>I don't want to be rude about the 3rd world, but there are techniques for making structures that mitigate the effects of a quake.
You're not rude, just ignorant. Those techniques need money. In these third world places people don't even have proper houses to live in, much less to withstand an earthuake.
>In the West it's often the other way (people don't come back to life, it's just that the initial estimates come down, for instance Sep 11 went from 50K to 3K).
It's just areas with huge population density. 7/10ths of the world live in the "third world". In comparison most of the USA, apart from NY and a few cities, is emptiness. But a similar disaster in San Francisco, for example, can still claim tens or hundrends of thousands for example.
>>I don't want to be rude about the 3rd world, but there are techniques for making structures that mitigate the effects of a quake.
>You're not rude, just ignorant. Those techniques need money. In these third world places people don't even have proper houses to live in, much less to withstand an earthuake.
In the next sentence, I mention the economic impediments. You can interpret that how you like, but most educated, sensible people would say it covers the thought of "those techniques need money". Also, you might wonder how it is that these people who don't have houses to live in are found under piles of rubble.
>Also, you might wonder how it is that these people who don't have houses to live in are found under piles of rubble.
You'll probably win few awards for sensitivity with those kind of comments. It's like wearing a paper hat that says "Upper/Middle class, privileged, knows shit about the world outside his home country, but insists on having an opinion" to people reading these.
What part about "not having PROPER houses to live" sounds contradictory to the rumble? Depending on the country, there's rumble that is from old buildings never repaired (e.g old colonial, or cheaply built concrete houses from better times), rumble from tin roofs in DIY shacks, etc... Here are what those houses looked in Haiti before the Earthquake for example:
I certainly read him as ignorant. He handwaves at the fact that poor people have less money than rich people. But it doesn't seem to have made much difference in his commentary.
As comparison, the world loses over 100,000 people each year to measles; the solution to that has been understood for decades, and deploying it is a lot easier than building to withstand a 7.9 earthquake.
The existence of techniques to fix a problem is not the only thing standing in the way to fixing a problem.
He mentions "economic" as an inpediment in passing, still going on about why these people don't impement proper construction tecniques. It's like Maria Antoanete story, were she's told that the people can't afford bread and he says "well, why don't they eat cake then?".
Plus the way he talks about the "third world" this and that is borderline racist (and disrespectful).
You're not rude, just ignorant. Those techniques need money. In these third world places people don't even have proper houses to live in, much less to withstand an earthuake.
>In the West it's often the other way (people don't come back to life, it's just that the initial estimates come down, for instance Sep 11 went from 50K to 3K).
It's just areas with huge population density. 7/10ths of the world live in the "third world". In comparison most of the USA, apart from NY and a few cities, is emptiness. But a similar disaster in San Francisco, for example, can still claim tens or hundrends of thousands for example.