Cynical world

[*DAMN Bondo]

Just re-found the forum...

Anyway, I don't want to get into most of the things, this is rather an unprecedented event.

I don't think that cynicism is the best conclusion from comparing reactions of 9/11 and this. I'm not sure natural disasters typically result in the same type of reaction in terms of cancelling sports and such that acts of violence do. So that is why this event doesn't get the same response as 9/11.

You may look at something like the killing in Sudan and say why doesn't that have a response...and I suppose the reason there is it is a sequence of events, not an event itself. If something tragic happens in a violent nature, that is a singular event, then it usually is honored. Kennedey's assassination resulted in game cancellations, 9/11. Locally, the Columbine shooting resulted in a delayed NHL game.

So I believe this is the distinction that makes the 9/11 response different in this way. I do not think many people are taking what has happened lightly. It is going to end up as the single greatest natural disaster in history AFAIK.

I think the thing for people to be reminded by this incident is that we are not in control. Certain policies are taken under the assumption that we are in control and they will lead to tragedy. There are other policies that come from acknowledging our lack of control and instead just do with what we can to lessen nature's risk. That means having proper evac plans for volcanos, having sirens for tsunamis worldwide, continuing with hurricane tracking and making sure buildings in prone places have extra procautions.

[BFG]

Well for the first time in a while i was quite pleased with my government at the news that we've trippled the ammount of aid to 50million  sorry thats about $100 million  USD    ... im sure its no way near enough, but im glad to see we're spending a little more on some aid and a little less on the military.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

It is going to end up as the single greatest natural disaster in history AFAIK.

Actually, I believe the Great Flood, when God destroyed nearly every living thing on earth, save for 2 of every creature, goes down as the single greatest natural disaster in history.  That was projected to have killed somewhere between the low millions up to hundreds of millions....but nobody knows for sure how many humans were on the earth when that happened.

I can feel the flames of some of the people on this forum as I write this....lol

[BFG]

Getting hot eh Ghostsniper?

Problem all these people have just died - and your talking about a story in a book - some people honestly seem to believe it was true, and most dont. But either way its  rather demeaning to all those that have just lost their lives don't you think?

Then again im sure it was just your twisted sense of humor... funny

[*DAMN Bondo]

I'll play along with you GS...back when the flood happened, the population of the world possibly hadn't reached 150,000 yet.

However, what is more likely is that the flood wasn't a global disaster but rather a disaster localized around Mount Ararat in Armenia where it is said the ark landed. So that region was flooded pretty well and certainly killed a lot of people, but again, population dynamics suggest the total population and concentration would not allow a greater death toll than this present event. I mean, the people writing the Bible had no idea North America existed, they probably hadn't been very far out of the near eastern region at that point so their frame of reference for the world was tiny.

Anyway, if someone does have an example from recorded scientific history, I would be interested. But I do feel the important factor is population dynamics, the ability to do such catastrophic damage wouldn't have existed prior to the 19 Century probably, because the population was so much smaller than the present.

I would add, if you throw in epidemic, which is actually resulting from live organisms of the viris or bacteria form, then certainly the Plague and Spanish Influenza have much greater death tolls.

As much as I am pissed about the US priorities on money, I'm not entirely sure I feel they can just throw money around to every cause at the moment. Bush unfortunately isn't willing to sacrifice his tax cuts to raise revenue to help lessen the deficit and have more money available for such unexpected aid needs as well as making sure our troops are properly equipped. He also doesn't seem to want to cut spending, rather his main priority seems to increase our financial problems further by switching a decent amount of social security income to private savings accounts.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Then again im sure it was just your twisted sense of humor... funny

Not at all....I was simply correcting Bondo's history.  I wasn't trying to be funny in any way.

[Supernatural Pie]

U.S. has pledged 350 million.

[BFG]

Not at all....I was simply correcting Bondo's history.? I wasn't trying to be funny in any way.

Now that is comical

[Matt_jh]

       I don't know if anbody has said this but if you look at any map you would wuickly know why the death tool is so high.  India and Bangladesh are two of the many countrys hit.  India has over 1 billoin people living there and Bangladesh is one of the most if not the most densecly populated contries on earth.  There are something on the order of 1.5 to 2 billion people living in those 2 countries alone.  Now think how many more people are in the others hit by this act of mother nature.

       Oh Sal the US can't go ruining it economy just to go help clean up.  You ruin the economy how many more will die cause somebody can afford food cause they lost their job just so we could go spend money to clean up.  You need to consider other thing before you go calling the support from the US "criminally negligent to our fellow human beings."  Yes it should help and so should other countries.