ABSTRACT
It is widely appreciated that uncertainty is the enemy of anticipation. Well known statements, such as “While limited to only one past and one present, every society faces a multiplicity of potential futures” (Sewell & Foster 1976), appear to suggest that a “wait and see” policy is preferable to one that attempts to anticipate the possible adverse consequences of future events, especially those arising from the workings of complex environmental systems largely outside human control. But this is far from the case, for there are many “anticipationist” natural scientists who are increasingly optimistic regarding the evolving ability of human society to cope with cost-inducing physical environmental phenomena, popularly known as “natural hazards” or “natural perils”, but better termed “environmental hazards” (see Ch. 1). They can point to an impressive and evergrowing range of examples where anticipatory measures have saved lives, reduced suffering, limited damage and destruction, and restricted adverse economic consequences, thereby indicating that more can be done to bring hazard losses (the so-called “natural tax” or “natural rent”) down to tolerable levels. This contribution is written from their perspective, to show the scope for anticipationism.
