Burma Death Toll estimated at 22,000

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

My 'chastising' is usually in response to something ridiculous that was said about the US being the most generous country in the world.

Your chastising here appears to have come from a single number. I don't see anyone tossing around superlatives vis a vis US aid.

I've said where I'm coming from on this, having just read that book and getting frustrated with the amount of times BIG economies (not just the US) give their reasons for giving less money while all the time people are dying. It's no help to anyone to bring up politics now. Just give the fucking money needed to save peoples lives.

If saving lives were as easy as "just give the fucking money", none of this would be a problem. Mammasan's earlier point was spot-on. Tossing a bunch of money at the problem without a plan and without ensuring that it's actually going to go to those who need it is wasteful, stupid, and potentially counterproductive. Your points about the US being careful not to inject politics into the situation (i.e. tying aid to political changes) are also spot-on. Finding the correct balance between those two unhelpful positions is the way to truly deliver aid.

Heineken Helen

Did either of you read the link?

It pretty much says all I need to say without dragging this discussion on and on again

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676

mammasan

Heineken Helen wrote:

Did either of you read the link?

It pretty much says all I need to say without dragging this discussion on and on again

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676

What your article fails to mention is the amount donated by private organizations and individuals in the US. It also fails to mention how much of the UN's budget for humanitarian causes is supported by US dollars. To repeat what FFG already stated is why criticize a nation for giving a certain percentage shouldn't we be more focused on the fact that nations are at least caring enough to help those in need.

Heineken Helen

mammasan wrote:

What your article fails to mention is the amount donated by private organizations and individuals in the US. It also fails to mention how much of the UN's budget for humanitarian causes is supported by US dollars. To repeat what FFG already stated is why criticize a nation for giving a certain percentage shouldn't we be more focused on the fact that nations are at least caring enough to help those in need.

It DOES mention individuals and the total donated

Nations are caring enough to help those in need? :eek: WOW! And I mean that to EVERY country caring enough to BOTHER sending money to a country where people are dropping like flies?

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Umm...become not poor. Burma isn't "poor", it's people are. Burma is resource-rich and, 50 years ago, was on pace to be where eastern nations like Japan are in terms of development. Unfortunately, they suffered an internal revolution and their people have been oppressed by 50 years of thug rule and socialist economic mismangement.



Both scenarios don't suck. Certainly the West can do much in terms of lessening our impact on the climate. But doing so isn't going to prevent hurricanes from hitting Burma today or in the future. Global warming didn't invent the hurricane, and these nations are going to suffer these kinds of disasters regardless of any kind of climate change. What is important is how equipped the people of these nations are to deal with climate change and regular natural disasters caused by that change or by existing climate factors. Nations that rely on technology, even if it involves CO2 emitting energy sources, are far better prepared to deal with these kind of events than those who are producing no CO2 because they live in glorified huts without any electricity.

i'm not talking about just burma ... there are a lot of countries to be affected ... also - saying countries should simply choose a course of action to account for our excesses hardly seems fair ...

so ... issues like the global food crisis due to drought in many areas would have happened regardless?? ... this cyclone would have happened regardless? ... global climate change is causing more extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and such - your solution is to produce more greenhouse gases so you can be prepared ... makes no sense to me ...

mammasan

Heineken Helen wrote:

It DOES mention individuals and the total donated

Nations are caring enough to help those in need? :eek: WOW! And I mean that to EVERY country caring enough to BOTHER sending money to a country where people are dropping like flies?

I'm done with this discussion. Let me just add a big thanks you for turning a thread about the tragedy in Burma into a lets piss on the US thread. Classy indeed.

mammasan

Still to this day the government of Burma is still dragging it's feet in allowing aid into the country. This is truely fucking disgusting that government would be so careless with the lives of it's citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/08/myanmar/index.html

Towsertunes

polaris wrote:

i'm not talking about just burma ... there are a lot of countries to be affected ... also - saying countries should simply choose a course of action to account for our excesses hardly seems fair ...

so ... issues like the global food crisis due to drought in many areas would have happened regardless?? ... this cyclone would have happened regardless? ... global climate change is causing more extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and such - your solution is to produce more greenhouse gases so you can be prepared ... makes no sense to me ...

Global climate change--get off that retread excuse.
The earth has gone through many climate changes over millions of years.
How do you know if cyclones weren't even more prominent millions of years ago.
Basing events on data which only goes back 50-60 years is misleading.
Why do you think Kyoto is dead?
Because it is all bullshit.

polaris

Towsertunes wrote:

Global climate change--get off that retread excuse.
The earth has gone through many climate changes over millions of years.
How do you know if cyclones weren't even more prominent millions of years ago.
Basing events on data which only goes back 50-60 years is misleading.
Why do you think Kyoto is dead?
Because it is all bullshit.

please continue to spew the same op-ed stuff published by PR firms. Feel free to show any peer-reviewed scientific journal that states something other then what the IPCC has stated ...

Rats of Multa

polaris wrote:

i'm not talking about just burma ... there are a lot of countries to be affected ... also - saying countries should simply choose a course of action to account for our excesses hardly seems fair ...

so ... issues like the global food crisis due to drought in many areas would have happened regardless?? ... this cyclone would have happened regardless? ... global climate change is causing more extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and such - your solution is to produce more greenhouse gases so you can be prepared ... makes no sense to me ...

well, droughts, cyclones, and even periods of global-warming have certainly been shown to occur throughout history far prior to the industrial-revolution, so you may be exaggerated slightly on your views of the pending apocalypse.

the issue at hand is whether industrial nations can overcome their petty internal and supra-social nit-pickings in a timely fashion so as to utilize technology in ways that could and truly will establish cultural safe-haven [aka the basic need "shelter", writ large] from Nature. the idea is to not have to fight against our various environments in developing a global civilization that can benefit from Nature's infinitely numerous resources.

there are other issues to be sure, but this is the real concern at the bottom of this devastating tragedy.

Rats of Multa

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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 )

yea, there really isnt any other way to settle the obtuse oppositions of having both extremes coexisting in our self-contained world besides merging the two ideas into a pluralist theory. it's kind of one of those Greek methods i think.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

i'm not talking about just burma ... there are a lot of countries to be affected ... also - saying countries should simply choose a course of action to account for our excesses hardly seems fair ...

I'm not suggesting that countries have an obligation to choose a course of action based on our excesses. Global warming or not, hurricanes will always be a threat to these regions. This is not the first hurricane to stike Burma and regardless of what the world does in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it will not be the last.

so ... issues like the global food crisis due to drought in many areas would have happened regardless??

You do recognize that drought and famine are not new, correct? And do you recognize that the best way to address climates issues like droughts are not to try to prevent droughts but rather to have means for individuals to access food and water regardless of what is happening in their specific region? For instance, recently in the southeastern US, we've had one of the worst droughts in our history. How many people died directly because of it? Zero. Had that same drought occurred, as it often does, in Kenya, thousands upon thousands would die because many people would have no easy access to food or water.

The point is that strong markets are a far better weapon against aberrent weather than is cutting greenhouse gas. You can cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero and there will still be hurricanes, droughts, famines and the like and thousands upon thousands will still die.

This is not to say that we shouldn't be exploring ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the west. We absolutely should and we should be doing so for all sorts of reasons including and beyond climate issues. But anyone who suggests that cutting greehouse gas emissions in the west is the correct response to people dying from weather events in the east is completely fooling themselves.

... this cyclone would have happened regardless?

Maybe not this cyclone, but a cyclone, most certainly.

... global climate change is causing more extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and such - your solution is to produce more greenhouse gases so you can be prepared ... makes no sense to me ...

Try thinking of it this way -- if you, whereever you live, stopped using any electricity, got rid of your car, replaced your energy-sucking home with a mud hut, isolated your community economically, and generally did the same to all those around you, do you honestly believe you would survive the next hurricane or drought unscathed? Your greenhouse gas emissions would likely be near zero, but you'd be completely levelled by the next extreme weather event that would come along.

Greenhouse gas emissions are, and will be for some time, one of the top symptoms of civilized progress. Another symptom of civilized progress is a progressive decoupling of one's physical survival to one's local environment. So, in other words, if you saw large increases in greenhouse gas emissions from places like Burma, it would likely be the case that those emissions are the products of people building better homes, having access to better transportation, trading more with other communities and nations, and generally utilizing the very things that would likely save themselves from the next hurricane that is going to come, global warming or not.

To suggest that a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a lower frequency of extreme weather events would be to suggest a truth. To suggest, however, that a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to no extreme weather events or to an exponentially more safe environment for developing nations is to suggest a foolish fallacy. In other words, if the United States cut it's greenhouse gas emissions to zero, would you be advocating that they tear down the levies around New Orleans???

Rats of Multa

Commy wrote:

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.

exactly,... many times alternative ideas are immediately beaten and shunned by existing powers as soon as they are introduced, and sometimes even sooner!

it's relevant to what i was observing and discussing with my friend in Denver yesterday,.. the state legislature had just ended the night before, and where i had lunch downtown i witnessed some statesmen, and many appeared younger than what one would see in the eastern states, and so there is this Natural transfusion going on where we can in fact see some osmosis of progressive ideas entering the spectrum of government. but again the inherent slowness of this process directly causes basic inefficiencies in the quality of america's democracy and the overall functions of her government.

polaris

Rats of Multa wrote:

well, droughts, cyclones, and even periods of global-warming have certainly been shown to occur throughout history far prior to the industrial-revolution, so you may be exaggerated slightly on your views of the pending apocalypse.

the issue at hand is whether industrial nations can overcome their petty internal and supra-social nit-pickings in a timely fashion so as to utilize technology in ways that could and truly will establish cultural safe-haven [aka the basic need "shelter", writ large] from Nature. the idea is to not have to fight against our various environments in developing a global civilization that can benefit from Nature's infinitely numerous resources.

there are other issues to be sure, but this is the real concern at the bottom of this devastating tragedy.

we have a global food crisis partly because of drought ... sure, there have been droughts and other weather events historically - but it doesn't change the fact that are impact on weather systems is increasing the rate by which these events occur ... it's only gonna get worse - if you don't think the impacts we are experiencing today are significant enuf - just keep waiting ...

our problem is that industrialized nations are run by corporations who have specific interests - mainly profitability over sustainability ... it's that simple ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

we have a global food crisis partly because of drought ...

What??? You have a global food "crisis" because of government idiocy and general distribution challenges. Even when large parts of the world experience drought, worldwide agriculture alone produces enough food to feed everyone on this planet a 3,000 calorie daily diet.

There is no "global food crisis" in terms of drought. There are many places in this world that suffer local food crises when they have droughts, but they were suffering and will continue to suffer those same droughts regardless of global warming.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

edited for space


To suggest that a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a lower frequency of extreme weather events would be to suggest a truth. To suggest, however, that a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to no extreme weather events or to an exponentially more safe environment for developing nations is to suggest a foolish fallacy. In other words, if the United States cut it's greenhouse gas emissions to zero, would you be advocating that they tear down the levies around New Orleans???

the issue to me isn't so black and white ... again - yes, these weather events have occured and will continue to occur regardless of whether ghg emissions are brought back to a stable level or not ... and although cutting ghg emissions now may not prevent another cyclone from hitting burma again - it at the very least may prevent significantly more from occuring again ...

the thing with technology is that it comes at a price that doesn't always have a net positive effect ... your example of the levies in New Orleans is an example ... if the natural wetlands and mangroves that were there before weren't destroyed - maybe the levies would be unnecessary and that land that is a natural flood plain should not be developed on ...

how does a poor country pay for better drainage systems or better roads or better anything? ... often that is done by mortgaging the countries resources to foreign groups - in which case the poor stay poor and if another cyclone hits - you will still get the death counts ...

at the end of the day - it should be in our interests of not increasing the occurences of these weather events knowing what the tragic consequences are ...

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

What??? You have a global food "crisis" because of government idiocy and general distribution challenges. Even when large parts of the world experience drought, worldwide agriculture alone produces enough food to feed everyone on this planet a 3,000 calorie daily diet.

There is no "global food crisis" in terms of drought. There are many places in this world that suffer local food crises when they have droughts, but they were suffering and will continue to suffer those same droughts regardless of global warming.

http://straight.com/article-141020/monocrops-bring-food-crisis

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

the issue to me isn't so black and white ... again - yes, these weather events have occured and will continue to occur regardless of whether ghg emissions are brought back to a stable level or not ... and although cutting ghg emissions now may not prevent another cyclone from hitting burma again - it at the very least may prevent significantly more from occuring again ...

Perhaps -- to predict the localized outcomes of climate influences is pretty tough. But as a general statement, yes, cutting greenhouse gas emissions should decrease the frequency of these events, at least to some extent.

the thing with technology is that it comes at a price that doesn't always have a net positive effect ... your example of the levies in New Orleans is an example ... if the natural wetlands and mangroves that were there before weren't destroyed - maybe the levies would be unnecessary and that land that is a natural flood plain should not be developed on ...

That's simply a fallacy. While natural wetlands can certain help prevent localized flooding, a natural wetland isn't going to prevent anything in the face of a hurricane. The city of New Orleans, absent a good levy system, is doomed.

how does a poor country pay for better drainage systems or better roads or better anything? ...

The same way rich countries do -- first they were poor, then they became rich, then they could afford to do these things. You can certainly try to skip step 2, but it doesn't work very well. Steps 2 and 3 feed off each other in a cycle. When your nation is poor, you start with the basics. Cheap labor, agriculture, simple services and resource exports. You use the profits from those things to invest in roads and drainage systems to support the stability of those products and they become more efficient and more profitable. You then begin to expand and, as you do, continually invest in the people and support systems that maintain the drivers of your economy.

often that is done by mortgaging the countries resources to foreign groups - in which case the poor stay poor and if another cyclone hits - you will still get the death counts ...

Absolutely! That's not a good approach at all. What is a good approach is to not mortgage your resources but to utilize them in internal and external trade. Burma has many resources and it also has fertile agricultural soil and minds. It has wealthy neighbors. If the Burmese government would actually release its stranglehold on the economy and the political arena, we could be seeing 10% increases in annual GDP in Burma and that wealth would manifest itself in strong investments in protecting both farmland and farmers. From there, industry can develop and education comes with that. Those are going to be the real driving factors in saving people's lives.

at the end of the day - it should be in our interests of not increasing the occurences of these weather events knowing what the tragic consequences are ...

Absolutely! But it's even more in our shared interests not to restrict development in these nations, as often happens. Whether or not these weather events become more frequent or not, these weather events will continue to happen.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

http://straight.com/article-141020/monocrops-bring-food-crisis

Rising costs of staples does not equate to a "global food crisis". Certainly increased rice and wheat prices do create significant challenges for places where these base foods are the major consumables, and we're seeing the effects of this on the streets of many developing nations. But a true "global food crisis" happens when supplies of food are significantly outstripped by demand and many populations previously with stable food sources starve. We're not at that point.

Furthermore, your article complains of a lot of the negative effects of monocrops and corporate agriculture. These complaints are certainly valid, but paint an incomplete picture . These things are also a leading cause of the massive increase in total food production in the past 60 years, without which millions of people would likely have starved. If you want to suggest that there are many problems in our current food production methods, I'll wholeheartedly agree. If you want to suggest that the world has been disserved by our current modes of food production, I'd wholeheartedly disagree.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

That's simply a fallacy. While natural wetlands can certain help prevent localized flooding, a natural wetland isn't going to prevent anything in the face of a hurricane. The city of New Orleans, absent a good levy system, is doomed.

The same way rich countries do -- first they were poor, then they became rich, then they could afford to do these things. You can certainly try to skip step 2, but it doesn't work very well. Steps 2 and 3 feed off each other in a cycle. When your nation is poor, you start with the basics. Cheap labor, agriculture, simple services and resource exports. You use the profits from those things to invest in roads and drainage systems to support the stability of those products and they become more efficient and more profitable. You then begin to expand and, as you do, continually invest in the people and support systems that maintain the drivers of your economy.



Absolutely! That's not a good approach at all. What is a good approach is to not mortgage your resources but to utilize them in internal and external trade. Burma has many resources and it also has fertile agricultural soil and minds. It has wealthy neighbors. If the Burmese government would actually release its stranglehold on the economy and the political arena, we could be seeing 10% increases in annual GDP in Burma and that wealth would manifest itself in strong investments in protecting both farmland and farmers. From there, industry can develop and education comes with that. Those are going to be the real driving factors in saving people's lives.



Absolutely! But it's even more in our shared interests not to restrict development in these nations, as often happens. Whether or not these weather events become more frequent or not, these weather events will continue to happen.

sorry - i don't have the patience to do the cut and paste for the various points ...

new orleans: hence the validity of developing a city in a natural flood area ...

isn't that a socialist approach? ... if the people that reap the benefits of resources don't reinvest into a collective scheme - how does that work?

for sure, in Burma - it is an example of a country which does have resources but a shortsighted regime has ruled - fucking it up ...