california – American Disasters

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

After reading Davis’ piece, I was amazed at how dangerous it is to live in California. Davis argues that not only is California susceptible to devastating hurricanes, but that droughts, fires, and flooding can also wreak havoc. According to Davis, California is a land condemned by Mother Nature. At the heart of his argument is the belief that California is on the verge of “The Big One.” If California were to experience a devastating earthquake or prolonged drought, it would become an uninhabitable wasteland. The effects of this possible disaster—which Davis would believes is likely—would cause unimaginably devastation to California and the entire United States. Massive loss of life coupled with trillions of dollars in damage might spell the end of California. Additionally, the economic effects could be catastrophic considering California’s important role in technology and other industries. The question now seems to be why do people live there and what should be done.

I like Morte’s description of the situation: people are playing a “game of chance.” Residents of California know that the area is dangerous, but assume that they will not be affected. This naiveté seems similar to other disasters that we have studied. We found this embracement of invincibility in the Johnstown Flood, where residents knew that there was a possibility of the dam breaking, but did not believe it would ever. I think this situation is most similar to the Galveston Hurricane. Galveston is situated on an unprotected barrier island that stands in the path of hurricanes, while much of California is situated on a fault line. In both cases, the citizens of these areas willfully ignore the consequences of their actions.

I think this false sense of security reveals something about human nature. We believe strongly in our invincibility, despite a history of losing to Mother Nature. It seems as though we have not learned from the lessons that history has taught us. Despite how foolish our choices can be, I struggle with condemning people that choose to live in disaster-prone areas. I recognize that some people do not have the choice about where they live. Also, I have never been to California, but I am sure that it is a wonderful place to live. In an ideal situation everyone would be aware of the risk and have the ability to choose to live where they wanted, however, I know this is impossible.

After reading these articles by Steinberg and Davis, I no longer want to live in California. At least with hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural calamities, modern technology provides us with at least some warning. A simple Google search confirmed my belief that scientists have yet to develop a warning system for earthquakes. Let’s get on that science.

We have, however, developed ways to reduce the damage caused by earthquakes. Even back in the early 1900s, there were at least some protective measures available for implementation. Following the destructive 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, one would think that the local government would try to make the city as safe as possible.

The reactions from Galveston and San Francisco following their respective disasters are polar opposites. The hurricane shattered Galveston’s ignorant view of safety from devastating storms. As such, the city did something to improve their chances against another possible storm by creating a sea wall and elevating the city. Mazel Tov, the modifications worked quite well fifteen years later. The earthquake in San Francisco, however, entrenched the city’s belief that earthquakes did not cause extensive damage. Instead, the local government focused on the fire as the main source of concern. Local government in San Francisco enacted a “Wind Bracing” ordinance to their building code. As Steinberg points out, this language was probably chosen deliberately to remove any mention of earthquakes. Earthquakes later on showed the ignorance regarding the building codes to be detrimental, especially to tge schools. Both cities were vying for economic dominance in their areas, but Galveston decided to make their city safer to encourage businesses to rebuild. San Francisco sought to sweep the problem under the rug, as Jean, Betsy, and Sherwood all aptly claim, to protect future business relations. This decision was incredibly ignorant, selfish, and irresponsible. Even the slight modifications that the city made to its building code were soon undermined to pursue cheaper building construction.

I think it’s pretty comical how a small earthquake in Canada sparked the recognition of earthquakes by insurance companies. My favorite line in Steinberg’s article relates to the insurance companies: “Thousands of Californians were putting up their own hard-earned money to protect themselves against a risk the business class had once said did not exist.” Furthermore, the Great Depression combined with the movie San Francisco forced California to acknowledge a natural problem with its geography.

Even today, citizens are testing the government’s safety mandates by making the government enforce its stricter and more expensive building codes. Alluding to arguments made by Davis, the climate may be destructive and on the brink of disaster, but the climate is why people move to California. It’s beautiful. Living near the beach carries risks of flood and hurricanes, but people take those risks to enjoy the beauty. Maybe the risk involved with living in these areas contributes to their beauty. To me, the cost of living in paradise should be higher than living in the desert of New Mexico or the plains of Arkansas.

Tag: california

The Big One

How can you be so obtuse?