Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Paul Anderson on 09/06/2010 00:30:06
-
Paul Anderson asked the Naked Scientists:
Hi Chris and team,
Every time there is a natural disaster around the world the affected folk have to turn to the rest of the world to help out. I am not opposed to that, but wouldn't it be better for the UN to do things to lessen these events?
In Padang it looks as if a lot of the deaths were caused by slips.
With the world's ability to search for oil, I would have thought it should be possible to produce world maps showing the environment (soil types, proximity of rivers, etc) with the human population superimposed upon it. Then an assessment made of the likelihood of future dangers and ways these dangers can be mitigated. Pressure should be put upon governments to undertake remedial action, supported by the rest of the world from the world's knowledge pool and mechanical resources.
I was told that kikuyu grass was imported into NZ from South Africa (even though it is called kikuyu grass which I thought might have implied that it came from further north) to stabilise the sand dunes up north.
I have also seen rods which have been put into banks to help stabilise them.
I know that deforestation has been a problem upstream from Bangladesh. Mass tree, schrub and grass planting should be implemented using the unemployed. If the trees are also fruit trees, then that is an additional benefit.
Someone is now going to say, "but we cannot get governments to cooperate".
My argument is that we should be proactive rather than reactive to all the disasters that strike around the world.
Every time there is a disaster, go there and assess what has survived and why. Was it the building material, was it the building structure?
The American Republican attitude (and probably those of other right wing political parties) is probably that people should have the least government interference, but the profit motive of the rich only keeps the rich rich and does not benefit the rest of us.
Regards
Paul
NZ
What do you think?
-
When you say natural disasters, I think of hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, etc. I don't see how those things you suggest will in any way avoid any of those natural disasters. Other than one thing, flooding...which could be avoided more if we just didn't build entire cities underwater. I don't see any natural disasters which could be avoided by your suggestions which fall into the category of those which require massive amounts of money/aid from around the world. Perhaps I am just not educated well enough on the subject, so if anyone can explain to me where I am wrong, please do.
-
The American Republican attitude (and probably those of other right wing political parties) is probably that people should have the least government interference, but the profit motive of the rich only keeps the rich rich and does not benefit the rest of us.
Regards
Paul
NZ
What do you think?
Also, American Republicans/conservatives give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than does the left wing. So the argument that they are purely profit based in their attitudes is not supportable.
-
Natural disasters means it is a hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding. Any disasters is not depended to nature. Like earthquake is not depend to any nature it will attack when their is no balance between plats of earth, so can't easy to avoid disasters that is natural.
-
Also, American Republicans/conservatives give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than does the left wing. So the argument that they are purely profit based in their attitudes is not supportable.
Have you got any statistical evidence of this? Also, what 'charities' are they predominantly giving to? For instance, raising money for continuing cancer research is admirable, but it's not going make a great deal of difference to the majority of the population of sub-Saharan Africa.
-
Also, American Republicans/conservatives give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than does the left wing. So the argument that they are purely profit based in their attitudes is not supportable.
Have you got any statistical evidence of this? Also, what 'charities' are they predominantly giving to? For instance, raising money for continuing cancer research is admirable, but it's not going make a great deal of difference to the majority of the population of sub-Saharan Africa.
Here is one of many articles written on the subject which dispels many of the myths.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
-
And here is one of the many rebuttals of the spurious author who's core to that particular article...
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html
-
And here is one of the many rebuttals of the spurious author who's core to that particular article...
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html
Not a very good rebuttal though, especially since he claims the numbers are wrong, but doesn't back it up. But this is a science forum not a political one, so if you want to continue to believe that republicans are evil and only care about profit....your loss.
-
Not a very good rebuttal though, especially since he claims the numbers are wrong, but doesn't back it up. But this is a science forum not a political one, so if you want to continue to believe that republicans are evil and only care about profit....your loss.
And where did I say anything of the sort (about the morality of Republican voters)?
Your the one that began by making comparisons between the Reps & Democrats, not I. The OP (Paul Anderson) was perhaps incorrect to make partisan statements about this, but even so I took his viewpoint to be related to government-level attributes, not necessarily every individual who voted that way.
I simply took exception to your weakly constructed argument to the contrary, especially once I discovered that it was based on data that appears to only take the sets that fit his argument.
I believe it is up to you to show how his conclusions fit the majority of the cases in the General Social Survey as the proposer of this argument, not the other way round.