We are told the original Cassandra knew, with absolute clarity, that the catastrophes she prophesied would happen. Our really-existing Cassandra’s cannot have that certainty about their predictions of catastrophe, no matter how sure they may feel about this or that. Indeed, that is what the rest of us know.
But catastrophe-with-respect-to-what? Our scenarios for what’s next or later vary in terms of their details. Indeed, the more detailed, the more likely the scenario will not happen the way specified. If the latter is the starting assumptions, then it’s no surprise you respond to catastrophe (or its prospect) in real time by trying to keep your options to maneuver now and in the next steps ahead. You work through “what-ifs,” yes; but not so specific as to foreclose taking different pathways ahead, should they prove needed. The buzz term, “building in resilience,” often obscures this open-endness.
Whether you and your associates are able to keep options open is, of course, another matter. Here I want to underline that such real-time scenarioizing imports into it the “near real time”. The next steps ahead are also being prepared for, imagined if not actually anticipated. I take this to mean cognition in these circumstances is not an entire presentism where the current moment is what’s immediately real. Real time also incorporates some planning ahead and planning ahead imports elements of the future just as real as the moment now.
So, to return to the question posed in the title, even those who undertake the real-time operation of our large critical infrastructures typically have longer-than-immediate time horizons when confronted by unanticipated shocks or worse. Real-time operation of large, complex critical infrastructures is not rapid emergency response. This in turn means that those who predict catastrophe with respect to this or that failure scenario should at least avail themselves of the what-if scenarios discussed in the operation centers of the critical infrastructures with respect to the said catastrophe. That may not be certainty, but it is useful knowledge.
My experience–and here I stand to be corrected–is that not only do catastrophists not avail themselves of such operational scenarioizing, so too do some serious historical discussions evince prognostications devoid of any interest in the particulars. For them, this is the weeds–as if Cassandra shouldn’t have needed to be that specific in order to be heeded.
