Disaster, on a personal level, has been well covered in other articles and by government advice agencies. Yet, the world continues to suffer immensely every time one of these events occurs. It has been said before that “prevention is better than cure”. Can the governments and leaders of this world apply this simple philosophy to natural disasters, thereby significantly reducing the number of casualties and deaths? There are simple ways that this could be done but it would require a genuine motive and an earnest effort by leaders, regardless of cost.
Since, by nature, a natural disaster occurs outside the influence of human rule, it is obvious that we cannot always prevent such things from occurring but, it is possible to anticipate the effects and consequences of such events and, to a certain extent, the pattern and regularity of them. There are known seismic fault lines around the world which are heavily populated. The most famous of these is the San Andres fault line in California in America. Experts have spent millions of dollars and decades of research trying to establish the level of threat from earthquakes and the frequency that we can expect them. The one option which is never considered is relocating the community to a safer area. With the fault line mentioned previously, this would not be prevented by a lack of land area, considering America’s vast, untouched landscapes. Surely, communities would be willing to contribute to the cost of such a relocation if it saved lives and property? The point is that the consequences of earthquakes, both in human lives and damage to property, is largely preventable by the choice of location for cities and towns. Furthermore, earthquakes themselves do not kill people, it is the falling debris which actually claims lives. With this in mind, we could ask, is it really necessary to build any dwelling above the ground floor? Furthermore, can we not simply stick to traditional building materials (wood etc) which, when disrupted, do not generally cause great damage? Could we not space buildings further apart? Not only would this avoid one unstable building collapsing into another but, it would also generate a healthier and happier social environment. I myself have lived in an area where, for much of the day, I was cut off from sunlight by the towering buildings around me and I was constantly aware of the noise coming from nearby dwellings. What is this obsession the human race has with being crammed into one area in small residences stacked on top of one another? Surely, this is a recipe for disaster? There is enough room on this planet for most communities to spread out.
Following the above principle of creating more space between buildings would also help alleviate the spread of wild fires.
Regarding floods and tsunamis, should it not now be the moral responsibility of the collective nations to ensure that those in high risk areas are located to safer ones and any future social housing planning is made with safe location as a priority? Some might argue that such measures are impractical or too expensive but, what is the alternative? To continue to be confronted by terrible headlines and pictures of thousands of victims of disasters? The safety of human beings should be a priority for all governments and leaders. Human life outweighs all other consideration. It is a fact that earthquakes are increasing in frequency and intensity. City populations too are growing at an alarming rate. Therefore, there are many more casualties and much more damage to come.
On a more human level, there are measures that can be taken that might minimise the evil acts of terrorists. One example is that of the twin towers of New York. When one considers that America is one of the richest and most successful nations in the world, it was quite shocking to witness people being forced to jump from hundreds of feet to a certain death or, to be caught inside the towers when they came down. How easily, and inexpensively those lives might have been protected if simple measures had been incorporated into the design and build of those towers. For example. Why are tall buildings not fitted with simple escape routes such as fire-resistant rope ladders on every side of the building? Could not a spiral slide funnel (such as those used in aeroplane exits), be fitted around the structure of the building to enable a very swift escape in the event of emergency? These are two simple ideas from me but, I am sure that the greatest engineers, designers and technicians could do far better. But first the motive must be there and it must not be money. Going further, is flying a necessity in today’s world? We send up ever increasing sized aircraft, weighing thousands of tons, full of ever more passengers. These are held aloft by basic units of engineering which, inevitably, will fail. To defy gravity is to risk danger. If we did not build jumbo jets, those killed in the twin towers would be alive today, as would thousands of others who’s lives have been cut short in air disasters in the past.
In conclusion, it is not natural disasters that kill people, it is the selfishness and poor planning of human beings. It is an insistence on large cities, tall buildings, large aircraft, and expensive real estate. A change in attitude would result in a cut in the casualties and fatalities. A safer world should be a genuine goal of all governments and leaders.
