Suppose we could predict a natural disaster- would that be a good thing?

I mean, think about Haiti? Would everyone be willing to open their homes up for a few million refugees so a hundred thousand lives would be saved? Of course, they would be camped at your home for a long time, or until everyone donated enough money to rebuild their homes and economy.

Nathan Natas

It is better if we confine our predictions to the realm of un-natural disasters.

moshe

Suppose Yellowstone's super volcano was gonna blow it's top in the next month and eastern half of the US had to be evacuated? How many would be willing to move to Mexico and live in a tent at a refugee camp for the next 10 years? Would Mexico even let the gringos cross the border?

straightshooter

Very intersting thoughts. I would think that Mexico would not permit this. Especially since the majority of the U.S. is considered better off than Mexico. Looking back at Katrina, the refugees stayed in the U.S.

ziddina

Yes, because then we could get our hineys out of the way...

Natural disasters are being predicted with increasing frequency and accuracy. To segue from Nathan's thread about Yellowstone to this subject, vulcanologists are gaining greater success at predicting eruptions. The NOAA's accuracy is improving; there's been much discussion and research amongst seismologists about methods for predicting earthquakes. Various scientific disciplines are working on improving forecasting...

But I've always said, even if the experts say it's safe, rely on your own gut [in my case, a tingling in the general area of my medulla oblongata] and head away from the epicenter if you have a baaad feeling...

Funny story. We were planning a trip to Mt. St. Helens during the summer of 1980. Before the volcano erupted, I looked at the so-called 'safe' zones, and declared to my JW-then-still-husband, "We're not going to camp down there! If we go there, we're staying on one of the high peaks nearby! And NOT one that's north of the volcano!" In the 1800's, there was a small eruption on the flank of - the NORTH flank of Mt. St. Helens, and I suspected that the major force of the coming eruption would go in that direction, too... Also, when one compared the size of the St. Helens 'safe' zone with the area destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius - waaaaay tooo small...

Oh! Speaking of which - the recent earthquakes in Italy may prompt an eruption of Vesuvius in the near (20 - 50 years or so?) future. Stay tuned!

Zid

Blue Grass

Stupidest thread of the year(so far). How the hell could predicting a natural disaster be a bad thing. It sounds like you're saying it would be better for people to die than relocate for a few months or that people would rather see other people die than allow them in their country, city, neighborhood, or home. Your stupid logic reminds me of someone who's high on drugs and starts shooting off at the mouth with random thoughts and questions in a failed attempt to get 'deep' with philosophical thoughts which just makes the person appear like a complete fool in the eyes of anyone who's sober.

cameo-d

We already have predicted a natural disaster.

The Vast Apostate Army will finish things off in 2017.

ziddina

Yeesh, Blue Grass... Harsh, much???

Believe it or not, Blue Grass, this thread actually touches on real-life situations. There have been at least two volcanic eruptions in which the local populace had PLENTY of warning but were still UNABLE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY of an eruption or its aftereffects - once in the city of St. Pierre on the island of Martinique when a pyroclastic flow roasted over 28,000 people alive; once in Columbia in 1985 when volcanic activity melted glaciers, causing a mudflow that buried the town of Armero, killing 23,000 people...

In BOTH cases, ironically enough, the officials of the respective towns FORBADE the sounding of the alarm OR the evacuation of the cities!!! Their motivation??? ELECTIONS were coming up, and having all voters on hand was MORE IMPORTANT than protecting the lives of the populace!!! In the 1985 disaster, vulcanologists from several nations strongly urged the town's mayor to evacuate. He - and I assume his fellow city officials - chose to ignore the vulcanologists' warnings...

So, weird as it seems, there ARE some people [politicians eager to win elections instead of sensibly keeping themselves and their constituents alive???] who DO feel it may be a bad thing to have warnings of disasters - if it interferes with their election!!

Zid

moshe

Blue grass- a good topic would be of, you telling us how you stood up at a KH or the assembly and telling the elders, "this is the stupidest talk from the F&DS I have ever heard!" Man that would be gutsy. It's not too late to do that.

What about the stock market?- shall we warn everyone just as soon as we know that Yellowstone will blow, or maybe lets keep it under wraps awhile, so we(politicians and their moneyed handlers) can quietly convert our billions of dollars into gold before the stock market collapses.

Suppose we could predict a natural disaster- would that be a good thing?

Share this