The ultimate anti-climax

I recently watched Short Cuts for the first time, being a fan of Altman's and trying to see all his major films. I loved the acting, the writing, and especially the direction (I'd say it's one of his strongest films as director), but when I got to the earthquake bit and everything stopped, I felt beyond frustrated. The film had been careful, almost meticulous, in the way it built up each individual plot line and conflict, only to leave most everything unresolved.

I typically don't mind anti-climax (I think No Country for Old Men is brilliant), but I'm having a hard time figuring out what Altman is trying to say here. What purpose does he gain in bringing in such a deus ex machina to halt the narrative? Is the theme then that peoples' lives will go on, despite their arguments, their twists of fate, and the crappy things they do to each other?

If anyone has any theories on what they'd postulate the end is supposed to mean in the larger context of the film, I'd appreciate it a lot!

One shot is what it's all about.
-Robert De Niro, The Deer Hunter