Display:
It all depends on what you define as a "catastrophe." If evacuating the southern half of Florida or 20 million people in Bangladesh, or a lack of drinking water for much of South Asia, or the collapse of global coral reef systems, etc., are not considered catastrophes,then you're right.

What is the threshold?

by asdf on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:11:10 PM EST
that the discussion shouldn't depend on a definition of what's catastrophic and what isn't - the entire word should not come to the fore in the debate because it is a distracting and damaging denominator. So asking what the threshold is, is taking up a discussion that should be avoided in its entirety.
by Nomad on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I strongly disagree with you on this point. The whole problem, it seems to me, is that it's too easy for the press to create a disaster out of a pedestrian news event simply because there is no agreement as to what should be properly called a catastrophe.

Why is it that airplane crashes in, say, Nigeria, get lots of press, while car crashes in London or New York are ignored? Simply because sensationalism sells newspapers. That's why 9/11 was a catastrophe, and that's why another objectively insignificant news event may be sensationalized to sell newspapers--with horrible long-term consequences.

Personally, I think that the flooding of many of the third world coastal cities is going to be a true catastrophe. Perhaps we should calculate the Misery Index for the various scenarios that may arise due to climate change...

by asdf on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 09:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That I support - because it could be a metric which everyone can understand and can be defined to some degree. Also because it can be a tool for policy use.

The problem I address, however, is wider than focussing on the press tendency to enlarge topics. Sensationalism sells stories - which is why even I was wavering to support an Iraq invasion after Powell's UN speech. But an other point is that things within the press tagged as catastrophe have simply no secure scientific foundation and yet they get repeated over and over.

by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 10:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I perhaps should have been more cautious in abjuring the word catastrophe in its entirety. So I cede that point. There have been plenty of examples within the comment thread already that scale in one way or another catastrophic. Yet the use of overrated stands: The problem remains that too often there is distortion of science painted into catastrophic scenes - while it is unfounded. I don't think the absence of a definition on catastrophe is the main cause in this.
by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 06:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
this sort of thing in mind:

("Caution: World Ending!")

It was a good magazine, once upon a time...

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 01:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A shining example. Do you mind if I steal this one from you?
by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 07:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It doesn't belong to me anyway ;)

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 04:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series