What Makes A Natural Disaster Disastrous Enough?

Submitted by Grace Roulet on Sun, 04/18/2010 - 03:21.

In the 2000s, there have been two HUGE international natural disasters that the United States has sent aid for and one that, as far as I know, we have not really helped much. The first of the two the United States has spent millions in aid for is the tsunami in 2004. This disaster was caused by a whopping 9.3 magnitude earthquake that sent a wall of water crashing down on countries in the Indian Ocean. This disaster caused around 184,167 deaths, 125,000 injuries, about 45,725 people to go missing, and around 1.69 million people were displaced. By the new year the United States planned to spend around $350 million. The second disaster was the earthquake in Haiti. This was a 7.0 magnitude quake and killed between 45,000 - 200,000 people, and left about 1.5 million people in search of homes. The United States plans to spend between $100 million and $550 million in relief efforts. The 8.8 magnitude quake in Chile is one that killed at least 400 people and left more than 500,000 families homeless. However, all of that said, the United States has sent little in terms of relief.

This makes me think that the only reason our country would help any other country in need for four reasons:

  1. We are affected by it in any way
  2. We can get something out of it
  3. We would look bad if we didn't
  4. If the death toll is more that 5,000

What are your thoughts? What do you think makes a natural disaster bad enough to deserve the United State's aid? I understand we only have so much money but as of now more than $704 billion dollars as been spend on the war in Iraq. Hmm, I see where our countries priorities lie. If you have any other thoughts as well, post them. I want to see what other people think, because I think it is crazy.

Ciao!

( categories: )

Grace, we must keep asking these big questions

Submitted by Norm Roulet on Wed, 04/21/2010 - 16:44.

Really deep question - toooo deep?

Not at all. I posted some thoughts on the larger subject of how big a disaster is really ahead - hopefully not for generations if at all...

You really paint the short term picture clearly with your list...

This makes me think that the only reason our country would help any other country in need for four reasons:

  1. We are affected by it in any way
  2. We can get something out of it
  3. We would look bad if we didn't
  4. If the death toll is more that 5,000

I believe that these are standards that change over time, depending on leadership, and while America has not been a good global citizen in so many ways under past leadership we shall be in the future. Obama has very favorable ratings overseas, and the US is already viewed more favorably. When disasters strike, we need to all share the load, wherever needed... need to have a global team of all nations.

What I think has changed the most about disaster response is technology bringing us first hand instant disaster awareness, meaning we may react globally and immediately, even donate with PayPal - that also may numb us and make us less willing to help, as a nation and as individuals.

We need to make individuals more concerned about this in general, in preparation for their own disasters and in support of others - you never know when the next earthquake has your address in the epicenter.

Short answer - if a natural disaster exceeds the capacity of a community, it is the responsibility of surrounding citizens to help those in need, no matter how narrow or wide a scope, and our world is wired enough to know when people need help, for anyone to help from anywhere, and for all people in need to find help.

As a global society, we are far from making that happen, disaster and not.

So we must keep asking these big questions.

Disrupt IT