As I see it part of the answer is to get the Caribbean out from under the disaster/debt cycle. As long as they are bleeding money to pay for the hurricanes of 20 years ago they will never be able to garner enough capital to get ahead of the game. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
1) Should we be trying to build growing economies in places where nature is so clearly against it. Is this like building a town on the side of an active volcano?
[Throw in the ecological costs of rebuilding every few years too...]
And if so, do we have even a conceptual idea what to do about it? [This question applies to whole coastal areas of Bangladesh too, I suspect.]
2) If not, can we conceive of if not "hurricane proof" then at least more "hurricane resistant" infrastructure and housing? If flooding is the big issue, could (with enough investment) emergency drainage be created? Is it just a question of money and political will, or is it not possible?
London will be in that position eventually, and no Government is going to say, 'ok we'll let it go under and move to the Midlands.'
So I guess your option 2 is where the thought and money needs to go but that's expensive and they seem to consider letting nature do it's damage as the easiest option. Ad astra per aspera
I'm sure this has helped in making it a convenient base to conquer the rest of the world. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
However, prior to the seventeenth century, all the great powers had been based in hot climates, with the partial exception of China.
http://transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_inca_and_their_roads
East-West divisions ease the migration of agricultural practises, because they follow the latitude, and thus remain in largely the same climate, whereas North-South migration forces the migrants to cross latitudes, potentially moving them into a different climate belt that renders their crops unfavourable.
The South and Central American cultures had barely five centuries from the first systematic agriculture until they came into contact with comparatively high-tech European culture - with all the predictably nasty outcomes we know. The Europeans had about five millenia of agricultural societies under their belts.
But of course, the convoluted European coastline probably did play a role in making marine transportation so dominant in European culture.
Maybe not, but it's also the case that these kinds of storms are not unheard of even in New Orleans. Hell, Charleston still has its scares from Hugo. SW Florida still hasn't fully recovered from the 2004 season, and SE Florida only fully recovered from Andrew because of the huge boom the area experienced for the last 16 years.
The competence just isn't there anymore. The levees weren't great to begin with. Now they're pretty much useless, because the Bush administration didn't learn its lesson, despite the Louisiana press, especially the Times-Picayune and some national press and the city shouting for three years that this was going to happen again. The Corps basically went in and half-assed it.
Again.
As TBG pointed out, there's nowhere on the planet that's entirely safe. We all know, for example, that they're just waiting for The Big OneTM out in California.
We can't hurricane-proof anything. But we can save many lives by not being stupid. A huge chunk of deaths after hurricanes come as a result of people being arrogant and stupid, not knowing to avoid standing water (powerlines), or to stay off the road because of the potential for debris or even the potential to not be able to see the road (leaving you to potentially go off it, get stuck in a ditch, and drown).
Katrina was one of the exceptions to those, simply because of the massive amounts of water. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Should we be trying to build growing economies in places where nature is so clearly against it. Is this like building a town on the side of an active volcano?
Ya know, you have the annoying habit of putting your finger on the crucial issues. ;-)
Like the sides of volcanos, the Caribbean is marvelously fruitful, agriculturally productive. Three and even four growing seasons, compared to temperate climes, are common. Some of the islands, like Cuba, have mountains creating micro-climates enabling one to grow just about anything.
This comes at the cost of hurricanes and tropical storms.
Should the Caribbean industrialize given the continual risk? Probably not. But what about the people who live there? Should they give up and cut their throats? At their current economic (wealth creation) situation the Caribbean is over-exploited, over-populated. Assuming, a large assumption I grant, First World industrialization it's under-exploited, not over-populated.
...can we conceive of if not "hurricane proof" then at least more "hurricane resistant" infrastructure and housing?
Yes and No.
Yes, application of known engineering techniques can greatly improve hurricane "proofing." As Cuba, to some degree, has done.
No, it is impossible to prevent hurricane damage to physical and environmental infrastructures. At enormous cost. Which the governments and citizens can't afford. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
They say the US economy still grows at 3.3% rate lately, so the goods and services are provided. That may be so, but all good goes more exclusively to a narrowing class of have-everythings. The GDP numbers can grow from desperate shifts to serve the dollar mighty alone. Soccer mom identification with Sarah Palin is becoming a departing nostalgia to many, actually. But few are ready to know.
Quote from Review (found at the link) in the Library Journal.
The first revolution of which we have adequate record occurred in the 13th century: it coincided with the onslaught of the Black Death and put an end to the forward movement and optimism of the High Middle Ages. Later price crises coincided with devastating religious wars and social unrest in the 17th century, revolutions at the end of the 18th century, and the Great Depression and the horrors of totalitarianism of our own century. Today, we face another devastating wave of inflation: "after 1975...ratios of wealth inequality reached their highest levels in four centuries of American history....The principal victims [are]...the young people who have no hope for the future and no memory of better times in the past. The result [is] a rapid growth of alienation, anomie, confusion, and despair." Fischer combines a lively narrative with cogent analysis and sound advice. Essential for scholarly collections, this fine book will also be appreciated by lay readers.
The lot of young people is very true. From what they know, they have to assume debt or wage "slavery" is a normal way to prosperity. But no one is giving them real opportunities for a bargain, except for those born in right families.
He had grave doubts as to the continued efficacy of our "management" of the economy which many were touting as having made the business cycle obsolete. His analysis is part of why I don't believe we are much more than half way to the bottom of the current downward trend. If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
Any day.
Real soon now. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
