Natural Disaters - Are We Being Selective?

[Lonan3]

When hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana the disaster, and the responses to it, were discussed at some length on these forums with well over 100 contributions to the debate. Not surprising, perhaps, as it claimed over 1,000 victims, left thousands more homeless, and filled our television screens with almost continuous 'news.'

 

In the last few days, however, there have been mudslides in Guatemala which have destroyed villages such as Panabaj leaving at least 1,500 dead and over 200,000 homeless. (The storm that caused them also led to fatalities in Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Costa Rica).

 

There was also the terrible earthquake in Pakistan which has led to more than 30,000 deaths and at least 2.5 million people being left homeless.

 

Both were extensively reported and yet, on the forum, absolutely nothing!

 

So the question is: are we being selective about who we extend we extend our sympathy to, or about which areas of the world deserve our attention?

[Tempus Fugit]

are we being any more selective than the media coverage we are fed with ?

 

There's no nightly reports from Guatemala on the telly.

(supposing a lot of people know where it is in the first place)

[When Skies Are Grey]

Appropriate thread given that its the UN Day for Disaster Reduction.

 

There are some apocolyptic claims of the amount of people who are going to be displaced because of natural disasters brought on by global warming. Fact? Scare mongering? Who knows. There are some interesting theories through that global warming is a myth. That the measurements currently being taken are over too short a time to be meaningful and that the world just happens to be going through a warming cycle at the moment. Food for thought.

[VinnieK]

Selective yes, but I don't think that this is necessarily because of any particularly sinister motives or prejudices.

 

People in general tend to be most interested in what happens in their 'neighbourhood', culturally or geographically, or in what happens to someone or someplace that is regularly in the spotlight (as demonstrated by the celebrity gossip industry).

 

The U.S., for instance, is (despite being geographically far away) culturally closer to the majority of inhabitants of the British Isles and indeed many Europeans than, say, Guatamala or pakistan. The U.S. also has a certain amount of 'celebrity status' as a nation, people are both interested in what happens there, and as a consequence of this and cultural similarities, feel more informed and in more of a position to comment on those events than they would had the same events occured somewhere else in the world.

 

What would a thread on the earthquake in Pakistan look like? I wager nothing that much more substantial than an endless string of "it's terrible"'s following the occassional update on developments there. That's not to deny that what has happened is terrible, but that doesn't automatically make for a continuing and productive thread. It's not that people are not sympathetic, merely less capable of commenting to any great degree.

 

As another example, take the siege of the school in Beslan, or the issue of conditions for Chinese miners or farmers being intimidated by property developers. I've witnessed quite a few long discussions about these topics on forums and in real life, despite both Russia and China being very different from 'us' in a cultural sense, as well as being very far away, suggesting that racial prejudice or the like is not that significant a factor in what captures attention. What is similar between these two nations, and indeed the U.S., is that they're both often in the news, or in the case of Russia were often a focus of the news. As a result people feel more confident talking about events in these countries, and, perhaps even more importantly, the media exposure both have received over the years naturally suggests, rightly or wrongly, that events occuring within their borders are more important than those elsewhere.

 

A simple, if somewhat crass analogy would be a comparison between the levels of public interest expressed in the love life of some celebrity, compared with that of, say, Mrs Crabberknackle of 24b Wabsnasm Drive, Mirthsomeshire. Both are essentially the same story, just happening to people with different status in the public eye.

 

Similarly, it would be interesting to see if the Japanese or South Korean news spent any great amount of time on the Guatamalan mudslides, compared with Hurricane Katrina, etc.

[Alex]

The Uk Independent thinks we might have "Compassion Fatigue" - what with so many natural disasters occurring in the last year - the tsunami, the hurricane, the Niger famine and now the earthquake. They're meaning more that donations will be less for the earthquake's appeal, but could that phrase be applied here?

 

It is quite surprising that there hasn't been a thread started about the 'quake at all, but then I suppose this is one.

[P.K.]

the love life of, say, Mrs Crabberknackle of 24b Wabsnasm Drive, Mirthsomeshire

Ooops! We've been rumbled..........

 

Disasters like Katrina are known about in advance. So they are reported on as the drama unfolds so to speak. Earthquakes just happen and are in your face. I very much agree with the point that the level of concern can be on a par with the media coverage.

 

On the media coverage I was very much disturbed by the reporting on the dreadful tsunami. I started to get the impression that Sky News didn't so much report it but rather they revelled in it. Perhaps it's just me.

[Observer]

A thought along the same lines crossed my mind just the day before yesterday when I heard the news item announcing that the UK had pledged £500,000 in aid, Lonan.

 

I was quite shocked at what seemed such a small amount in comparison to the £60,000,000 pledged at Christmas (not including general population donations) after the Tsunami disaster. OK, the scale of the disaster was greater, the cost of life was greater... but was it THAT much greater??? For me, I don't think so and therefore the £500,000 seemed a very token gesture to me.

 

Is it that the images were beamed down to us round the clock whilst we were all full of Christmas spirit with provisions aplenty making the difference in fortunes overly apparent? I don't know.

 

I agree with you though in wondering if we're being a little selective in assessing levels of need.

[the-rhymes]

The UK Government has just given an extra £10m.

 

Take a look at the aid total here:

 

BBC website

 

I have give what I could and will give again when I get paid, for me I know more people with connections to Pakistan than I do with the USA.

[VinnieK]

£60,000,000 pledged at Christmas (not including general population donations) after the Tsunami disaster. OK, the scale of the disaster was greater, the cost of life was greater... but was it THAT much greater??? For me, I don't think so and therefore the £500,000 seemed a very token gesture to me.

 

About £12 million in total has been pledged by the UK.

 

There are other considerations to keep in mind though, apart from loss of life and buildings. One is how well is the country poised to deal with the problem itself? A disaster causing the same loss of life in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka would be felt in very different ways by both countries, simply down to size, population, and logistics. The Tsunami in Asia effected a number of locations, most island nations relatively distant from one another, and had a large destructive 'footprint' on each location, destroying infrastructure, homes and causing a myriad of injuries. As a result the logistics of getting physical aid in is much more difficult since first it has to be coordinated and shipped to a number of distant locations and then distributed amongst areas where all the roads have been destroyed, all of which costs a considerable amount of money. Field hospitals, distribution houses and operations bases for emergency services also had to be built in each location and staffed, which costs more than building a couple of big centres out of which relief.

 

In contrast, an earthquake affecting a relatively localised and landlocked area of a number of big countries is less expensive to maintain. It's possible to transport domestic aid workers to the scene of the disaster, as well as evacuating less seriously injured people to established hospitals in unaffected areas of the country, in the case of Pakistan, which has a huge population, there's a greater number of 'human resourses' (i.e. people) who can be rushed to the scene in order to help than in less populated countries, meaning less shortfall for international aid agencies to have to take up, and aid resources can more easily and less expensively be stored at a point convenient to all affected areas and distributed.

[sirdick]

We've always got the bird flu break out in a couple of months... is it really the end of the world with all this going on? Maybe the Earth is on it's last legs. Bummer... maybe they should've invested more in the space programs after all.

 

 

/scaremongering

[Squaddie]

I would say we are selectively brainwashed by the media. We naturally respond mostly to what we are fed. The coverage of the Katrina hurricane was in the news 24/7 for weeks.

 

Just the way our feeble minds work I`m afraid.

[Observer]

(*Off thread..... Squaddie... why have your jiggly boobies got no nipples??)

[the mo beats experience]

Its pretty scary though isn't it, a lot of bad things have happened in this last year, some very bad things. I hope its not an idea of whats to come in the future. With the impending plague of bird flu too(not heard much about migrating birds and the spread thereof), its not a good time for mankind.

 

The end is nigh?

 

Hope not, got to get Chelsea off the top of the table first

[Observer]

Chelsea are PANTS :-)

[Lonan3]

Chelsea being top of the league could be God's way of telling us that the end is nigh!