Australian Wildfires: Decisions that Affect Society, Environment, and Our Collective Futures

This photo taken from Google images of the Southern Australian wildfires struck me today - it reminded me of another similar, more well-known photo:



The difference is that one was a "man-made" disaster (Australian wildfires) whereas the other was a natural one (pyroclastic flow). Both claim human lives but one of them is the direct result of an irresponsible, bone-headed human decision.

We can all accept doctrines as words that have some foundational basis. To some they are the word of truth and to others they are just philosophical mumbo jumbo. One doctrine which I believe in is that human beings have an effect on everything around them because we are intimately connected with our environment - whether to each other as members of the same species or whether we are just individual organisms within a pre-existing ecosystem. The environment has an impact on us the same way we have an impact on the environment, and the combination of these forces do much good and also much harm. Harm is a subjective word but in the context of human civilization it is the outcome of an act that can reduce an individual, a population, or a society's ability to continue in the same capacity while retaining the same characteristics.

It is with all this in mind that I contemplate the news that I read on BBC today:

"The number of deaths from wildfires that have already claimed 131 lives in the Australian state of Victoria is likely to rise, officials have warned. Police believe some of the fires were started deliberately."

These implications have led Prime Minister Kevin Ruud to calling the supposed arson an act of "mass murder."

It seems to me the entire thing revolves around the problem of responsibility: in our modern society there seems to be a disconnect between action and consequence. Consequences may or may not implicate the person(s) involved but it is plain irresponsible to believe that actions have no direct consequence as a result of them. It is a law of physics that all actions have equal and opposite reactions (they were speaking about magnitude, but the meaning carries over) and is perhaps one of the few sure things in metaphysics as well (if there ever was a sure thing in metaphysics).

Like James Lovelock's idea of Gaia, people must understand that not only can human action affect environments - combined with the right weather conditions and social context (inappropriate transit infrastructure or lack of escape routes) it can lead to a humanitarian disaster leading to loss of many lives.

The breeding ground of dangerous ideas is the nest in which the dangerous sentiment that actions are of no import is held with confidence: those who believe that they need to pay no heed of their actions and consequences and the relation therein with other human beings have already created the appropriate societal fabric from which people who can take such actions as those described in Southern Australia can be fashioned.

To shun collective responsibilty as a societal trait (it's your problem - not mine!) is to shun individual responsibility for such actions. We are all complicit to their crime. Freedom is as elusive a term as the definable range of its acceptable practice.

You and I are intimately connected - but how do we measure how much control we should have on each other in society?

Is it as little as possible? Is it as much as possible? Neither?

What is a healthy middle - a healthy compromise? And does it exist?