The
word "disaster" that is in everybody’s lips nowadays has its roots in
the Greek word "astron," meaning star. A disaster literally is an event that is
"ill-starred"–a way of saying that its occurrence is beyond human
control. By this definition, all
disasters would be natural.
Yet, it is now usual to differentiate
"man-made" from "natural" disasters, suggesting a readiness
to think that many disasters could be traced to decisions or policies made in
the past by communities, governments, or organisations. If so, then they can be prevented by changing
the decisions that led to them, and by opposing similar ones that are yet to be
made.
This way of understanding the problem has
given rise to the concept of "risk."
When decisions are taken in awareness of their probable harmful
consequences, people want to be told precisely what the risks are, how they are
to be minimized, and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. But, not even the most sophisticated rational
calculation of risk can ever completely allay public anxiety. Thus, risk calculation rarely becomes the
basis for any enduring consensus.
The decision to mothball the Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant, which was ready to "fire" in December 1985, is a case in
point. Having gone that far, and having poured billions of dollars into the
project, the government could have easily marshaled all the arguments based on
rational risk calculation to put to rest the objections to the nuclear
plant. But, all such claims were no
match against the widespread suspicion that, because of corruption, shortcuts
had been made that compromised the safety of the plant and its capacity to
withstand an emergency.
Moreover, the new government had little
interest in operating the plant, as it was bent on projecting the BNPP as a
concrete symbol of everything that was wrong and corrupt about the Marcos
regime.
There is a downside to this fixation with
technologically-induced disasters. It
draws attention away, says Niklas Luhmann, from all other "forms of being
which–as Nature– intrinsically limit what can happen."
When people decide to build their houses on
dried-up river beds, atop mud dikes, or along river banks–or sequester portions
of lakes and rivers for use as fish-pens–they too are engaged in risky
behavior. If fast-rising floodwaters
sweep these homes away, killing thousands in the process, as they did in Ormoc
(central Philippines) many years ago, one would not be able to tell how much of
the disaster is natural and how much is manmade.
There is always a need to lay the blame for
every disaster at the door of somebody, since Nature’s ways are far too complex
to figure out. If it is not the weather
agency that gets it for not being able to predict the precise path and strength
of a typhoon, it is the people in charge of the dams for releasing water into
the rivers at the wrong time that do.
The script has become tediously familiar:
stranded in their homes, residents bewail the absence of relief goods, even as
they ignore warnings and refuse to move to temporary evacuation centers. They heap scorn on their local officials for
abandoning them. They beg the President
to visit them in person to show how much he cares for them.
Perhaps there is something about disasters
that transforms us into helpless little children craving for attention. Paired
with the ritual of generous relief-giving that comes in the wake of every
disaster, this helplessness turns into what we might call a disaster syndrome.
This ritual is usually enacted with a lot of
fanfare, almost as if the whole purpose was to earn bragging rights rather than
to help. It is almost impossible to coordinate relief efforts. Nearly every
group that offers relief insists on giving it directly to the victims, making
sure that the beneficiaries know exactly where it came from. The semantics of
dependence permeates these transactions. It is as if disasters were invented to
serve as the occasion for affirming social inequalities.
Compare this with the way the Japanese people
bore their suffering in the wake of the Tohoku earthquake and killer tsunami
that hit their country in March this year.
They lost everything, yet they kept their dignity intact. In the midst of their personal misfortunes,
they found time to comfort one another.
But the consolation they offered each other was never intrusive. Hardly a word was typically exchanged; it was
the hearts that communicated. One is no longer surprised why the Japanese seem
to emerge stronger after every misfortune.
Their defenses are basically spiritual rather
than material. They draw from internal strength rather than from external
aid. But, more importantly, every disaster
becomes a mnemonic code for every Japanese child, evoking detailed communal
memories of vulnerability and response.
In an international symposium on disaster
mitigation held at UP in February 2010,
a Japanese participant wondered if the same attitude was systematically
inculcated in the minds of Filipino children. The answer, of course, was
no. Whether the disaster is political or
natural, we tend to seek relief in collective amnesia, rather than in remembering. As a result we learn little from the lessons
that disasters bring. Typhoon "Pedring" (international name: Nesat)
came almost to the day of the second anniversary of Storm "Ondoy,"
(international name: Ketsana) yet we greeted its ferocity with the same naïve
bewilderment.
Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Consulting, Investment and Management, focusing three main economic sectors: International PR; Healthcare & Wellness;and Tourism & Hospitality. We also propose Higher Education, as a bridge between educational structures and industries, by supporting international programs. Sign up with twitter to get news updates with @SaigonBusinessC. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment