Saraswti's Playground Administrator
Annasara
Fang
John
Kwame
Kyle
Guest ContributorMother Nature being Mom
Various reports and alarm are surfacing on whether global warming and the “human footprint” are c
ausing changed weather patterns (which they are), leading to a greater number of natural disasters (which they may not be). In the past 35 years, reported natural disasters worldwide have risen nearly 500 percent. But much of that is attributed to a huge influx of people living in more disaster-prone areas of the world (the west coast of the United States, Pacific Islands and south Asia, etc.) coupled with better accountability of what’s going on in underdeveloped countries. It is not necessarily the result of more natural disasters happening; that is merely one contributing factor.
Instead, it seems that Mother Nature is holding countries accountable to the progress they create. As humans expand in large numbers across this planet, especially (and nearly only) in third-world countries, this expansion must be met with the technological and social progress that supports such growth. In China, a 7.9-scaled earthquake collapsed about 80 percent of the buildings. In the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, a 6.9-scaled, only 40 buildings total collapsed, leading to just six deaths. (An additional 18,000 homes and 2,500 businesses were damaged, but did not cause deaths).
In Myanmar, Cyclone Nargis will cause as many as 100,000 deaths, which is an astounding number. And many of those (as many as 40 percent) will be children. How this and Indonesia’s tsunami can be avoided, I don’t know. But Myanmar could’ve mitigated some of the damage by allowing foreign influence into the country earlier.
My point is that as the world population grows to astounding numbers (more than double from 1950), and humans begin urbanizing parts of this world that just aren’t meant to be urbanized, we have to begin looking out for one another, opening our borders and taking care of those who are more vulnerable.
We’ve reached a point in our world’s history where we can no longer afford to be individual states, functioning only on our best interests. Additionally, world leaders must find a way to hold each other accountable. Humans now no longer care only for people who look like them. What happened in China is devastating, and we all know it happened. Americans, Brits, Germans, Japanese and Chinese all will provide some kind of assistance in some way. The same goes for Myanmar. Because this is the case, we should all figure out how to keep this from happening again.
Filed under: Current Events | Tagged: China, Cyclone, Earthquake, Global Warming, Myanmar, Population
So my response is not really on topic except to say that I wholeheartedly echo the sentiments expressed in you closing paragraph.
That said, this post allows me to address another topic. It is precisely this need for increased accountability amongst the citizens of the world that makes it imperative that we work to restore the international credibility America has lost in recent years. Whether one disagrees with the initial rational for the war, or just acknowledges that along the way mistakes in management have been made (i assume that most rational people fall into one of those two categories, but i guess i could be wrong and there could be those who think that everything about the war has gone as it should), everyone can agree that an unfortunate result of the war has been to impact the way much of the world views America in a negative way.
This is not good for a number of reasons, but times of humanitarian crisis highlight one of these reasons in particular. Because of America’s diminished credibility in the eyes of much of the world (I am not arguing whether this is merited or justified. That is for another discussion. I am just stating the objective fact that it exists), American involvement in international affairs is viewed with increasing suspicion and skepticism. Now the Burmese generals in charge of the country have a whole host of reasons why they have limited international aid, so I am not suggesting that they are not allowing aid into the country because more more countries do not trust America.
What I am saying is that, as Kyle suggested, increasingly it is imperative that we be involved in many international events, because the consequences of these invents directly and indirectly affect our interests. And we can best be involved in international matters if we are viewed favorably. American credibility has taken a hit for sure and it is important that we try to undo some of those effect’s. To that end, it is very important that the next president of the United States of America undertake policy that is not only keeps out immediate economic and national security in mind, but also rebuilds our credibility with the world community. That is not not to say that we must sacrifice what is best for us in order to be liked by the rest of the world. I do not believe that looking out for the best interest of America and maintaining our creditability our mutually exclusive options, even though the current administration has behaved as though to more carefully acknowledge and address the concerns of the the international community is to automatically make America weak and vulnerable.
I am sure that the next president will work tirelessly to keep Americans safe. I also hope that that president will also work tireless to restore the image of America. Not just because it’s nice to be liked, but also because by being liked we can better act in the interest of Americans.
America’s PR has certainly taken a hit in the past couple years, there’s no doubt about that. However, it may not be as bad as the media makes it out to be. There are a lot of people (most in the UK) who laud the United States for being assertive in their international policy, for better or for worse, which is a huge contrast to many European powers (namely France and Spain). Regardless, that isn’t necessarily the point here. We can address that at a later time.
The good news for America and the rest of the world is that our international society is nearing a point where there will no longer be just one superpower. What that means is that decisions like invading countries and trying to establish democracies will be made jointly, or the consequences will be higher. (Ideally, this would’ve happened before Iraq, but Europe is still miles away from equally the U.S. in international influence.) What we have now is one superpower, then a handful of squabbling countries that, when added together, would equal the U.S., but instead remain divided. On the outside of that, we have Japan, which alone is simply too small to equal the U.S., and China and India, which are currently too poor.
If and when any one of those countries nears the status of the United States, decisions like invading Iraq will be held under more scrutiny, and the U.S. won’t be able to afford forging on alone. Until that time comes, however, expect more of what we see now. It’s only natural, for whatever reason, for the country at the top to bear the weight of the world’s problems.