Disasters: Between illusion and reality
Beginnings are always hard, especially in times of change!
We all have been through new phases in our lives, and as in our human nature, it takes time to adapt to what is new, and not only that time varies from one individual to another, but also it depends on the circumstances of each individual. And as that applies to individuals, it applies to communities and societies as well, but with a higher level of complexity.
If we take an idea and try to spread it, we will face several kinds of resistance, either from people who hate change or simply by the old systems that benefit from the current status, and that makes the change process very difficult.
Following the same ideas, let us imagine changing the mindset of society towards disasters, like simply saying that there is nothing called ‘Natural Disasters’! Can you imagine what would happen? Many people will reject the idea without even being interested in knowing your point of view!
Disasters have always been connected somehow to the word ‘Natural’, and most of the time, people relate the word to a natural phenomenon, such as earthquakes and tornadoes. If we stop for a minute and think, we will see that the word ‘Natural’ in a disaster context, suggests the naturalization and normalization of disasters, which is a misleading idea!
Disasters are human-centric, and the impact level of a natural phenomenon on us as humans is what determines if that phenomenon turns into a disaster or not. For example, earthquakes can happen in different parts of the earth with the same intensity, but still have completely different impacts on each part; if it happens near a city, it may turn into a disaster, but when it happens in the middle of a desert, people will only view it as a natural phenomenon.
Scientists have always viewed disasters differently since there are various levels of the damage that takes place in each event, knowing that there are different dimensions to the impact on us as humans, and these different dimensions are highly connected to the root causes of disasters as well. In fact, modern social studies have focused on six dimensions for any disturbance that happens within a particular community; Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental. It is worth mentioning at this point that these are known as factors of the Macro Environment in other fields of studies, and also referred to in the PESTLE analysis. To better explain how these factors related to disasters, it might be helpful to go through the following questions;
How is climate change impacting the economy in your country?
How come that people in countries with stronger economies are less impacted by the same natural hazard than others in poor countries?
How does your community act before, during and after a disaster?
How does the technological level of a particular country help its people who are threatened by tornadoes?
How do the regulations in your country affect insurance policies in case of a natural hazard?
If you think about these questions, you should be able to relate each one to at least one of the factors/dimensions that were mentioned earlier, knowing that each one of us can come up with hundreds of questions on each factor, and still be able to relate to disasters. As we can see, disasters are very complex, where you find six major dimensions affecting and being affected by each other to contribute in creating a disaster or to prevent it from happening; it is a closed complex cycle where causes and results are found somehow by many to be the same.
The choice of terminology is important and could be a start of a change in how the rest of the world views disasters, and it could be a beginning of a new era of spreading awareness about this issue. Such a change can be challenging but not impossible, especially if we wisely manage our time and effort in that process, with a real commitment to overcome obstacles of resistance. However, if you still choose to keep using the term ‘Natural Disasters’ as long as you understand that disasters are partially natural, then it is acceptable! Just keep in mind that what we are facing and discussing is bigger than just a terminology conflict.
