INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI
Posted: 29 Mar 2026, 02:16
INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI
2 January 2005
I can get quite depressed at times, not about my own life and circumstances but by observing the world and its events through the media. The Indian Ocean tsunami is a case in point.
We are being swamped with news of rising death tolls and images of dead bodies. Public sympathy has been triggered and people are responding by shaming the government into giving more aid by the scale of their own response. The latest estimates show that £60million has been donated by ordinary people.
So why am I depressed? Two small pieces of news which have surfaced in the last few days: Reports from the National Parks and wildlife reserves in the affected areas that no wild animals were killed and a further report that the Aborigine tribes on the small islands off Sri Lanka all survived with no loss of life despite their homes being totally overwhelmed. The reason why? They have instincts and mechanisms for survival which 'civilised' people have lost.
I'm not suggesting that we should all revert to pre stone-age standards of living, what we should be asking ourselves is how did we allow this tsunami to kill so many people? Simple and relatively inexpensive technology has existed for years to detect undersea events causing tsunami and give advanced warning. This combined with elementary measures like warning sirens could have saved thousands of lives. Why were so many people living in dire poverty in shanty towns in areas so vulnerable to this tragedy? I've already given the answer, poverty and deprivation.
The shift in the earth's crust which caused the tsunami was a sudden, dramatic and unpredictable event. As such it has caught the imagination of the media. Even worse, Western holiday-makers were involved so there was an immediate link back to our 'civilised' society, this combination ensured wall to wall coverage. My question is, just how big a disaster is this when compared with other events and, worse still, ongoing situations world-wide? The numbers of people dying daily from just three scourges, Malaria, Aids and starvation far exceeds the death toll in the Indian Ocean rim caused by this tsunami. Scientists now tell us that they suspect the biggest killer of all is diarrhoea-related diseases caused mainly by polluted water.
The amount of attention paid in the West to death and disease has no relation to scale but impact on us. True, we are seeing more coverage of the world-wide attrition based on poverty but how much is actually being done about it? There is a further problem, I heard a report the other day from one of the aid organisations about a study which had been done comparing the totals of aid promised and the amount actually delivered. Surprise, surprise, there was a substantial discrepancy.
I don't seek to minimise the suffering of the victims of the tsunami, it's heart-breaking to see the pictures and hear the stories. What we have to realise is that because these people have an annual income one tenth of ours this is not a global economic problem. The insurance companies have estimated that the total amount of damage will be about $20billion. This is a pinprick and easily absorbed in global economic terms therefore the long term economic affect is minimal so don't expect to see any serious attempts to address the roots of the problem. My point is that this sort of arithmetic-based prioritisation of problems should be replaced by an ethically based series of programmes and responses.
What we need is a 21st century equivalent of Tracey Island and the Thunderbirds, a globally funded programme of assessment, alleviation and response based on modern technology. It's about time that the ‘civilised’ people of the world woke up and realised that deprivation and disease or vulnerability to natural events, no matter where it happens, is a threat to all of us in the long term. In 2000 I went on record as saying that instead of being prepared to spend $?trillion on a war in Iraq we should have spent the money in economic aid to help develop the country. Could anyone argue against that now? We need some long term, proactive thinking based on morally sound judgements and this is long overdue.
Alright, if I'm honest I can see no signs of this happening. I'd lay money that nothing will be done in my lifetime. Here's a long term prediction for you, at some point in the distant future the rich of the world will have to realise that they are responsible for the planet and action will be taken. By then it will be too late and all I can say is that I believe the subsequent ‘disaster’ will make what we are looking at today pale into insignificance. I'm old. I shall be long dead. But how about our children and their children? What sort of a legacy are we passing on to them?
2 January 2005
2 January 2005
I can get quite depressed at times, not about my own life and circumstances but by observing the world and its events through the media. The Indian Ocean tsunami is a case in point.
We are being swamped with news of rising death tolls and images of dead bodies. Public sympathy has been triggered and people are responding by shaming the government into giving more aid by the scale of their own response. The latest estimates show that £60million has been donated by ordinary people.
So why am I depressed? Two small pieces of news which have surfaced in the last few days: Reports from the National Parks and wildlife reserves in the affected areas that no wild animals were killed and a further report that the Aborigine tribes on the small islands off Sri Lanka all survived with no loss of life despite their homes being totally overwhelmed. The reason why? They have instincts and mechanisms for survival which 'civilised' people have lost.
I'm not suggesting that we should all revert to pre stone-age standards of living, what we should be asking ourselves is how did we allow this tsunami to kill so many people? Simple and relatively inexpensive technology has existed for years to detect undersea events causing tsunami and give advanced warning. This combined with elementary measures like warning sirens could have saved thousands of lives. Why were so many people living in dire poverty in shanty towns in areas so vulnerable to this tragedy? I've already given the answer, poverty and deprivation.
The shift in the earth's crust which caused the tsunami was a sudden, dramatic and unpredictable event. As such it has caught the imagination of the media. Even worse, Western holiday-makers were involved so there was an immediate link back to our 'civilised' society, this combination ensured wall to wall coverage. My question is, just how big a disaster is this when compared with other events and, worse still, ongoing situations world-wide? The numbers of people dying daily from just three scourges, Malaria, Aids and starvation far exceeds the death toll in the Indian Ocean rim caused by this tsunami. Scientists now tell us that they suspect the biggest killer of all is diarrhoea-related diseases caused mainly by polluted water.
The amount of attention paid in the West to death and disease has no relation to scale but impact on us. True, we are seeing more coverage of the world-wide attrition based on poverty but how much is actually being done about it? There is a further problem, I heard a report the other day from one of the aid organisations about a study which had been done comparing the totals of aid promised and the amount actually delivered. Surprise, surprise, there was a substantial discrepancy.
I don't seek to minimise the suffering of the victims of the tsunami, it's heart-breaking to see the pictures and hear the stories. What we have to realise is that because these people have an annual income one tenth of ours this is not a global economic problem. The insurance companies have estimated that the total amount of damage will be about $20billion. This is a pinprick and easily absorbed in global economic terms therefore the long term economic affect is minimal so don't expect to see any serious attempts to address the roots of the problem. My point is that this sort of arithmetic-based prioritisation of problems should be replaced by an ethically based series of programmes and responses.
What we need is a 21st century equivalent of Tracey Island and the Thunderbirds, a globally funded programme of assessment, alleviation and response based on modern technology. It's about time that the ‘civilised’ people of the world woke up and realised that deprivation and disease or vulnerability to natural events, no matter where it happens, is a threat to all of us in the long term. In 2000 I went on record as saying that instead of being prepared to spend $?trillion on a war in Iraq we should have spent the money in economic aid to help develop the country. Could anyone argue against that now? We need some long term, proactive thinking based on morally sound judgements and this is long overdue.
Alright, if I'm honest I can see no signs of this happening. I'd lay money that nothing will be done in my lifetime. Here's a long term prediction for you, at some point in the distant future the rich of the world will have to realise that they are responsible for the planet and action will be taken. By then it will be too late and all I can say is that I believe the subsequent ‘disaster’ will make what we are looking at today pale into insignificance. I'm old. I shall be long dead. But how about our children and their children? What sort of a legacy are we passing on to them?
2 January 2005