NationStates Jolt Archive

Disasters have been effecting humanity for millions of years. even in the last 10-20 years when there has been good international communication between the majority of countries there hasnt been the amount of support (both governmental and private) for any disaster that there has been for the tsunami. Even at the moment millions are homeless and are being killed in sudan and millions are dieing from starvation all over the world. Even in the USA 50 million people are rated as "food insecure" by the UN (it was a while since i heard it but I think thats what it was).

Why have all these problems been ignored and why have we pushed aside all barriers (religion race etc) to help our fellow humans??

Media coverage.

why has the media suddenly changed its coverage then?

This current disaster is a bit different though isn't it? It's not Africa, for a start. Let's be honest, when you think "millions suffering" you think "Africa" (as opposed to people buying Westlife albums) and that's part of the problem.

I hope that some of the money collected goes towards helping out the needy in areas like Somalia and the Sudan, but the fact is that this disaster was quite unexpected and more immediately horrifying than anything natural in recent years. It's very rare one can think "Kudos to the human race" but this was, for me, one of those occasions.

Makes a nice change from shootings, stabbings, bombings and beheadings doesn't it?

This current disaster is a bit different though isn't it? It's not Africa, for a start. Let's be honest, when you think "millions suffering" you think "Africa" (as opposed to people buying Westlife albums) and that's part of the problem.

wats the difference between this and thousands drowning in the bangladeshi cyclones?

Because it's around 100,000 dead, a number which keeps growing.

wats the difference between this and thousands drowning in the bangladeshi cyclones?

in bangladesh what happen was a natural disaster while in africa the suffering was mostly man made. certain people even wanted them to suffer

wats the difference between this and thousands drowning in the bangladeshi cyclones?
There isn't any difference. But Bangladesh is Bangladesh. This is Thailand, Indonesia, the Maldives... it's not just about a weather incident that occurs frequently, it's about an incident which does occur from time to time that this time caused massive devastation. What's the difference between people dying in Bangladesh and old people dying in their homes because they can't afford to heat them?

Charity is charity. I can't help feeling that somehow people are now thinking the help levied to this devastated region is "too much", and that just sickens me. Let's get some persepective back eh?

It couldn't have happened at a better time for Bush. He's used the media to draw attention away from americas problems once more... When bush leaves office, America is going to be left in such a crappy state...

It couldn't have happened at a better time for Bush. He's used the media to draw attention away from americas problems once more... When bush leaves office, America is going to be left in such a crappy state...

kinda remind u of Hitler leading the Germans.

Disasters have been effecting humanity for millions of years. even in the last 10-20 years when there has been good international communication between the majority of countries there hasnt been the amount of support (both governmental and private) for any disaster that there has been for the tsunami. Even at the moment millions are homeless and are being killed in sudan and millions are dieing from starvation all over the world. Even in the USA 50 million people are rated as "food insecure" by the UN (it was a while since i heard it but I think thats what it was).

Why have all these problems been ignored and why have we pushed aside all barriers (religion race etc) to help our fellow humans??

I'd like to think it was all about people pulling together, about people really CARING on some deep seated level... about people showing for once that they CAN help each other, rather than hate each other.

I'd LIKE to think that, but I don't.

To be honest, I think it was mainly about good timing - i.e. this disaster was 'lucky' enough to occur over the Christmas (and certain other) holiday season.

Coupled with the fact that several of the more high-profile politicians in certain regimes have a lot of bad publicity to make up for this last year...

It couldn't have happened at a better time for Bush. He's used the media to draw attention away from americas problems once more... When bush leaves office, America is going to be left in such a crappy state...

I still cant actually convince myself that he is stupid enuf to actually beleive he is doin something good for either america or iraq

I'd like to think it was all about people pulling together, about people really CARING on some deep seated level... about people showing for once that they CAN help each other, rather than hate each other.

I'd LIKE to think that, but I don't.

To be honest, I think it was mainly about good timing - i.e. this disaster was 'lucky' enough to occur over the Christmas (and certain other) holiday season.

Coupled with the fact that several of the more high-profile politicians in certain regimes have a lot of bad publicity to make up for this last year...

One thing that annoys me is peoples selfish desire to be recognised for giving money for a good cause
e.g. in NZ we have doffodil day where we give money to help cancer researce and victims, people always need their daffodil so that they can wear it and people know they have given the money, but surely shouldnt the ectasy you get knowing that you are helping people be enough?

For me, it's the sheer scale & utter devastation of it.

One thing that annoys me is peoples selfish desire to be recognised for giving money for a good cause
e.g. in NZ we have doffodil day where we give money to help cancer researce and victims, people always need their daffodil so that they can wear it and people know they have given the money, but surely shouldnt the ectasy you get knowing that you are helping people be enough?

I know exactly what you mean...

Look at Sandra Bullock, for example - who donated $1 Million for this cause.

How much will that earn her back in publicity?

For me, there are heroes, here - it's people doing grass-roots fundraising, and individuals giving a few dollars, because they can't afford to give any more.

One good reason: because it's not their fault.

Well, yeah, they could have set up a warning system, but that would still have left them with destroyed regions, even if fewer people died.

On the other hand, a lot of places around the world are screwed up by their own doing... and yeah, relatively few people cause most of the mayhem, but everyone else doesn't get together and stop them. That's why we feel less sympathetic.

One thing that annoys me is peoples selfish desire to be recognised for giving money for a good cause
e.g. in NZ we have doffodil day where we give money to help cancer researce and victims, people always need their daffodil so that they can wear it and people know they have given the money, but surely shouldnt the ectasy you get knowing that you are helping people be enough?
You could say the same thing about Armistice Day though couldn't you? At the end of they day if I have given my bit to show respect for those valiant men and women who gave their all, why shouldn't someone wear a yellow daffodil? I know that if I was a cancer survivor and I saw someone wearing a daffodil to show they contributed to my care, treatment and support, I'd feel a small but significant warmth in my heart for that person.

Even if they were actually an asshole. :)

You could say the same thing about Armistice Day though couldn't you? At the end of they day if I have given my bit to show respect for those valiant men and women who gave their all, why shouldn't someone wear a yellow daffodil? I know that if I was a cancer survivor and I saw someone wearing a daffodil to show they contributed to my care, treatment and support, I'd feel a small but significant warmth in my heart for that person.

Even if they were actually an asshole. :)

I don't know... it seems like the daffodil is the 'prize' you get for donating money... effectively you buy recognition.

Buying poppies is different (Armistice day=Remeberance day...?), I think, because of what you are buying INTO. The poppy shows respect for veterans - it's a mark of honour. Effectively, you buy that for the fallen.

Why were we nice?

The start of this thread asks "why," but perhaps the question is "why not?" Even better than questioning the act of whether giving to help one set of victims is better than helping some other group, let's hope this demonstration of our capacity to show love continues throughout the world. Peace and love are to be commended, not questioned.

Helping nations struck by tidal waves is a good thing. The people of the world can do a lot more for each other if we stop fighting with each other. So, my vote goes to putting down the weapons; stopping the wars; and talking to each other to resolve our differences in a peaceful manner.

The energy and other resources we waste as we fight with each other would be better used if we worked to support each other. :)

One good reason: because it's not their fault.

Well, yeah, they could have set up a warning system, but that would still have left them with destroyed regions, even if fewer people died.

On the other hand, a lot of places around the world are screwed up by their own doing... and yeah, relatively few people cause most of the mayhem, but everyone else doesn't get together and stop them. That's why we feel less sympathetic.

Thats not entirely true, Thailand had 4hrs warning (correct me if im wrong in the amount of time) they just didnt tell anyone as it might hurt their tourism industry.

Thats not entirely true, Thailand had 4hrs warning (correct me if im wrong in the amount of time) they just didnt tell anyone as it might hurt their tourism industry.

Not as far as I know. We knew about it an hour in advance, tops. They knew about it maybe a half hour or less in advance. Of course that doesn't help when there was no mechanism in place to get the info out. I think what happened was a classic case of organizations being overtaken by the pace and magnitude of events... it's (unfortunately) not uncommon.

Besides, "might hurt their tourism industry"? What the heck? Not having thousands of dead tourists would surely be better for them than any damage that a warning might do? This doesn't make any sense as a reason.

One good reason: because it's not their fault.

Well, yeah, they could have set up a warning system, but that would still have left them with destroyed regions, even if fewer people died.

On the other hand, a lot of places around the world are screwed up by their own doing... and yeah, relatively few people cause most of the mayhem, but everyone else doesn't get together and stop them. That's why we feel less sympathetic.

Apparantly a a tribe of people on one of the remote islands round that region knew that something was happening cause they read the tides and they were changing so the went to higher ground but they didnt warn anyone cause they dont like other human contact.

Apparantly a a tribe of people on one of the remote islands round that region knew that something was happening cause they read the tides and they were changing so the went to higher ground but they didnt warn anyone cause they dont like other human contact.
Or maybe because they live on a remote island and there was noone they could warn? Smoke signals?

Besides, "might hurt their tourism industry"? What the heck? Not having thousands of dead tourists would surely be better for them than any damage that a warning might do? This doesn't make any sense as a reason.
Actually Beaten Souls is right. There were people in Thailand who knew about the earthquake and possible tsunami. But there hasn't been any tsunamis for decades (centuries?) so they didn't believe there would be one this time.

Man life really sucks. Everything tries to kill you.

Not as far as I know. We knew about it an hour in advance, tops. They knew about it maybe a half hour or less in advance. Of course that doesn't help when there was no mechanism in place to get the info out. I think what happened was a classic case of organizations being overtaken by the pace and magnitude of events... it's (unfortunately) not uncommon.

Besides, "might hurt their tourism industry"? What the heck? Not having thousands of dead tourists would surely be better for them than any damage that a warning might do? This doesn't make any sense as a reason.


It does make some sense as a reason. False warnings have been given before - and when there hasn't been any 'disaster'. I know it seems stupid, but after this happens a few times with no disaster and begins to - supposedly at least - damage the tourism industry, it doesn't sustain itself as a top priority. Now that the authorities have seen the effects of not having such a warning system in place, well, they will set one up. I believe that the man who was responsible for - and gave - 'false warnings' some 10 years ago, and criticised for it at the time, is the man now responsible for setting up the warning system. This is in Thailand.

wats the difference between this and thousands drowning in the bangladeshi cyclones?
Tsumani's of this proportion are much more rare than cyclones. It's like how people are attraced to Vesuvius, which blew its top and covered the city of Pompeii in miles of ash. There have been other volcanic eruptions, but those that are rare stand out.

The more unusual incident is the one that is more news-worthy. It's not how many die, or how they die, but the fact that a once-in-a-lifetime disaster has struck. If in the next 10 years 10 such tsunamis occurred, by the 6th or 7th one it would no longer be newsworthy.

Same thing happened with the moon launches. The first moon launch was special; by the time of the 10th or 11th, no one was noticing much anymore. Then Apollo 13 happened, and peaked everyone's interest again.

Oh, and to answer your question, people are nice in these instances because it allows them to be a part of that once-in-a-lifetime event.