NATURAL DISASTERS: why so cruel?

x in the city

So, just reading about the flooding in Pakistan floods and it got me thinking why all the huge outbreaks of this sorta events happen in very poor and third world (ish) areas.?

the tsunami, the countless flooding and earthquakes that have all happened in recent years etc, have all hit poor and vulnerable areas.

opinions?

Thoie

Maybe reverse the question and look at it from the other angle. Perhaps these areas are poor because they have to keep rebuilding infrastructure every few years? Maybe the richer people of those countries can afford to buy in places less prone to flooding/less likely to collapse after an earthquake, etc?

Parts of Ireland suffered some severe flooding last winter (nowhere near the scale of the current problems in Pakistan), but once the water receded, things got back to normal comparatively quickly. As a richer country with a much smaller population it was possible to provide people with fresh drinking water relatively easily.

old_aussie

According to islamic terrorists natural disasters are Gods punishment for being immoral.

http://islam.about.com/od/currentissues/a/disasters.htm

Religious extremists waste no time declaring natural disasters to be God's punishment. The divine motivations they cite are different, but they invariably reflect personal religious or political agendas.

On different occasions, these extremists of different faiths said Hurricane Katrina was America's punishment for pressuring Israel to leave Gaza, for the invasion of Iraq or for domestic "immorality."

So those people in Pakistan must be BAD people who live in a third world country

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

genericguy

old_aussie wrote: »

According to islamic terrorists natural disasters are Gods punishment for being immoral.

if there is a god then i think he's punishing pakistan at the moment for whipping rape victims.

Valmont

Exactly. Look at Chile's response to the earthquake this year. No aid or much fuss really, they just sorted it out themselves. Haiti on the other were already poor enough and the earthquake was something the government was not able to deal with effectively- not by a long shot.

amacachi

Japan and California semi-frequently experience earthquakes that would decimate other areas with similar populations and no building standards. Britain spent billions on flood defences along the Thames, Holland has spent God only knows how much on defending the areas it has claimed from the sea. It's a fairly obvious correlation OP.

amacachi

Valmont wrote: »

Exactly. Look at Chile's response to the earthquake this year. No aid or much fuss really, they just sorted it out themselves. Haiti on the other were already poor enough and the earthquake was something the government was not able to deal with effectively- not by a long shot.

Aye, turns out all those dissenters in Pinochet's day had a use in the end. :pac:

Kiwi_knock

The wealthier nations like Japan and USA can predict when a natural disaster will hit and will have all the necessary protective measures put in place to help as much people and keep damage to a minimum. They have the money to invest in infrastructure that will be able to withstand the natural disaster and leave damage to a minimum.

In the poorer countries they do not have the money to invest in infrastructure or technology to predict natural disasters. They are unprepared for any Natural disaster as it comes out of no where. They have little or no reaction time to decide how to deal with the problem.

Most people know where these troubled spots are (those that constantly suffer from Natural disasters) so it would seem logical that any money donated to a county should be used first in setting up technology to predict the natural disasters and then upgrading the infrastructure to cope with natural disasters.

However any money donated after a natural disaster is used to return the place to as close as it was before hand but still leaving it vulnerable if another Natural disaster strikes and the country has to start all over again.

fontanalis

Would the fact that flood plains can provide fertile soil play a part?

Valmont

amacachi wrote: »

Aye, turns out all those dissenters in Pinochet's day had a use in the end. :pac:

I don't get it.

Dades

I would have thought the obvious correlation is that the more unstable and hazardous the region the poorer the inhabitants.

It's the same reason the poor live in dilapidated urban areas.

Also the problem is exacerbated by the population growth which is prevalent in poorer societies - with problems like erosion of natural resources which may previously have shielded the area from the full brunt of the hazards in question.