Controlling nature and taming the ‘wild’ have been a large part of European history, especially when it comes to their justification of colonization. The idea that man can shape an environment–and therefore its climate–to fit his needs is central in understanding anthropogenic climate change as much of the damage that is done is for the benefit of man. Golinski touches on this by mentioning that American colonists believed in ‘civilizing’ the climate and used it as a justification for colonizing the lands of Indigenous Americans. It’s interesting to note how people around this time did not even want to give nature the power to spread disease, as they sometimes chalked it up to human activity (too much exercise, increased luxury, racial differences). It’s also interesting to note how the conversation turned into a social darwinistic one in this week's historical accounts. Obviously it isn’t surprising/new that Europeans/colonists were hyper fixated on this, but I hadn’t thought that people frequently connected social issues to environmental changes. The mention of their disapproval of emotional changes (sensitivity, soft-heartedness, or anything that was considered feminine) and 'inferior qualities’ of certain peoples in relation to climate change expose the ideologies of European thinkers during/post the Enlightenment.