Slashdot Mirror
Too Many People in Nature's Way
Ant writes "Wired News report that the dead and the desperate of New Orleans now join the farmers of Aceh and the fishermen of Trincomalee, villagers in Iran and the slum dwellers of Haiti in a world being dealt ever more punishing blows by natural disasters... ... "We rely on technology and we end up thinking as human beings that we're totally safe, and we're not," said Miletti, of the University of Colorado. "The bottom line is we have a very unsafe planet."
By one critical measure, the impact on populations, statistics show the planet to be increasingly unsafe. More than 2.5 billion people were affected by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters between 1994 and 2003, a 60 percent increase over the previous two 10-year periods, U.N. officials reported at a conference on disaster prevention in January.
Those numbers don't include millions displaced by last December 2004's tsunami, which killed an estimated 180,000 people as its monstrous waves swept over coastlines from Indonesia's Aceh province to Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, and beyond. By another measure -- property damage -- 2004 was the costliest year on record for global insurers, who paid out more than $40 billion on natural disasters, reports German insurance giant Munich Re. Florida's quartet of 2004 hurricanes was the big factor.
But generally it's not that more "events" are happening, rather that more people are in the way, said Thomas Loster, a Munich Re expert. "More and more people are being hit," he said..." I'd also like to point out a project here to find housing for Katrina's victims; it tries to combine lists of sites offering housing, and do a meta-search.
The population is growing. It can't be that unsafe.
Perhaps we shouldn't rebuild on the lands that keep getting destroyed... I hear that's what they did in the days before governmental disaster relief.
Latewire
..is:
To what degree have we done this to ourselves?
but generally it's not that more "events" are happening, rather that more people are in the way
Exactly. I don't think our planet is any more unstable then 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago. Yeah, maybe we have global warming but even so it makes much, much more of a difference that a hurricane making landfall at the Mississipi estuary affects several million people today compared to 10,000 in 1803 or maybe a couple hundred in 500 BC.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Although i agree with the statements made here, that natural disaters and all. The tsunami wasn't caused by climate change, where as the huricane and other floods etc probably have been.
Maybe it is time to America to Stop rejecting proposals to reduce emissions and to do what the world is asking. Most other countries seem to do alot more, and the states will probably have to have some more Natural Disasters before the Muppets in The white house will understand this.
I have to say what shocked me more than the scale of the devastation, was the reports of rioting and looting. Natural disasters are more common than many people think, they're usually not as large of course but they happen every day. I'd just assumed that nothing short of a global disaster would result in the rioting and breakdown of order that followed Katrina, scary stuff..
Ummm.. isn't that really the only reason you every purchase flood insurance? I don't purchase flood insurance for my house sitting atop this hill here.
Looking at recent events, such as the Tsunami and New Orleans flooding, it's an eye-catching number... but do the math. The Tsunami triggered by an 9.6-ish-on-the-richter-scale earthquake only managed to snuff out 0.0025% of the earth's population. Looking at New Orleans alone, since estimates are in the thousands, if 10,000 people died, that's about 2% of the population. If nature really doesn't want us around, either it's not trying very hard, or it's just a work in progress while Yellowstone prepares to blow its top again....
There's a lot of people who would even say that Nature's fury can't compare that to the fury of our fellow man. I'd have to wonder about that: Lung Cancer deaths related to smoking kill off about 440 people per day in the United States alone. Compare that to the rougly 2 and a half US soldiers per day killed in Iraq.... I'd say we are far better at intentionally killing our own selves than we are at killing others, and natural disaster takes a distant 3rd... or at least, disasters can't compare to other natural causes such as disease.
a lack of preparation? New Orleans has known for a long time how vulnerable it was, but the levee system wasn't built to sustain anything above a category 3 storm.
The first rule of risk management is that the amount of time, effort, and money that you spend on security should be proprortional to the probability of a breach times the amount of damage it would cause. I guess Louisana didn't get the memo.
You heard wrong, unless by "before government disaster relief" you mean "before there were governments and we all ate sticks and berries and ran from sabretooth tigers."
Serious. Check out the history of the Yangtzee and Ganges rivers going back almost 5,000 years, and the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia at the very dawn of civilization. Cities are generally built where they are useful, not where they are safe.
Those with a Libertarian or Conservative leaning sometimes forget that Taxes purchase something useful for you: civilization.
The government diaster relief you deride so much makes civilization happen in North America. Just the cost of doing business here. Move to Somalia if you want to live someplace where there's no tax burden.
SoupIsGood Food
This should be self-evident. As more and more people join us here on earth, they have to fill in the less favorable areas, since the favorable ones have already been taken. Of course, what humanity considers "favorable" is sort of dubious, as we see with the people in California living on top of the San Andreas fault, and with the people in New Orleans living next to the sea, below sea level. But weather doesn't need to change for the planet to become "more dangerous," we just need more people living in dangerous areas. And as we run out of less dangerous areas, the dangerous areas are all that will be left, so of course the global per capita danger level will increase.
rooooar
Planning so so poorly thought out, a kid playing SIM City would come up with better plans. And that is exacly my point. We have simulation software that is inextensive. Tons of historical data to pull from. We know how to design better levee systems, bridges and canals. But the political system fails us again and again.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
It is certainly his fault that the disaster recovery wasn't handled well - the aftermath of Katrina was absolutely awful and Bush seemed asleep at the wheel. That is unforgivable. Disasters have happened all over the world this year - in Portugal and Romania, fire and flooding respecitvely. The people from other countries in Europe, and the governments of those countries, helped the victims. Spanish and French rescue efforts were underway very quickly when the fires in Portugal were blazing - yet in the USA, help was very slow coming from the US itself, and when Europe initially offered the US help, they were turned down - why? What the hell? What the hell is going on with Bush?
Don't criticise Slashdot readers for criticising Bush - they are quite right to. Slashdot's audience, being geeks, are generally more intelligent and well-informed than the average US consumer: Think about it - could there possibly be a reason why so many Slashdotters are criticising Bush? I'll leave you to ponder it.
Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
New Orleans is built on a flood plain not because of agriculture but shipping. If you're going to build a deep water port on the Mississippi river, you need to do so near the water.
And New Orleans had plans to redo the levee's to Cat5 strength. Wouldn't have been completed until 2020 or so. Katrina got there first.
If the build takes 15 years, what are the odds of a Cat5 coming along within that timespan to put you back to square one?
Although this sounds impressive and devastating: "... 2.5 billion people were affected by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters between 1994 and 2003..."
The problem is the word "affected". I had a cold last year, was I one of the people "affected" by natural disasters? How are they defining whether or not someone was affected? You could say anyone who donated money to a relief fund was affected, or are they only referring to the number of people injured or that had property damage. What about someone who hid out in his bomb shelter for a week. Was that person affected? Does emotional disurbance count as being "affected"?
I'd prefer a concrete statistic, like number of people killed, number of homes destroyed. Saying that x people were "affected" doesn't tell us anything useful.
Reports like these remind me that we're not in the information age, we're in the data age. The information age will be next when we start compiling all this data into useful information.
Compaired to Venus? Mercury? Omicron Persei 8? I think not!
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Then he flew back to resume his vacation.
The population can grow as long as there is energy available to support it. Energy, and oil specifically allows us to insulate ourselves from nature's forces by building habitat, artificially increasing food production etc. Whether it is safe isn't even part of the equation.
When we no longer have the means to protect ourselves (i.e. oil runs out), then Nature will be far more punishing than a hurricane, tsunami or earthquake. Just imagine other cities in the state of New Orleans because there is no electricity, water, gas or food production. All of those comforts are entirely dependent on a shrinking supply of oil.
Your idea is a good one, but unfortunately humans are much to selfish to think for a "greater good", and anyone that does is labeled as a communist. Sigh.
We need to act NOW, we should have started to act a loooong time ago. In the UK one of the reasons that petrol prices are so high is to discourage use, there are all sorts of other action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- it is not enough, but at least we are trying. The USA is doing nothing just in case it hurt's it's economy ... using the excuse that this or that effect is not 100% proven -- sorry: the big picture is well understood, the risks are so huge that to argue over uncertainties is irresponsible.
Sorry guys: time to wisen up; take a hit on your economy today or face many, many more things like this ... which will end up costing much, much more.
No: this is not a troll. My view is shared by many people in Europe. I know that citizens of the USA don't want to think about it, but the problem won't go away just because you shut your eyes to it.
Lobby your senator to ratify the kyoto agreement.
And Mitchel Cohen writes. . .
Actually, those funds were to be disbursed for fiscal year 2006. Iraq or no Iraq, the work would not have been done. And supposedly the levees that were breached last week were not on the list for improvement anyway.
If you can set aside your anti-Bush venom for a few moments, you might ask why Bill Clinton did not fix this problem back in the days of wine and roses. Nobody ever had a more fortunate time in the Presidency than his two terms in the 90's, what with all the budget surpIuses and peace and relatively minor terrorist problems. But he did fuck-all about it. Too distracted getting his dick sucked, I guess.
Does Clinton hate black people too? That's the logical corollary to all the accusations flying around about Bush.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
..but is there some rule that says it must be rebuilt below sea level, so it becomes another disaster-waiting-to-happen right from the start?
Just because it was built below sea-level it is not a disaster-waiting-to-happen. Holland is proof that you can have a system of levees and pumps and live safely on a river delta below sea level.
For example, they could drain Lake Pontchartrain to the low tide level like the Zeider Zee in Holland... and put up flood gates to keep the high tides out, lower the gates to allow water out of the Lake at low tide. And dredge the bottom of the lake to build the city high enough that water will flow down into the lake from the city... thus having passive flood control. And where you need pumps, use windmill to help pump water (so as not to be dependent on electricity).
You could also use dredged mud to expand the swamps around lake Pontchartrain so as to build a natural barrier to disperse the energy from hurricanes.
That's just one solution. There's lots of ways to make New Orleans safe... and safer than many other major metropolitan areas.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
>> It would have been much easier to fix the problems then, than after 9/11 and several years of recession. Exactly. After all, it's not like back in the 90s people didn't see 9/11 or the recession coming. That's why we all moved out of tech stocks before the crash and put those anti-hijack measures into place, right? From what I've seen in the news, it was Bush who cut funding to the levees and ignored pleas that more money was needed, it was Bush who sent half the National Guard abroad, and it was Bush who reoriented FEMA's priorities away from natural disasters. BTW, do you have concrete information that the levees were in bad shape under Clinton or do you just assume that if they were neglected now they must have also been neglected then?
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
There are lots of cities that don't need to be kept on life support 24/7 - the fact that New Orleans needed so much cash every single year should have been the first clue that maybe the planners should have rethought the city. Note that the city of New Orleans was declining in population (down some 2% and some between 1990 and 2000) - the leaders should have encouraged this trend rather than fight to reverse it.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Unless you have a medical reason, there is VERY LITTLE EXCUSE in this day and age and country for not knowing how to swim.
How good is your swimming skill in 25 mph current?
How long can you stay afloat?
How many impacts with buildings, trees, other debris can YOU sustain and still remain afloat?
Unless you take these factors into consideration, the fact that you *believe* you can swim out of flooding, tsunami surges, etc. only shows that you are bound to be the next victim.
There are water conditions so strong and trecherous that even the strongest swimmer cannot survive.
That is no excuse, it is just a fact.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
It's called a rubber, in popular parlance. You folks would rather spin your little fantasies about technological solutions than stand up to the religious weenies and point to the real source of the problem: too many people, and the demonization of birth control by a bunch of farm state morons who think that technology means praying to God for rain.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Let me stress that not every new orleans person is involved in looting.
I'd also like to ask a simple question that most news reports I've read fail to address. You're stranded in a city that's virtually abandonned; you have no electricity and your supply of food has run out. Is it looting to break into a supermarket to feed yourself? What about to get up batteries for your radio so you can listen for emergency broadcasts?
Sadly most of those in this situation are already living at or below the poverty line, and are now vilified for simply supporting themselves. That said, those who are truly looting -- attempting to profit at the expense of the victims of this natural disaster deserve to be vilified. That includes not only the guy robbing people on the street, but any corporates and other businesses who're taking the opportunity to price gouge.