrium?
Is it motivated by horror of any form of ethnic particularism that could lead to separatism and thus reduce China, again, to Warring States status? Is it motivated by a genuine belief that this is *good* for this population, which ultimately will be grateful?
Do they mean completely to destroy the Uighur population--physically and spiritually--to inspire terror in others? Or do they genuinely believe this will--ultimately--improve their moral and economic status?
Read 7 tweets
12 Feb
The problem isn't confined to conservatives who don't understand what socialism is. As @SAFrancoC notes--here--claireberlinski.substack.com/p/the-moral-of…, many Americans are bandying about the term, and it isn't clear what they mean.
If this generation means "socialist" in the traditional sense of that word, we're in profound trouble if this ever translates into electoral success. I doubt this is what they mean, but it's hard to be sure, given their enthusiasm for the word "socialist."
It's not merely a conservative talking point: If they think socialism, as historically understood and practiced, is a good idea, people like @SAFrancoC need to explain why they're wrong.
Read 6 tweets
12 Feb
Well, it can be expected. But so far, these expectations haven't been met. Perhaps they might be met if the US could manage a solid few years of political stability and economic dynamism.
I don't really know what motivated Merkel to prioritize Germany's relationship with China over the Transatlantic alliance--though @cosmo_globalist explores the question, here:
claireberlinski.substack.com/p/no-one-can-i…
claireberlinski.substack.com/p/no-one-can-i…
But I suspect that in large part, it was because Merkel adjudged the US to be on a terminal democratic and economic trajectory.

She may be right; it's too soon to say.
Read 5 tweets
3 Feb
Both American political parties are now committed to protectionism. No significant political constituency favors free trade. Protectionism is not a better idea because Biden endorses it. Le Monde rightly points this out-- lemonde.fr/idees/article/…
while overlooking the even greater cost to EU taxpayers of its own protectionism. (Although in fairness, they do link the document that spells it out plainly.)
My own views on protectionism have changed as a result of the pandemic; I now believe some industries need to be protected--medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, for example. We need to repatriate industries such that shortfalls can be used as a boot on our neck.
Read 4 tweets
29 Jan
This is an extremely interesting document. What's everyone's guess about the author? Might it be Pottinger? Anyone familiar enough with his thought to hazard a guess? politico.com/news/magazine/…
The idea that Russia can be peeled off from China is delusional. Apart from that, this seems well-considered strategic advice--*except* that the US is in no position to execute a patient strategy over many administrations. For that, you need two functional political parties--
both of which are prepared to pursue a consistent foreign policy in which partisan politics stop at the water's edge. The GOP seems determined to drag the US into a low-level civil war, which will make it impossible for the US to project power this way over the coming decades.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!