The recent floods in the UK have given me some major food for thought. With people displaced following severe flooding, I've got mixed thoughts on the whole thing.
Before I go any further, I will state categorically that of course I have sympathy for victims of flooding, earthquake, drought and other natural disasters. To watch fellow people suffer is heart wrenching and I would wish such suffering on no one. Loss of life, loved ones, homes and possessions is tragic and I only wish these people well.
With that said, for the sake of discussion there is a part of me that wonders if sympathy is deserved in all these situations. To extend this beyond the UK, I will include people in poor countries also who live 10 miles away from water, those who live in earthquake or tornado prone areas and so on. People voluntarily opt to live in these areas. They knowingly choose these parts of the world to make their homes when there are more hospitable ones available.
Now it comes down to each individual making a decision of risk vs reward. What are the benefits of living here vs the risk of living here? People live in Japan and San Francisco, both earthquake prone areas. I don't live there and yet even I know about their geographic issues. So when an earthquake hits one of those places, should there be sympathy for the victims? Should we be surprised and sad for losses suffered when a hurricane hits Florida or Louisiana, flooding hits Louisiana or Missouri and so on?
This is [http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/homes-built-in-flood-risk-areas-despite-warnings/6525946.article] an example of what I'm talking about. Local councils have greenlit development on floodplains, knowingly, ignoring warnings from the EA. Anyone who buys a home there will be living in an area almost certain to suffer from flooding and do so in full knowledge of this fact.
Also worth mentioning, for those living in areas for a long time who have the landscape changed around them, local councils who save money by ceasing river dredging and farmland turned to housing, etc, I do not question their suffering at all since the area was knowingly fine when they chose to live there. My question really concerns those living in high-risk areas. Should the taxpayer support the relief to these high risk areas? Should we feel sympathy for victims struck by a disaster that was easily predicted? What do you all think?
Before I go any further, I will state categorically that of course I have sympathy for victims of flooding, earthquake, drought and other natural disasters. To watch fellow people suffer is heart wrenching and I would wish such suffering on no one. Loss of life, loved ones, homes and possessions is tragic and I only wish these people well.
With that said, for the sake of discussion there is a part of me that wonders if sympathy is deserved in all these situations. To extend this beyond the UK, I will include people in poor countries also who live 10 miles away from water, those who live in earthquake or tornado prone areas and so on. People voluntarily opt to live in these areas. They knowingly choose these parts of the world to make their homes when there are more hospitable ones available.
Now it comes down to each individual making a decision of risk vs reward. What are the benefits of living here vs the risk of living here? People live in Japan and San Francisco, both earthquake prone areas. I don't live there and yet even I know about their geographic issues. So when an earthquake hits one of those places, should there be sympathy for the victims? Should we be surprised and sad for losses suffered when a hurricane hits Florida or Louisiana, flooding hits Louisiana or Missouri and so on?
This is [http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/homes-built-in-flood-risk-areas-despite-warnings/6525946.article] an example of what I'm talking about. Local councils have greenlit development on floodplains, knowingly, ignoring warnings from the EA. Anyone who buys a home there will be living in an area almost certain to suffer from flooding and do so in full knowledge of this fact.
Also worth mentioning, for those living in areas for a long time who have the landscape changed around them, local councils who save money by ceasing river dredging and farmland turned to housing, etc, I do not question their suffering at all since the area was knowingly fine when they chose to live there. My question really concerns those living in high-risk areas. Should the taxpayer support the relief to these high risk areas? Should we feel sympathy for victims struck by a disaster that was easily predicted? What do you all think?