Butterflies and Hurricanes

One of the most personally challenging concepts I have come across is that of cause and effect, and to what extent you can reasonably apply it. From a purely scientific perspective, for example - X reacts with Y to form Z, which reacts with A but quickly decomposes into B. That is a series of logical and analytical causes and effects.

But when we consider events that are linked, but in a somewhat more abstract way and over a longer period of time, a dilemma arises.

I struggle with this when it comes to historical events - how far does one event cause another, and can one event be responsible for another event far into the future. An example for historical events leading to another can be seen in 20th and early 21st century major world events. So we can start with Gavrilo Princip shooting Franz Ferdinand, > World War One > Versailles  > World War Two > Cold War > 9/11 and the War on Terror. Is it right to blame Princip for the War on Terror? Can we attribute the events of the Cold War to the Treaty of Versailles?

It is a troubling dilemma. If we are willing to accept that one event is contingent on the one before it, then we create this infinite chain of contingent events, which can't be right, surely? An alternative interpretation of the problem however, is to address the 'causes' of each event. All these events were not solely caused by the cause noted, and in some cases it is arguable the event would have happened anyway had the cause not occurred.

Firstly, lets look at Princip shooting dead the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, widely attributed as the event that triggered the first world war, but we have to look at the wider context. The first world war can best be described as various different wars occurring for different reasons that occurred in common areas. Yes, Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia as Princip's actions gave a justification, but it also meant war with Russia. The Germans wanted to fight Russia before they had become too strong to defeat - as well as being Austria-Hungary's ally. France went to war with Germany because they were allied with Russia, and Britain entered the war because of the German trespass of Belgium. This complex series of alliances and motives for war shows that Europe was primed and ready for conflict, and Princip's shot was, merely, a trigger for this conflict that was destined to happen anyway, as soon as another justification was found.

We can also look at why the Cold War began - to some extent caused by the Yalta conference and division of Europe, but primarily due to the two largest powers in the world emerging with deeply opposing ideology - capitalist liberal democracy in the west, and totalitarian communism in the east. So if we follow this idea of cause and effect, we can apply the failure of Operation Barbarossa, and the failure for a decisive Axis victory in the west and Africa. And what caused this?

This thought process it abrasively logical. The issue is that it ultimately reaches a point where a minute action - one soldier's death - apparently caused the Cold War. For this reason, it is troubling to look at history as a series of causes and effects.

Something will always be affected by something else, no matter how small - the snowflake is responsible for the avalanche.

So, we need to look at individual events and the events surrounding it. Yes, it must be recognised that all of history is interconnected, but as far as understanding why an event occurred, the only productive measure to take is to look at what surrounds an event, and work from its context - not from a cause and effect basis.