So we've got this passenger, allegedly biting an attendant on a Qantas flight, compelling the plane to reroute from Melbourne to Tahiti. It's tempting to see it as a media curiosity, but is it not reminiscent of those past eruptions of base human nature under the veneer of civilization? This is basically what happened with the mob mentality that spurred on the French Revolution, minus the guillotines, of course. In ancient Rome, you had the Coliseum, where people went to see spectacles of chaos, blood, and sand. Now, in the world of online news feeds, the inflight scandal serves a similar role of collective distraction. The disruptive act itself is just part of the spectacle we crave, akin to watching gladiators battle lions. Have we just traded our taste for public executions for these flares of madness at 30,000 feet? The decision to land in Tahiti seems like overkill—surely, there could have been better ways to handle a singular unruly passenger. But perhaps the airlines consider it akin to a political state engaging in deterrent displays of power, like when countries used to parade their military might to keep a volatile situation under control. History reverberates in today's skies. Yet, beyond the history, what's fueling these outbursts? Cabin fever, quite literally? Are airborne incidents the modern-day equivalent of the riots that happened when populations were left feeling trapped or confined? More people in an enclosed space for long durations might just kindle the human spark of chaos. Is it really about controlling the 'spectacle' or is it more about harnessing and modifying human impulse? When we find ourselves on this symbolic flight, the question is: have our skies really changed all that much from the arenas of old?