There's No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

Alrighty, back to me. First off, regrettably I do not have much previous random knowledge as to the subject, and am not going to research the topic for online debate, and thus am not going to have sources such as you do to support my view. I do, however, have logic, which I hope to employ. As to the definition issue: Granted, we are not arguing the definition. I thought it would be useful to know what we're debating. And also pointing out that the general consensus is in my favor. As to a general overview on the argument that the only thing that qualifies a natural event as a natural disaster is the location of it: agreed, but that is more a point to the negative. Any significant event that happens on this little blue ball WILL affect people living on it in some way. As long as the natural disaster is on the Earth it's location makes it a natural disaster "yes that was redundant". Whether it be causing a year without summer in 1883, forcing refugees all over the U.S., or simply shutting down power to an area, the fact of the matter is that as spread out over the globe as people are any natural calamity will affect them. Now I suspect my opponent intends to say that this is a social and geographical problem, and this is a relatively key element in the debate, but this is not true. Humans are in fact nothing but an element of nature, albeit a big, noisy, and destructive one. To say that its a social problem that humans flock to areas of resource "i.e., oceans, rivers, plains prone to tornadoes, valleys prone to flood, etc" is like saying it's the birds fault for flying south in the winter. We respond to natural stimulus the same way any other animal does. Sometimes nature bites back. As to the following paragraph, it appears to be the crux of the debate and thus the point upon which I will spend the most time in analyzation and etc. Beginning now. "It is generally accepted among environmental geographers that there is no such thing as a natural disaster. In every phase and aspect of a disaster – causes, vulnerability, preparedness, results and response, and reconstruction – the contours of disaster and the difference between who lives and who dies is to a greater or lesser extent a social calculus. Hurricane Katrina provides the most startling confirmation of that axiom. This is not simply an academic point but a practical one, and it has everything to do with how societies prepare for and absorb natural events and how they can or should reconstruct afterward. It is difficult, so soon on the heels of such an unnecessarily deadly disaster, to be discompassionate, but it is important in the heat of the moment to put social science to work as a counterweight to official attempts to relegate Katrina to the historical dustbin of inevitable "natural" disasters." As an overall view on this paragraph, I'd like to state that this in no way supports the affirmative case, primarily because it's entire purpose is to not "relegate Katrina to the historical dustbin of inevitable "natural" disasters." In the case of Katrina, I will admit that most of the disaster was a societal one. Most of the death was caused by a callous or unprepared society. However. The only reason it was revealed that this society was unprepared or callous is because winds in excess of 100 miles per hour propelled millions of gallons of sea water into a populated area. No matter what spin is taken on the facts and reasons leading up to it, without the natural forces behind this there would have been no disaster. Now beginning the specifics:"It is generally accepted among environmental geographers that there is no such thing as a natural disaster. In every phase and aspect of a disaster – causes, vulnerability, preparedness, results and response, and reconstruction – the contours of disaster and the difference between who lives and who dies is to a greater or lesser extent a social calculus." The whole problem with this stance is that it attempts to marginalize forces greater than nuclear weapons that act virtually at random into a calculus. It states that it is nothing more than some sort of a human calculus. However, this is somewhat flawed. As to the causes issue, it is true we can influence some aspects of the natural disaster situations with global warming or whatnot. But other, seismic disasters, have absolutely nothing to do human involvement, a point my opponent concedes. As to the vulnerability: this was discussed above in my assessment that people respond to natural stimulus. Yes, there are situations in which we place ourselves in harms way. This is not society's fault. This is the fault of the fact that people need food, water, and shelter to survive, and that the human organism likes to survive. As to the preparedness: you cannot expect mankind to be prepared for everything our extremely complex world throws at him. And even if he "using the general he, not in anyway sexist btw" were, that would not prevent the disaster from occurring. Another key point: it may lessen the damage done to humans and their property, but this does not keep the disaster from occurring. The hurricane still hits, the volcano still erupts, whatever. As to results, response, and reconstruction, these all pretty much address the same thing. And this is, for the most part, a societal problem. However, as has been discussed, this is only part of the whole scope of the term natural disaster. Not all disasters are disastrous because we failed to rebuild and respond properly, as in the sited case of Katrina. Many are disasters in their own right, causing death and mayhem at will, and what mankind does afterwards to try to band-aid the situation is relatively irrelevant. The following sentence: "Hurricane Katrina provides the most startling confirmation of that axiom." is relatively irrelevant as it only discusses one of millions of disasters across the course of history, and is actually slightly abusive as it is a case in which the main disaster WAS societal, not natural. Very few disasters are actually like this. Now onto my last sermon. "This is not simply an academic point but a practical one, and it has everything to do with how societies prepare for and absorb natural events and how they can or should reconstruct afterward. It is difficult, so soon on the heels of such an unnecessarily deadly disaster, to be discompassionate, but it is important in the heat of the moment to put social science to work as a counterweight to official attempts to relegate Katrina to the historical dustbin of inevitable "natural" disasters." The fact is this paragraph says absolutely nothing about the fact that natural disasters "or as it calls them in an attempt to lessen the impact, events" will occur and will damage people. You can be extremely prepared and can be extremely able to respond to the disaster, but that doesn't mean it wont happen. As to it being more than an academic point, this is relatively irrelevant in my opinion. I personally believe an academic standpoint to things is not useless or out of touch or discompassionate. We should seek to be as intelligent as possible in our response to disasters. Im all for using social science. And as for the Katrina thing, I have already conceded that Katrina was primarily a social issue. THis is not a general rule. I guess the key points I'm making is that the disasters will occur, no amount of preparedness or response is going to stop that. We should definitely try to lessen their impact, but this is irrelevent. They will happen. Sorry about how long this was, it just takes quite a bit of text to break down all that is said.