Burma Death Toll estimated at 22,000

polaris

really ... wtf??

better to rule with a big heart then a heavy hand no?

mammasan

polaris wrote:

really ... wtf??

better to rule with a big heart then a heavy hand no?

Just another fine example of how the military junta over there really doesn't care about it's citizens. I wouldn't be suprised if they figured that by letting the population die en mass they can diminish the opposition to their rule.

Rats of Multa

farfromglorified wrote:

Subscribing to socialism is a matter of subscribing to ends, not means. And why would anyone who believes in socialism subscribe to places where the ends are so poor?

Regardless of my views on socialism or yours, the fact of the matter here is that there are now tens of thousands dead and millions more affected in Burma because of a lack of technology and wealth. I suspect that we can all agree in hoping that these events bring about some changes that will better the conditions for the tens of millions of Burmese living in poverty in what once was and still can be a very prosperous nation.

nice discussion you've got going,...

im curious, what changes do you think are truly being made in relation to the tragedies [emphasis of pluralization] having occurred in New Orleans, where wealth and technology are certainly not lacking...??

polaris

mammasan wrote:

Just another fine example of how the military junta over there really doesn't care about it's citizens. I wouldn't be suprised if they figured that by letting the population die en mass they can diminish the opposition to their rule.

i'm not too sure their motivations ... i'm leaning towards their desire to maintain an absolute iron fist that they are screening aid for propaganda material that might overthrow their rule ... not sure ... but the results are still the same ... mass suffering

farfromglorified

Rats of Multa wrote:

im curious, what changes do you think are truly being made in relation to the tragedies [emphasis of pluralization] having occurred in New Orleans, where wealth and technology are certainly not lacking...??

In terms of direct response? Very little. The response to Hurricane Katrina seems to mirror that of the response to Hurricane Betsy -- in other words, lots of stupidity.

However, the very nature of American life and modernization helped minimize, to some extent, the death toll of Katrina. The fact of the matter is that "only" 1,800 people died when a Category 3 storm hit a major population center existing below sea level here, whereas the actual death toll from Nigris in underdeveloped Burma is probably around 100,000 (and potentially higher). "Only" is in quotes above because 1,800 is still a significant loss of life in absolute terms, but not necessarily in relative terms (depends on which perspective you choose). The major contributing factor to those numbers being different here than in Burma, aside from the fundamentals of the storm and the population densities, is individual access to technologies for storm warning, storm preparedness, and storm avoidance.

When we look at Katrina, for example, we still find that the major contributing factors to the loss of life there are 1) poverty and 2) the eschewment of preventative technology. The same can be said for Nigris, except just to a much greater extent. The sad fact of the matter is that people in New Orleans, as opposed to Burma, had (and have) little excuse for not constructing better levies and having better plans in place for evacuation. Burma, because of the fact that its socialist government has completely raped and pillaged its once-strong economy, had little hope of avoiding this tragedy.

Regardless, the difference between having 100,000 die or 1,800 die or 0 die is not really measured by how quickly government runs in to "save" people. Those differences are largely measured by how easily people can save themselves, with the help of others of course. Even in the poorest areas of the US (of which New Orleans certainly was one), most people have a radio and have access to transportation to get them to safety and have homes that can withstand strong forces. This is why serious natural disasters have relatively small death tolls here, whereas even small hurricanes and earthquakes in developing nations can have staggering death tolls.

In other words, if one wishes to minimize deaths from natural disasters, the first question should always be: what capabilities do the individuals in question have and how are we standing in the way of those individuals acquiring the capabilities they need? The second question can then be: how do we as a society help support those capabilities? Katrina, relative to other disasters within the US, provides a fascinating case of what happens when the two questions get reversed. And the same can be said for disasters like this that happen in a resource-rich nation that is in the vice grip of an oppressive and economically corrupt regime.

Rats of Multa

farfromglorified wrote:

In terms of direct response? Very little. The response to Hurricane Katrina seems to mirror that of the response to Hurricane Betsy -- in other words, lots of stupidity.

well, it's hard to complain when you don't have anything to argue about.

psychologically it's tough to know which is more saddening: the deaths of thousands of foreigners because of a Natural disaster or the deaths of thousands of americans because of a Natural disaster.. and at the end of the day, industrialization has been under way for at least a hundred+ years, and yet these sorts of issues have yet to become prioritized in the mainstream political processes around the world. are persons too busy worrying about other people to realize that that the true issues of importance are how we live in relation to Nature and the physical realities of our environments; or do you really think corruption is to blame? and if not corruption, must we then describe such phenomena as social-immaturity..??

LikeAnOcean

They are now estimating over 100,000 killed..

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

In terms of direct response? Very little. The response to Hurricane Katrina seems to mirror that of the response to Hurricane Betsy -- in other words, lots of stupidity.

However, the very nature of American life and modernization helped minimize, to some extent, the death toll of Katrina. The fact of the matter is that "only" 1,800 people died when a Category 3 storm hit a major population center existing below sea level here, whereas the actual death toll from Nigris in underdeveloped Burma is probably around 100,000 (and potentially higher). "Only" is in quotes above because 1,800 is still a significant loss of life in absolute terms, but not necessarily in relative terms (depends on which perspective you choose). The major contributing factor to those numbers being different here than in Burma, aside from the fundamentals of the storm and the population densities, is individual access to technologies for storm warning, storm preparedness, and storm avoidance.

When we look at Katrina, for example, we still find that the major contributing factors to the loss of life there are 1) poverty and 2) the eschewment of preventative technology. The same can be said for Nigris, except just to a much greater extent. The sad fact of the matter is that people in New Orleans, as opposed to Burma, had (and have) little excuse for not constructing better levies and having better plans in place for evacuation. Burma, because of the fact that its socialist government has completely raped and pillaged its once-strong economy, had little hope of avoiding this tragedy.

Regardless, the difference between having 100,000 die or 1,800 die or 0 die is not really measured by how quickly government runs in to "save" people. Those differences are largely measured by how easily people can save themselves, with the help of others of course. Even in the poorest areas of the US (of which New Orleans certainly was one), most people have a radio and have access to transportation to get them to safety and have homes that can withstand strong forces. This is why serious natural disasters have relatively small death tolls here, whereas even small hurricanes and earthquakes in developing nations can have staggering death tolls.

In other words, if one wishes to minimize deaths from natural disasters, the first question should always be: what capabilities do the individuals in question have and how are we standing in the way of those individuals acquiring the capabilities they need? The second question can then be: how do we as a society help support those capabilities? Katrina, relative to other disasters within the US, provides a fascinating case of what happens when the two questions get reversed. And the same can be said for disasters like this that happen in a resource-rich nation that is in the vice grip of an oppressive and economically corrupt regime.

Do you think the US gov't has anything to do with the current state of developing countries?

farfromglorified

Rats of Multa wrote:

are persons too busy worrying about other people to realize that that the true issues of importance are how we live in relation to Nature and the physical realities of our environments; or do you really think corruption is to blame?

Corruption of thought, yes. And with that comes a denial of our environment, its benefits and risks to human survival, and the tools it provides us to protect our survival in the face of its worst. In the case of Burma, you have a state that, even today, subscribes to the worst kinds of economic ideologies. And even when such things are done with purest intentions, the devestation to a nation's people is nearly immesurable.

and if not corruption, must we then describe such phenomena as social-immaturity..??

I certainly wouldn't argue if someone described it that way, noting importantly that "immaturity" implies the possibility of its opposite.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

Do you think the US gov't has anything to do with the current state of developing countries?

Absolutely! The US has done much to push some nations into developing status, elevate others out of that status, and everything in between. But if one thinks the US is solely responsible for any nation's status as "developing", one is largely fooling one's self.

Burma, for instance, was destroyed by a socialist faction within its own borders. If you wish to blame a foreign power for Burmese misery, the Soviet Union and China would be well ahead of the US on the list. And despite the influence and actions of those three nations in addition to others, Burma's current status has much more to do with internal threats than external influence.

Commy

Socilism isn't the reason 20,000 people are dead. Nature is. Granted those people could have given up their freedom, concetrated power on a federal level, utilized capitalism and maybe fewer of them would have died. I will give you that-socialism in many cases hinders the development of technology. But so does the US gov't.

When a world superpower decides a system is not to be tolerated, it isn't tolerated, and in very few cases it succeeds.

This has very little to do with society and very much to do with nature.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

Socilism isn't the reason 20,000 people are dead. Nature is. Granted those people could have given up their freedom, concetrated power on a federal level, utilized capitalism and maybe fewer of them would have died. I will give you that-socialism in many cases hinders the development of technology. But so does the US gov't.

When a world superpower decides a system is not to be tolerated, it isn't tolerated, and in very few cases it succeeds.

This has very little to do with society and very much to do with nature.

Your argument implies that two societies, given the same natural event, suffer equal costs. You may want to rethink that argument.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Your argument implies that two societies, given the same natural event, suffer equal costs. You may want to rethink that argument.

really?

Commy wrote:

Granted those people could have given up their freedom, concetrated power on a federal level, utilized capitalism and maybe fewer of them would have died.

Rats of Multa

Commy wrote:

When a world superpower decides a system is not to be tolerated, it isn't tolerated, and in very few cases it succeeds.

this is a solid point, Commy, and one which reflects the ongoing immaturity of American society. ideas are not to be feared, but possess value in their potentials to be utilized. the theme works both ways: socialism as a theory that attempts to better provide for the majority of a society's individual members, and capitalism as a cohesive process that allows for production and trade to exist, grow, and flow between the various individuals of a given society.

until the demonization of each socio-political concept of wealth-distribution/interaction is halted and dissolved then the truly progressive need of integrating these two historical phenomena shall remain stalled, and likewise incidents such as the devastation of this Natural disaster shall be prolonged and magnified. it's sad really, but a little bit of compromise and understanding can go farther than most people imagine.

Abookamongstthemany

Rats of Multa wrote:

this is a solid point, Commy, and one which reflects the ongoing immaturity of American society. ideas are not to be feared, but possess value in their potentials to be utilized. the theme works both ways: socialism as a theory that attempts to better provide for the majority of a society's individual members, and capitalism as a cohesive process that allows for production and trade to exist, grow, and flow between the various individuals of a given society.

until the demonization of each socio-political concept of wealth-distribution/interaction is halted and dissolved then the truly progressive need of integrating these two historical phenomena shall remain stalled, and likewise incidents such as the devastation of this Natural disaster shall be prolonged and magnified. it's sad really, but a little bit of compromise and understanding can go farther than most people imagine.

I've been thinking the same thing about the co-existing of socialism and capitalism, lately. (although, it wasn't so well worded and smart sounding when it was rambling through my head )

Commy

Rats of Multa wrote:

this is a solid point, Commy, and one which reflects the ongoing immaturity of American society. ideas are not to be feared, but possess value in their potentials to be utilized. the theme works both ways: socialism as a theory that attempts to better provide for the majority of a society's individual members, and capitalism as a cohesive process that allows for production and trade to exist, grow, and flow between the various individuals of a given society.

until the demonization of each socio-political concept of wealth-distribution/interaction is halted and dissolved then the truly progressive need of integrating these two historical phenomena shall remain stalled, and likewise incidents such as the devastation of this Natural disaster shall be prolonged and magnified. it's sad really, but a little bit of compromise and understanding can go farther than most people imagine.

well said. It seems any example of an alternative to the status quo is dealt with violently, even internally. Waco comes to mind.

for sure. We need to explore the possibility of alternatives. And take what we can from each.

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

The United States, which has slapped economic sanctions on the country, said it likewise stood ready. The U.S. Embassy is providing $250,000 in immediate aid from existing emergency fund. But first lady Laura Bush said Monday the U.S. would provide further aid only if one of its own disaster teams is allowed into the country.

:mad: all the fucking conditions and excuses!

Heineken Helen

mammasan wrote:

I'm bumping this for Heineken Helen.

Thank you

I have to say though, regardless of the Burmese reaction to the aid sent, it looks like the international community were actually on top of it for once

Heineken Helen

Rats of Multa wrote:

this is a solid point, Commy, and one which reflects the ongoing immaturity of American society. ideas are not to be feared, but possess value in their potentials to be utilized. the theme works both ways: socialism as a theory that attempts to better provide for the majority of a society's individual members, and capitalism as a cohesive process that allows for production and trade to exist, grow, and flow between the various individuals of a given society.

until the demonization of each socio-political concept of wealth-distribution/interaction is halted and dissolved then the truly progressive need of integrating these two historical phenomena shall remain stalled, and likewise incidents such as the devastation of this Natural disaster shall be prolonged and magnified. it's sad really, but a little bit of compromise and understanding can go farther than most people imagine.

Nice post It's like everything... ya need balance!

mammasan

Heineken Helen wrote:

:mad: all the fucking conditions and excuses!

Well in this case I agree with our government. They want to make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it. The government of Burma has already shown it's absolute disregard for it's people. What is to stop them from hoarding all the aid that is sent to Burma and not use it where it is most needed.