Saving the Australian War Effort in 1916? The Significance and Impact of Global Climatic Conditions and Pests on William Morris Hughes’ Negotiations with the British Government

Taking up the thesis of Dipesh Chakrabarty (2009) that human history (including cultural history) on the one hand and natural history on the other must be brought into conversation more than has been done so in the past, this presentation will focus more closely on the significance and the impact of global climatic conditions and pests on the negotiations that Australian Prime Minister William Morris Hughes carried on with the British government between March and November 1916. Whereas Australia had been able to sell most of its produce in 1914 and 1915 the situation looked more serious in 1916, not least due to the growing shortage in shipping. It was therefore imperative for the Australian government to find a way to solve this problem, not least because it wanted to keep up its own war effort at the pace it had been going so far. In this context intentions to make or press ahead with a contribution to a war perceived to be more total those of the past interacted with natural phenomena such as the declining harvest in many parts of the world in 1916 as a consequence of climatic conditions as well as pests in many parts of the world.

William Harvey revisited

William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood is often described as a product of the Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. Modern research has, however, shown thatHarvey followed the Aristotelian research tradition and thus tried to reveal the purpose of the organs through examination of various animals. His publication of 1628 has to be read as an argument of natural philosophy, or, more precisely, as a series of linked observations, experiments and philosophical reasonings from which the existence of circulation has to be deduced as a logical consequence. Harvey did not consider experiments as superior to philosophical reasoning nor intended he to create a new system of medicine. He believed in the vitality of the heart and the blood and rejected Francis Bacon's empirism and the mechanistic rationalism of Descartes. Harvey's contribution and originality lied less in his single observations and experiments but in the manner how he linked them with critical reasoning and how he accepted, presented and defended the ensuing radical findings.