Some lessons from the tsunami
Much of the world has been in a state of collective shock at the extent and horrors of the tsunami that brought such destruction and death to so many nations. At this point it appears that at least 150,000 people were killed and possibly as many as 200,000 to 250,000.
Many of us have tried to understand how such a thing could happen especially for the areas so far from the epicentre of the earthquake that caused the tsunami. There was no time to warn those closest to the quake. But hours passed before people in India or Sri Lanka were assaulted by the deadly forces of nature.
Seismologists said they knew within minutes that a tsunami was a real threat. In spite of that, people died hours later even though only a few minutes warning was all that was needed to save their lives. The consensus in the media was that the seismologists didn't know who to contact in many of these countries. No official warning system existed.
That appears true. And many people see this as a failure of government. They argue that millions must be spent to create a new system to handle this type of rare situation. Certainly we can see the deadly results when people are not warned of a deadly disaster speeding down upon them.
But more went on here than is first apparent. Why was an "official" channel of warning necessary?
In the US we had a system where the government would warn people of potential disasters. It was tested regularly. But I don't remember it ever being used. The sirens didn't go off to warn people about tornados or hurricanes. The media did that. The weather bureau would issue a warning to the media. The media would inform the rest of society.
What would an official warning system be like? Presumably someone on duty would notice the equipment showing a major earthquake. He would quickly determine it was at sea and thus a high risk of a tsunami existed. He'd have to call his superior. His superior would want to get a confirmation. He'd probably pass it on to his superior. No one knows how many layers this would go through.
At this point they'd make a decision. But they'd also be worried about the political circumstances of such a warning. A false warning could have bad consequences. And there is no assurance that the tsunami will take place. There will be warnings where the tsunami doesn't materialise. But let's say they issue a warning.
When they do issue a warning they will send it to officials in other countries who will want to have confirmation as well. These officials will then discuss whether or not to issue a warning dependent upon many individual political and economic circumstances. Often a warning will be squashed because it doesn't suit the political needs of the ruling parties.
Take this example from today's New Zealand Herald (p. C8). "The early data from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii, which could have saved thousands of lives was not passed on to tourist areas in Thailand-apparently for fear of the effect on the industry, which has been devastated anyway." Official bureaucrats made a political decision and didn't pass on the warning.
The reason they don't pass on the warning is simple. If every warning was followed by a tsunami it would be passed on without fail. But tsunami's are rare. Often warnings are issued and nothing happens. When I lived in San Francisco I remember a warning being issued. People flocked to the beaches to see a tsunami. It didn't materialise. Some warning systems have incentives to issue needless warnings. Other systems have incentives which discourage warnings when they are actually required.
For instance the US Federal Drug Administration is notorious for killing people due to excessive caution. Needed drugs, that would save lives, are kept off the market. The officials who release them are overly cautious because now and then there are unforeseen side effects. If the drug they approve ends up killing a few hundred people their lives would be made hell. So they keep the drugs off the market. Sure people die due to a lack of access to life-saving drugs. But people tend to attribute these deaths to the disease not because a needed drug is not available.
In addition the deaths are not clumped together but spread apart. A drug with lethal side effects is released at one moment in time. Lots of people take it suddenly. Deaths or side effects become apparent. And they are attributed to the drug and those who approved them are then held accountable. It's much less dangerous to one's career to be overly cautious. Yet such caution cumulatively leads to more deaths. But that isn't as noticeable. So excessive precaution is politically astute.
The US terrorist warning system is the same. No one wants to be responsible for not issuing a warning and then having an attack take place during a period they deemed safe. The result is that since the system was implemented it has never been at the lowest level of alert. The result is one of perpetual alert.
Would every undersea earthquake automatically result in a tsunami alert? Not likely. I suspect an official alert system would be overly cautious. In Thailand information was withheld because bureaucrats feared that the alert would scare tourists and detrimentally impact on the economy. In Third World countries politicians are notorious for ignoring facts and pursuing policies that are destructive. They put short-term political goals ahead of the long-term well-being of the nation.
I think the real failure in this instance was not primarily due to the lack of an official warning system but due to seismologists looking for "official" channels only. The fact is that virtually everyone of those beach front resorts in Thailand had televisions and many of them would have access to CNN. I know that many tourists, especially at that time of the morning, have the news on to catch up with events. Instead of issuing warnings to state officials all the seismologists needed to do was issue a warning to CNN and the media. Within minutes the world would have been alerted.
Thousands and thousands of people would have known with a few minutes that they were in danger. The needed information would have spread from there. Other media outlets would pick up on that. Word of mouth in affected areas would have spread the news even further. The tsunami warning would have been spread exactly the same way a tornado warning is spread across the tornado belt today.
It is true that many people would still be missed. But the news would spread more rapidly to more people in a shorter period of time than it would through some official channel. More importantly it would be spread by individuals who have no real stake in the consequences of issuing the warning. It sounds bad to say that but it means they won't withhold information while considering short-term political consequences. The media is in the information business and would issue warnings.
The best way to warn people about such disasters as quickly as possible is to spread economic development to as many places as necessary. Take the warnings out of the hands of politicians and let the media do it's job. Make sure people are economically developed enough so that televisions, radios and the internet are available to millions more.
Greens and the like may have contempt for wealth but wealth is a better protector against natural disaster than anything else. Wealth allows people access to information quickly. It puts televisions sets in every home, radios in every car and internet access within the reach of most people. All of those are potent methods for spreading emergency information far quicker than a cumbersome system of bureaucratic officials pushing paper in agency after agency.
Of course that means that these nations will have to pursue wealth creation policies. That goes against many of their political agendas and it interferes with the ability of politicians to gain power.
This also brings up another issue. The media has looked with contempt on tourists still on holiday in the affected areas. The same editorial in the Herald today whined that: "As usual there is, amid the caring, a breathtaking callousness-the British tourist keen for a cheap deal who jetted in to Phuket as survivors trickled out, for example."
Excuse me! Is this callous? These are areas that depend on tourism for their income. Is the Herald really saying that those businesses not directly affected by the disaster should also be required to suffer by a lack of business? Is spreading the poverty really a "compassionate" response?
It is no more callous for those businesses to stay in business than it is for the Herald to earn profits selling pictures of misery. For the last week the Herald has run story after story, often copiously illustrated with photos, about the misery and destruction caused by the tsunami. The news media profits from bad news.
It is caring to donate money to the Red Cross and other secular charitable organisations. They help people in need. But charity is only a short term solution. The long term solution is to create economic development or to recreate it where it was destroyed. But the long term solution is the most important one. People can't survive on perpetual charity. They need to be able to produce the wealth they consume. And those "callous" tourists are making that possible. They are keeping businesses alive. They are feeding people, housing people and paying for their medical care.
Ending tourism in these areas, even for a few months, will not make these areas better off. It will merely spread the misery and poverty to more and more people. But much of the compulsion for egalitarianism is driven by the desire of equal misery. For instance take the situation in modern China. Market reforms have lifted many people out of poverty and made even the poorest of Chinese better off. But the Left attacks the process because of increased inequality. They don't care that their system of economic equality makes everyone poor provided all are equally poor.
Shaming tourists into staying home will spread the misery and won't make anyone better off. It will merely exacerbate the problems already caused by this disaster. Instead of condemning or insulting tourists the Herald would do better encouraging people to book their trips to Thailand as soon as possible. Donations are good but so is business. If the Herald wanted to help this area further they should be promoting it as a tourist destination and letting people know about the bargains. These bargains exist because those offering them desperately need the income. Shutting off that avenue for survival is cruel.
All items in this journal reflect the personal opinions of the author and are not necessarily those of the Institute for Liberal Values or its Board members.
Previous (The Fat Lady is Singing) - Next (The Myth of Universal Health Care)
Nannies to Right of Us, Nannies to the Left of Us.
Welcome Home: the journeys of David Mamet and George McGovern.
Dominion Post in needless panic
Does Liberalism Have a Heart?
The moral problems of state power in regards to war.
Kiwi health: spend more, care less
Hurricanes and hot air: the sequel
Morality and Consistency: Why Left and Right both threaten freedom.
Ageing, population and the welfare state.
The bankruptcy of conservatism.
More journal entries...
|
Home - Books - Issues - Downloads - About Us - Journals - Thinkers - Links - Library - Subscriptions |
|
|
Institute for Liberal Values, Friday September 3rd 2010. |
|
|
|
