On 27/11/2013 23:00, Ilan Kelman wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">is this the
accountability that we seek?
I want to ask who, or what, is 'we'?
Prefererably, 'we' is society at large, not some select part of it;
surely then it is 'we' as society at large that is responsible for
the causes of catastrophes as well as for removing or ameliorating
those causes.
Is the impressive focus of attention displayed by this exchange, for
example, on this relatively small and basicaly technological failure
because larger 'failures' are deemed to be beyond us - 'us' being
society at large again. Whilst most technological failures attract
post-event inquiries and reports into their causes, eg: aircraft,
train and industrial accidents, large fires, building collapses and
supermarkets wanting roof gardens, what of Katrinas, Sandys and
Haiyans? Where is similar concern for accountability regarding the
causes of the impacts of those, where are the in-depth inquiries and
reports? The last I read of Sandy was that there was strong
opposition to the then mayor of New York City's proposal to prevent
reconstruction in the same highly vulnerable locations. Also, would
Japan have instituted its impressive inquiry into the impacts of its
tsunami if a nuclear power station had not been a casualty and
exacerbator of that catastrophe?
One reason, surely, is that we recognise technology and its
applications as products of our own 'society at large' and therefore
it is that same society that should be able to spot the causes and
put things to rights. Therefore, surely also, as soon as the impacts
of Katrinas, Sandys and Haiyans are recognised not as 'natural' but
as products of society at large, then the sooner will society take
control of those events as well.
Meanwhile, we will toy with supermarkets.
James