I chose
this article because it discusses an important shift in rebuilding after
natural disaster amidst the progression of climate change. The way that the
United States would rebuild after natural disasters fifty years ago is no
longer sufficient, as storms are becoming much worse and happen more often due
to climate change. Communities cannot afford their government to take any
shortcuts when it comes to rebuilding after natural disasters. There needs to
be a shift towards more progressive rebuilding and working on the infrastructure
of cities that are frequently effected by hurricanes. I thought this article
was especially important due to the lack of belief in climate change in our
government today. If our government continues to choose to ignore climate
change, cities and communities frequently affected by hurricanes will be
rendered helpless and not be able to rebuild. They need funding to work on the
infrastructure of their cities and plan for ways to cope with the increasing
number of storms in order to successfully rebuild after natural disasters.
How does
this article connect with Rousseau’s ideas of human’s substantial impact on
natural disaster?
Why is
important to focus on the vulnerabilities of each city when planning for upcoming
disasters and the worsening effects of climate change?
There are indeed parallels between the article and Rousseau's thinking on humanity’s relationship with disaster. Both accentuate the role that the connection between humanity and its environment play in inciting disaster, albeit with different solutions on how to approach disaster. In his response to Voltaire, Rousseau blamed humanity’s reckless urbanization as the cause of natural disaster and hearkened back to times of simpler living as a model. The article on the other hand, while also emphasizing humanity’s attitude towards the environment as the culprit of current disasters, proposes looking towards the future by way of new ideas. These ideas range from updating disaster infrastructure to reinforcing existing structures to become more resistant towards disaster. Because climate change is putting forward numerous unprecedented issues, new solutions are needed. That means that the best way to start is by focusing on what aspects of disaster certain cities are most vulnerable to.
ReplyDeleteBoth this article and Rousseau focus greatly on the impact of humanity on natural disasters, as these disasters are becoming far more social in nature than environmental. Humanity has a duty, as you discussed, to protect those in danger of being affected by these disasters using whatever means necessary, as it is becoming increasingly known that it is humanity that is causing these disasters. In order to be able to protect these people from these disasters, it is imperative that one considers the individual differences of each location in danger of experiencing these disasters, as the geographical differences of each place will greatly affect how one experiences these disasters.
ReplyDeleteThis article definitely connects with Rousseau’s theory of humans playing an integral impact on natural disasters. Both this article and Rousseau argue that human activity plays a direct line to natural disasters. I think that it is important to focus on the weaknesses of each city when planning for upcoming disasters and the worsening effects of climate change because not one disaster will affect every city in the same way. For example, a tsunami would not affect a city with high fortified structures as much as it would a civilization formed around the coast. It really is humanity’s duty to acknowledge that they caused these disasters and to help whomever may be affected by it.
ReplyDeleteThis article brings up a lot of very important points. I think it is crucial that this preparation for disaster is addressed in a unique way for each city given the varying vulnerabilities of each city, whether it be hurricanes, tornados, fires, etc. Obviously different regions are more susceptible to different types of disasters so there must be time and thought put into the measures that are taken in each city. I definitely saw parallels to Rousseau throughout the article specifically in the mentions of climate change. The author seemed to be of the mindset that we are complicit in making natural disasters worse if we don’t face the role that climate change is playing in disasters. I definitely agree with this to some extent and believe that we must tackle the issue of climate change and work to get more people on the same page in regard to its importance.
ReplyDeleteThis article is reminiscent of Rousseau’s writings. Rousseau emphasized how human works exacerbate the suffering from a natural disaster as he points to faulty towering buildings not suitable for the area as well as a human obsession with material goods as they refuse to leave the area in fear of losing their valuables. Similarly, today, most city infrastructures continue to be unsuitable for potential disasters, yet people are hesitant to fund remodeling because of a materialistic devotion to money that Rousseau recognizes. Still, cities should focus on establishing an infrastructure that applies to the particular vulnerabilities of the city to reduce man-induced suffering from a natural disaster, and these cities should continue to adjust its standards for infrastructure as conditions shift because of global climate change.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it an issue that cities have not updated very important infrastructure to fit the climate of the 21st century, but some cities actually have allowed home-owner expansion into certain areas that were intentionally empty previously because of those places' particular proximity to flood-sensitive areas. This reminds me of Rousseau's thoughts on the way that people of the past aggravated the size of many disasters' impact by choosing to build multi-story buildings with many, many people living in small quarters. These are fixable problems, but they require rethinking where growing populations should be located and also ensuring that our infrastructure is both strong and in less sensitive areas (although with climate change, it seems nearly all areas are becoming more endangered.)
ReplyDeleteIt's important to focus on the individual needs of each city to make sure each gets what it needs and that no money goes to waste on an unneeded fix.