Looking at this quote: “Vulnerabilities rather than hazards are the root cause of disasters” what are your thoughts?
Vulnerabilites defined as something that makes it more likley for a person to be affected by a natural hazard ie, disability, poverty, old age, very you, uneducated, language barriers
Natural hazards are, volcanic events, earthquakes, floods, land slides, wild fires.

The sentence says 'root cause' but then you go on to define 'more likely'. Those are two different things.

it's a quote we were given in class to define. And the definitions of both the vunerbilities and the hazards.

What is "very you"?

kk~

^I think it's supposed to be "very young".

Ah! Ok. That makes sense. OK, then I do have a comment. I agree these vulnerabilities do make it more likely that a person could be more affected by natural disasters, etc. For example: Katrina in New Orleans. Those with means to evacuate did so, for the most part. Those without means did/could not and so were subjected to the worse conditions after the flood.

I don't know about 'rather than' but the vulnerabilities you mention are definitely contributing factors.

kk~

We spoke about this in philosophy and it was such a cool conversation. Ours was worded a bit differently and only had to do with natural disasters, so I'll only touch on that.

Ours asked if humans were responsible for the casualties caused by natural disaster. I found the "yes" argument VERY convincing. First of all, why on earth did we set up cities where we know there are lots of natural disasters? We could just as easily have moved away from the coasts, avoiding hurricanes. That leaves mainly tornadoes and earthquakes, though the latter are relatively rare once you move inwards from the coasts. We're left with tornadoes. We can build tornado-proof houses. The problem is, they're expensive. So we don't.

The example we had; a couple moves to northeastern Texas. Rather than opting to build a tornado-proof home, they buy a normal home with no tornado shelter, just a basement. They have a child. A tornado comes, they go to their basement and their child is killed. Is it their fault? Emotions would tell us no, but it WAS a series of decisions (moving to an area with many natural disasters, opting against a tornado safe house, having a child) that led to the end result.

I don't really have a particularly strong opinion (I intend to live in a place in the US with the fewest natural disasters), but it was very interesting.

I intend to live in a place in the US with the fewest natural disasters

And where exactly would that be? Just curious...

d4j wrote:

I intend to live in a place in the US with the fewest natural disasters

And where exactly would that be? Just curious...

Asheville, NC!

We had to do a natural disasters map for one of my science classes...all the unshaded parts have either no or minimal risk of natural disaster.

I would agree with that quote. Hazards are there, but if you're smart you either prepare for them (build a tornado cellar, buy flood insurance, buy snow tires) or get out of their way (don't move to an earthquake zone, flood plan, or evacuate when told to).

You can only prepare for a disaster (or whatever we're calling it) so much. Unless you are a hardcore prepper survivalist that has emergency kits and bunkers and caches all over town then there is a large chance that you are very vulnerable in the wake of a disaster. Even all the time and money and preparation in the world can be useless if things do not go as planned.

For me, I try to be as non-vulnerable as I can. I have a small bag packed next to my front door with warm clothes, hiking boots, basic first aid supplies, toiletries, and enough food and water for about 2-3 days. In the car we have a roadside emergency kit, blankets, water, flashlights, etc. Next to my bed I have a flashlight in case I can't find my way out of the house. I do my best to be prepared but I know that in the wake of an actual disaster there are a lot of variables that can screw up my plans. I hope that if something happens (earthquake is most likely in my city) that I can keep my head and get safe.

My goal is to be more prepared than I am and have a greater supply of non-perishables in my home and car.

If there's no natural hazard going on then it doesn't matter how vulnerable you are. You can't be affected by something that's not happening; it can't cause a disaster. If you're vulnerable AND there's a hazard you're more likely to be harmed than someone fit and healthy with all sorts of resources at their disposal. But you need both (the vulnerability and the hazard) together. So the quote's stupid. But then I generally dislike the study of philosophy to the point where I am neither a glass half-full or half-empty sort of person. I need to know exactly what happened to the glass and the fluid immediately prior to the question being posed.

^ I'm totally with you on the glass theory, Louise. If there was a full glass, and someone drank half of it...then it is half empty. If there is an empty glass, and someone just filled it to that point, it's half full.

So there.

I found Kekoa's map pretty interesting. I grew up in Cedar Rapids, IA where we had historic flooding in 2008. It was in the national news quite extensively so maybe someone here heard about it. Also many tornado disasters. However that isn't factored into your map. So if your only preparedness is to move somewhere where you think you cannot be affected, well that could also be your downfall in the end. The flooding that we had went far beyond the "500 year flood zone." Both hospitals in town were affected and I remember after work one night going with my brother down to one of the hospitals and helping sand bag. We could see the water coming and STILL people were hidden away in their homes thinking it wouldn't get to them.

I also still scratch my head a bit thinking about New Orleans. Whose idea was it again to build a city where about half of it is below sea level?

In regards to the actual quote, I have to second what Louise said. Vulnerabilities can't cause anything if a hazard is not already present. And it also really depends on what the definition of disaster is in this instance. Even if there are no people present, couldn't a hazard still produce disasters? I mean if a hurricane is going to sweep through, it is going to destroy something, whether people are there or not... I am missing something... or not and the quote is just really poorly worded.

The natural disaster map is interesting but I notice that parts of the southwest where there are "no" natural disasters are also deserts -- hot and dry -- a disastrous situation for a human being who would die very quickly there if not properly equipped! Though I suppose by definition a disaster is something which happens intermittently and to a certain extent unexpectedly. If the situation is constant, no matter how bad it is, it is only a hazard, not a disaster, because the people living there have adapted.

As for being prepared, I agree with those who say that you can prepare only to a certain extent given the circumstances plus time and money available. People will live on the earthquake-prone coast if their business depends on import/export. People will live on a flood plain when their livelihood depends on agriculture made possible by rich soil resulting from floods.

And then there's always the possibility of a new type of plague which can wipe out large groups no matter where they are located or how many immunizations they have.

And then there's always the possibility of a new type of plague which can wipe out large groups no matter where they are located or how many immunizations they have.

Like Zombies.

I have to say, I don't agree with the "hurricane" zone being so far inland. If you're not down the shore, hurricanes are just big thunderstorms. You do not get full-force hurricanes on the Delaware River! I mean, I get that they're probably talking about inland flooding, but once you go like 50-100 miles inland I really question whether you can call the cause of those problems the hurricane. It's not even like it's a storm surge, it's a straight-up flood. Which is devastating, and all, goodness I've seen what floods can do, but a flood is not a hurricane. I guess you could argue it's a flood BECAUSE of a hurricane, but meh. Chances are by the time any storm hits north of Delaware it's a dissipating tropical storm, not a hurricane...

...then again, snow isn't exactly a disaster either... though you wouldn't know by the way the Mid-Atlantic freaks out about it. SNOWMAGEDDON, LOL.

/OMG, Heart, you so nitpicky!

Haha, keep in mind people, I'm no artist and had to combine like seven maps into one...with no sense of proper scale