*Sighs* As I'm sure everyone is aware, a horrible tragedy happened today. Roughly 10,000 people died in seven countries as tsunamis swept through Southeast Asia from an extremely large earthquake in the Indian Ocean. The numbers will likely only rise.
Much as this news is horrifying, it is not exactly unique. Nearly every year, there is often some sort of major natural disaster that kills hundreds to thousands indiscriminately.
This is unacceptable.
Therefore, the question remains how to minimize or eliminate damage from natural disasters. I can see several avenues of approach:
The first is avoidance. If we could make sure we worked and lived in places unlikely to suffer killing natural disasters, we could sharply reduce our risk. However, this is not exactly feasible. For one, nearly every section of the world is prone to some sort of natural disaster - for example, even Chicago is at risk for tornados and flooding (not to mention our sitting on a rather major fault line, despite its relative lack of activity). Another problem is that some people simply don't have a choice about where they live - I'd wager that most of the people killed in the tsunamis today lived where they had grown up, had little funds to move, and were possibly even dependent on the coast (eg fishing, shipping).
Okay, so let's hit the next step. If we can't avoid natural disasters, can we prevent them? Heh, not bloody likely. There have been theories about how to, say, "defuse" a hurricane (though the chances one takes in doing so are horribly risky), but we have no *clue* about how to prevent earthquakes and the like (which are probably the deadliest killer, along with volcanoes). Tectonic activity can't be dealt with that easily, though some far-fetched ideas have been proposed.
So, we can't prevent them. Can we predict them? This would give people opportunity to move away from the worst area or damage, get to shelter, etc. Well, this we're getting better at as our understanding of the world improves. But sometimes there still is not enough time to prepare, and though we may save many lives, there will be horrible amounts of damage to property, wildlife, etc.
If we cannot warn people ahead of time, can we make structures and such resistant to natural disasters? This works, to an extent, but extremes will always surprise us. Also, some types of disasters (eg tsunamis) do not seem that easy to protect oneself from. Lastly, poorer countries will not have the funds to support that sort of protection.
Once a natural disaster hits, then, can we implement better search and rescue operations? Hundreds may die simply because they were trapped and waited too long for medical attention. This we *can* improve upon - both in the response of the world to such disasters (faster mobilization of aid, etc.) and the response of individuals and countries to a disaster (reducing panic/chaos, quickly bringing a local, then regional response to help sort things out, adequately training rescuers, etc.).
*sighs* Unfortunately, this seems too little to do anything. Do any of my readers have ideas for other directions to take? I'd welcome any suggestions.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
6 comments:
There are too many people.
Fewer people will die in a natural disaster if the world is not so greatly overpopulated. We are oviously straining the world's natural resources to support our billions. In the long run, birth control and government incentives to have fewer children may help.
We also need to spread out. As our technology improves, it should be possible for more people to live in the middle of continents like N.A. and Australia (people have been fleeing the central US).
There are many disadvantages to letting people concentrate in low lands near oceans and large rivers - just wait for more global warming!
If we're more spread out, a natural disaster may hit fewer of us at once, and the mess we leave behind may be easier to deal with.
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
Well, I must say I agree yet disagree, Mr. Malthus. ;)
Yes, we have too many people. But I don't feel we have too many people because we will stretch the world's resources to the limit. Actually, I'm fairly impressed with how we manage to keep figuring out ways to provide for more and more people. Even if some of these strategies are not viable for long-term support of a population, we always manage to come up with new ideas before the old one becomes critically bad. Sure, there may be a limit to this process, but we have seen no evidence of that beyond the words of doomsayers (such as Ehrlich and good ol' Malthus).
Regardless, I just feel the world would be much more manageable if there were less of us. I don't think this will be accomplished through laws or incentives; rather, it is a natural procession in our society. There seems to be a fairly good correllation between the level of development and lower birth rates. Much of the Western world is actually below replacement level, with populations only growing because of immigration. There is less pressure to reproduce in rich societies. The obvious solution, then, is to try to improve the living conditions and technology of the rest of the world to match our own, and see how quickly things work out. (Another, more cynical option, would be to wait until population pressure kills off those in crowded countries by disease/wars/etc.)
Regardless, you are correct in arguing that we could reduce damage if we spread people out (though remember that *no* place is free of some sort of deadly natural disaster, including non-coastal regions). However, that doesn't actually solve much. It will mean that the damage is more diffuse, but it won't actually solve the problem of natural disasters, just mitigate it.
Of course, I'm being unreasonable in expecting a Holy Grail-type solution that will actually completely solve things. *shrugs* Call me an optimist. ;)
Thanks for your thoughts, PB.
Sorry to sound like Mr. Malthus. I am NOT impressed at how well we manage the earth while expanding the population. We are killing every last large mammal, killing all the food fish in the sea, and producing spectacular pollution that humankind did not used to produce. We are borrowing from future generations to grab the resources we need to overpopulate right now.
However, here's a slightly calmer view. See this interview story.Jeff McNeely, chief scientist of the Swiss-based World Conservation Union, points out that the tsunami death toll is a lot worse because of changes we are making that could be reversed:
- There used NOT to be so many coastal tourist resorts. (Native villages were built inland, not on the coast.)
- Mangrove swamps will slow down a tsunami, but we have removed them to grow shrimp in coastal waters.
- Corals reefs also break up tsunamis, but thesee have been heavily damaged in the last 20 years.
Mr. Malthus wonders why we need so many tourist resorts and shrimp ponds...
- PB
There's also the possibility of better early warning systems. This news story quote explains tragically the OPPOSITE of an early warning:
"In Sri Lanka, which suffered the biggest loss of life in the tsunami, crowds had come to the beaches to watch the sea after word spread that it was producing larger-than-normal waves.
Thousands of children joined their elders to see the spectacle. The waves brought in fish. The old and the young collected them. Many waited for more fun.
Then the 15 feet-to-20 feet tidal waves hit the tropical island of 19 million people."
- PB
Here's an idea: Let's colonize Mars. Easier said, than done, true. Plus it would create all sorts of halachic issues for Jews. But perhaps China and other densely-populated nations might be interested. Then again, I suppose Mars has sandstorms. I have no idea if these are as bad as we hear or if their extent has been exagerated by science fiction.
Yo,
I agree with YetiSpotter. There is a scientist who tried to warn that the tsunami would hit, if you google around for it I think it was on cnn.com (the article about this), but I can't vouch for that. So predicting is possible and we do, do it, it just so happens that no one would take this guy's calls. So in one sense it was avoidable to some degree. Incidentally this guy is I think now the person in charge of setting up a better system for alerts. STILL,
I think that people will do whatever they want to and therefore you have to let them go do whatever they will. If they want shrimp, PB, then they shall have shrimp, but as you see... the price of shrimp is higher than we had projected, coming as it does with such a toll in life.. probably also in health, too, who knows..
Anyway, Ender, trying to stop people in this manner is not helpful. The most likely option is to let people destroy the planet as they will and go off to another planet if it should come to that. Does Greenpeaces, the Sierra Club, etc. have much of an effect on what we do as humans in overrunning the planet? No. If they do it's only for a few nations who will take heed, but the US always pushes on out because of the powerful business, trade, etc. lobbies who can keep us from signing environmentally friendly bills which would hurt their profit. This case is applicable to any kind of stewardship of the earth and her resources. So both the rich world and the poor world, create what we live in. A tsunami is a terrible thing and unacceptable from the perspective of how much we value life, but perhaps we should worry all the more about one's individual quality of life than about preventing disasters... Those worries actually as PB pointed out are interconnected. We live hectic fast-paced lives so we want a piece of "life's a beach" and we go to seaside resorts to take wild and fabulous vacations, because we somehow need to party hard to accomodate our need for extreme and thrilling, exotic, and new things to ease our consciences about why we work so hard for what we get. We have shrimp pools to feed those who want exotic foods, and to give more money to those who haven't got so much .. we bring them tourists and give them this opportunity to feed the rich who come to vacation on their shores. Shouldn't they have a good life, too? and be able to make money? Of ocurse, so shrimp pools for them to make money and to feed those hungry for shrimp.
Ultimately, though, natural disasters will happen regardless of what contrivances man will make. Living on the East Coast taught me that as I've seen hurricanes destroy the coastline, despite our Army corps of Engineers best efforts... and when it doesn't the Army Corps tries hard not to ruin the ecology in the surrounding area.. hah.
cheers, nice to see you posting again, Ender.
Meowmix out.
Post a Comment