Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Humans vs. Nature
Sociologist Herbert Spenser (see chapter 1) coined the term “survival of the fittest.” With that in mind, think about the flooding situation of the Mississippi River. Nature created the flood and humans opened the Morganza Spillway. This put around 25,000 people in harms way rather than the 800,000 of Baton Rouge and 1,300,000 of New Orleans.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kevin O | Online
ReplyDeleteOne thing I keep hearing from interviews and articles from people that lived there that they knew when they bought their homes the potential danger of living in that area. I suppose people live near active volcanos for the same reasons knowing the danger involved. I am glad that the Army Corps of Engineers acted swifty on this issue instead of waiting for it to become worse. I am saddened more for the wildlife that wasn't able to tgake a warning and leave the area. At least some aligators and other wildlife will have more room for habitats though.
Lindsey B - Online
ReplyDeleteI think that as humans we understand danger but we have the tendency to think that it will never happen to us, or it won't be as bad as they say it will. Granted this is not true for everyone, but there is alwasy a couple. When you look back at natural disasters, like Katernia there were people that refused to leave, they believed that everything would be alright. The same with the people in Hatiti that the police recorded that the people ran down to the beach when it was happening. There are people that just think things won't happen. Like Kevin said above the people that live in the foothills of volcanos, or the people the build their homes next to large bodies of water. It is sad when these horrible things happen. Yet we also need to recognize that not all people think they are taking this chance. Like the tornados that struck not to long ago. None of those people thought that they were living in a dangerous place. There people that play with fire so to speak. I have a family member that loves to do risky stuff. He gets a thrill from it. He jumps from planes, goes cave diving, and loves to repel off cliffs. Now granted he takes every safety procausion but I do worry sometimes. No one is immune from danger, no one is immune from death. I believe in having fun, and not letting things stop you, but I don't believe in putting myself in dangers way.
J.Barrington
ReplyDeleteI believe that "survival of the fittest" also includes brain power. I would never buy nor build my home anywhere near a place like that. If there is the slightest chance that buttloads of water could destroy my home and wash everything I own away, I would choose to live elsewhere. Where I live now, the worst we have to contend with is the odd tornado, and for that we have a fallout shelter and insurance.
Alton P online
ReplyDeleteI don`t think the term survival of the fittest is the correct term here. I think it is more sacrifice the few to save the many. They just spent all that money to rebuild New Orleans so we will sacrifice the few farmers which I still think it is horrible, but it is what it is.
Alton P Online @ Kevin O
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement but would like to add we go through life as human beings with that thought in our head it can never happen to me, and on top of that can you imagine how cheap that land is so it is necessary for some because that is all they can afford.
Johnathan Parker.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Survival of the fittest is not the correct term here. and that some people have to be sacrificed to save the majority and they are the unlucky ones that we still try to help. also as humans we work together to try and save as many as we can.
C. Deans:
ReplyDeleteBy diverting the water, we are altering the 'survival of the fittest' mantra. In the human race, survival of the fittest doesn't apply in the same way it does to other forms of life here on Earth. We have come to the point where the weakest of us (that would normally have been removed through natural selection) can now flourish. Diverting the water is an example of how we have over-come the idea that only the strong survive. This has interesting implications for the future of the human race. All other species weed-out the weak to ensure longevity as well as facilitate the evolution of the species as a whole, making it stronger and better adapted to the environment in which it survives.
I'm not sure that "survival of the fittest" is the proper quote for this situation, I think it is unfair to those who live in the area to have to lose everything and move, but it does make more sense sacrifice their homes and belongings to save many more lives. I know i would be upset if i was one of the ones who had to leave everything behind, but very happy if it was my home that was saved by others giving up theirs. It is a very tough decision i'm sure for the one's in charge, and for the one's losing their homes.
ReplyDeleteIn response to J. Berrington:
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with you that common sense tells us not to buy or build a home near something that could flood your home. But if you grew up there and your entire family lives there and you couldn't imagine living anywhere else it would be common sense to you to simply live there. I think that we see the danger because we don't live there, i believe that it's the same concept as having a tree near your house, it could easily fall and ruin your home and possible hurt you or your family. Why wouldn't we cut it down? Because it's shade, and breeze, and pretty. I think this goes along with "it will never happen to us".
I agree that its not the survival of the fittest,rather its for the greater good. Now that being said, for the people in the path of the flooded spillway, this definately isn't for their greater good. But when the government is faced with these decisions, it's alot easier to make these decisions when its this large of a scale, since there is a much broader spectrum compared to a small more intimate group, where it's harder to choose one over another.
ReplyDeleteJohn Busse
ChastityF...Online
ReplyDeleteAs most of my classmates have stated I do not believe that survival of the fittest would apply in this situation. It is a necessary evil. The decision to divert the water was to avoid devastation like Katrina caused. It is not fair for those who lived in these areas however it is something that has to be done. Life is not fair!
ChastityF online in response to J Barrington
ReplyDeleteI agree there has to be a thought process as to where you decide to start a family however they may have been there for generations and just comfortable there. They will have to just deal with present circumstances.
Matthew Johnson-Online
ReplyDeleteI think that "survival of the fittest" is the wrong term to be applied to this situation. I think that the term "people with common sense" is better. The floods that threaten thousands of homes shouldn't have been built in such areas. We as a human race tend to build and live anywhere we please. Thinking that no danger or disaster may affect our daily lives. We as a people have became too powerful, thinking that we can alter or change things whether it may be natural or not. In this case , these people have chose to live in areas that became affected ,but it would have been much better if no one occupied the areas where it would have affected the most people in the first place. By this the others areas that normally wouldn't have been affect becomes the victims in this case. Saving more lives to damange fewer lives makes sense but overal it really doesn't. If we start to look at the bigger picture before we try to maintain what we have already , that would make a big difference. Just because we dont want to make a change and move to another area makes us stubborn and stupid. Just because generations of families may have lived in such below sea level areas, dont mean that it is their calling to continue living in such dangerous areas. We must use our God giving instincts .
Matthew Johnson-Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Teri Amos
I Agree with you totally. I would be very upset if I had to loose everything for the sacrifice of others, but I would be the best choice. Someone would have to take the fall. I would assure you that I wouldnt move back anywhere close to that area though. If I realize that myy home may be considered to be in a danger area, why would I move back. I am sure that these people never thought they would be flooded out but in this life you never know what to expect. "Prepare for the worst in life than to prepare for the unexpected." I always tell myself that because , you never know if things may go wrong but if you know what to expect you can always be prepared.
Deborah B. - online
ReplyDeleteEven though survival of the fittest would suggest that the strong would pull through the situation and the weak would not.....I think we have an obligation to help ourselves. As others have indicated there are many, many areas that have the potential for a disaster of one kind or another. Should we choose to live in one of these areas we should do our best to protect ourselves. Building the Morganza Spillway was an attempt to protect people from a possible disaster, but unfortunately it cannot protect all.
Deborah B. in response to Matthew Johnson
Sometimes we aren't aware of the danger in a place where we choose to live. A couple of years ago we witnessed flooding around the area that we never thought we would see. I remember Towne Lake Parkway and 575 under water by quite a bit! Lake Allatoona was so high that most of the parking lot was underwater. Sometimes we just don't imagine it getting that high.
Lauren Puopolo
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard much about this issue. I don't like to watch the news. But as far as survival of the fittest goes I have never agreed with it. Everybody has the right to survive. But my personal belielfs is that God created the earth and all that is in it. God gave man demion over the earth. Now man does things that messes with the earth and God allows natural disaters. Then what happens is what happens nothing through happens outside of God's will. Hopefully through those people who are affected by what has happened were warned. The people who opened the Morganza Spillway had the responsibilty to let the people who would be affected by it about the possible problems that could happen before they opened it.
Lauren Puopolo in response to Matthew Johnson
ReplyDeleteThere are some places that shouldn't be built on. Like places around rivers that could flood, the beaches, or places that are below sea level. But no one really thinks about that. We always want to do things that we shouldn't do.
Aqeelah, online:
ReplyDeleteSometimes you have to take one for the team. Its messed up but when you purchase a home in a flood zone, you know that some day will come and your home could be destroyed. I think the owners should be grateful that they had a notice, and an opportunity to gather precious belongings, unlike many other flood victims have experienced. It is a classic case of survival of the fittest, in my opinion.
Charlene G- Online
ReplyDeleteHonestly, people who lived around the area KNEW what could happen by living in the area that they lived in. So survival of the fittest is exactly what they need to be.They were well aware of what was about to happen and they need to thank people for helping them out.
Charlene G-online in response to Lauren Puopolo
ReplyDeleteI agree about how man messing with the creation that was already put on earth and that causes the natrual disasters.I think if people would let things be how it was nothing of these disasters would occur
Michael Bishop- online
ReplyDeleteI have seen very little of this on the news, but if you decide to live some where you should be aware of any potential dangers and take the correct precautions for that specific area. I do feel bad for the people for everything they lost but at least they still have there lives.
Michael Bishop-online in response to Teri Amos
ReplyDeleteI agree the survival of the fittest is the wrong term in this situation it was more of a self sacrifice for the better of others. Yea it did suck that they had that happen but better the few than the masses.
People love to live the near the water, whether it is a lake or river and unfornutanely there are risks involved when you do so. These people dont mind living there when things are not flooding. They make money off the water, they may be fishers, trappers or farmers that use the water. They may be people that love the recreation on water and prestige that comes with having a lake/river house.Most of those people chose to live in that region for some reason or the other. If I lived in that type of area I would understand the risk associated with the beauty. I would understand to pack up and get out as well if they gave me notice. At least this area is recieving plenty of forwarning, torando and fire victims rarely receive ample notice and have no chance at all to get their belongings. That entire region has been flooding for many many years, so these folks new what they where getting themselves into when they moved there. I do feel bad for them nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteDanielle S. Online
ReplyDeleteI agree that I would not want to use the term "survival of the fittest" when it comes to this dilemma, mainly because these people knew the risk but if you had no other choice but to move there or that's where you grew up its hard to say "survival of the fittest".
Danielle S. online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Teri Amos online I would have to agree that I would be upset about having to move and leave my house but I would try to look at the bright side that my house would not have been a total loss, that someone would have least enjoyed it.
Awal U
ReplyDeletei would have to agree that the term survival o the fitness is not the correct term for such circumstances but with great amount of respect we should support them and hope the situation shouldn't get any worse.
Youlinda J-Online
ReplyDeleteThat's the same as "only the strong survive". Me personally I would not move anywhere there is the potential of me losing my home or my life. But we do seem to think that things will never happen to you until it does and then it usually is too late
Megan Mcfarland- Online
ReplyDeleteSince people knew the dangers of living there, just like FLorida with hurricanes and California with Earthquake, then if a flood comes and they are told before hand then that is there choice to decide to still live there or not. After New Orleans flooded and was fixed people moved back there knowing it could happen again. And sometimes the small brainic people survive because that can out smart the biggest dudes.
In response to Awal U.
I agree with you because everyone is different and settings are different.
Kathy S. Online
ReplyDeleteHerbert Spenser is probably "turning over in his grave"!! This is a classic example of man interfering with nature. The Morganza Spillway was completed in 1954 with the purpose of diverting water from the Mississippi River in times of flooding, but also to prevent the Mississippi from changing its present course through the major port cities of Baton Rouge and New Orleans! The Atchafalaya Basin area is a natural floodplain as well as a manmade one. After the first opening of the gates in 1973, everyone that lives in this area is well aware of the consequences of living in a floodplain area. "Survival of the fittest" serves this scenario very well, but perhaps it should be coined "survival of the fittest cities" and man has interfered with natural selection!
Kathy S. Online in Response to Aqeelah
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement completely. Everyone that lives in the area is well aware of the consequences of living in a floodplain. Since this was a manmade flood, everyone had notice that the gates were opening and they had time to collect personal items and evacuate, unlike a "natural" flooding! By the way, I loved your display at the Sociology Fest last night!
I think that it is an awful situation and a very hard choice to make but I agree with others that the people knew they were living in an area with potential disaster. They can't find it to be unfair because they were forewarned and still made the choice to live there. I definitly believe its survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is a way of the world and a way of life.
ReplyDeleteT Foreman online....
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure whether the term "survival of the fittest is accurate in this situation. Yes, the opening of the Morganza Spillway certainly was very effective for Mississipians, but what happened to Baton Rouge and New Orleans? New Orleans was not prepared at all due to the incomplete construction of their flood protection. So, if the Flood Control Act of 1965 says to build flood protection for the city of New Orleans, why was it not completed? It was projected in 1965 to take 13 years to complete construction. In 2005, it was still not completed! Now, that my mind is really going....if humans would have completed the contruction of the flood protection system then the effects of Katrina would have lessened. Therefore, human vs nature, survival of the fittest is appropriate. It was very unfortunate for the residents who lived there though.
T. Foreman in response to Lindsey B.......
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that some people think death, harm or danger will not happen to them. I have to disagree with you saying that you could not put yourself in harms way, with regards to living in a floodplain area because many circumstances could drive you to live in such an area. The houses were probably cheaper there and were very affordable for poor people. What if you were extremely poor and couldn't afford to live anywhere else? I'm sure, for most of the people that area would not have been a first choice for them to live in....it was the only choice.
Ashanti P. Online
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for the families that were affected by the flood. From the news though I heard that the residents knew about the flooding possibly happening. When they bought the house or rented they were warned with letters. I know that they were talking about it for days before it happened and I guess the residents didnt believe them. Some of the farm land that they were trying to protect was even flooded. I think it was a bad call but we only so much.
Ashanti P. Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aqeelah online
I agree with you because unlike many other victims they were givin a notice to get thier belongings. But they shouldn't have stayed in that area if they were warned about possible flooding.
Rory H. - online
ReplyDeleteAlthough those 25,000 people are in harms way, a cold hard fact is that 25,000 in harms way is "better" than 2 million plus. The fact of the matter is, depending on what part of the country you live in there is inherent risks associated with your location. There is no organization or government in the world that can guarentee a person's safety. Of course, the government should do everything that they can to make their citizens safe. But, sometimes very difficult decisions have to be made. Another example, in parts of California, people choose to live in an area known for wildfires and mudslides, but they take this chance in return for the beatiful view of the ocean. There is no way of removing risk from our lives, whether it be in our day to day practices or the location of where we live.
In repsonse to Tommy H.
I agree with you. The people who live in that area did get warning that the area would be flooded and that is more than most get. Just a few weeks ago with the tornados, no one had warning and they lost everything.
Tori F Online
ReplyDeleteI do not think"survival of the fittest" fits this senario. Nature is not wipping out the weak and the strong are overcoming. The Army Core of Engineers have stepped in to divert the "survival of the fittest". I am glad we have the ability to safe these lives.
In response to J. Barrington
J. think back to last year. In Austell several homes and a school were destroyed by the flood. Who would have ever thought here in Georgia we would have that size of a flood. Just the year before that we were in a drought. Natural disasters can happen any where that nature is present.
Nicolette E. Online
ReplyDelete"Survival of the fittest" this absolutely is a matter of this statement. The people who knowingly chose to live in this flood plain and those who do not. If your smart you chose a place to live that doesn't put you in direct harms way. Granted Mother Nature happens, especially lately-it seems, but we do have choices to make in life-even if they include moving somewhere that you and your family would be safer.
Nicolette E.
ReplyDeleteIn response to J. Barrington's response, I totally agree that when I think back on the floods here is Georgia I am amazed at the powers from above. I was personally affected by these floods and I realize you can't always know what "could" happen, but still its important to you common sense to not live directly in a flood plain.
Josh Fallin
ReplyDeleteWhile this isn't necessarily a "survival of the fittest" thing, it is a necessary evil. This instance would fall under the "Kill one to save a hundred" line of thought. The people of the area were given the advice to leave their homes before the gates were opened, but it was up to them whether they left or not. They were given a chance to survive and keep their lives at the expense of their homes and possessions, which goes against the "survival of the fittest" mantra. You can only hope that everyone in that area decided to leave instead of risking their lives.
Martha W - Online
ReplyDeleteI have not watched the news, so I have not heard about this. My thoughts are just from reading this blog. The people might have made a bad decision in choosing to live in this area, but maybe they felt like facing the odds against Mother Nature. Although, more lives were saved by humans deciding to open the Morganza Spillway I think the people that chose to live in Baton Rouge and New Orleans knew they could face the same fate of flooding. I think it should have been left to Mother Nature and God - man should not interfer.
Martha W Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Josh Fallin
I completely agree with you - "Kill one to save a hundred" would be a better description of what occurred. Man chose the lesser evil, or less significant, in this scenerio. I understand the number difference, but it seems like these people's livelihood wasn't as important as the large cities.
Stephanie S. Online
ReplyDeleteWhen those people moved that close to a huge river they knew the danger. Its the same when people move to islands and on beaches they know they are at risk of being hit by a hurricane or tsunami. The Mississippi incident is not the same as a natural disaster. The people in Mississippi knew it was coming and were told to take precautions. The people in New Orleans, while having some warning, did not expect it to be as big as it was. It was not caused by man nor did they have the right amount of time to leave that's why it was such a devastation.
Stephanie S. Online in response to Martha W.,
ReplyDeleteI agree. They should have thought about how much they really wanted to live there with all the risks. I want to live on the beach, but im not putting myself in a hurricanes path. And with the flooding, while they had notice of the river rising, there could have been a better way to do that.
Mike G
ReplyDeleteIn a situation like this "survival of the fittest" is true but then again we cannot control nature. A flood can occur at any time, but then again a smart and quick to act person would have an emergency plan in a situation like this and even though it will cause them damage and maybe their homes they still find a way to survive.
Vanna H. Online:
ReplyDeleteRather than “the survival of the fittest”, I think this situation fits the economics theory “there is no such thing as a free lunch”. We always have to give something up in order to get another. In this situation the spillway saved many but not all. It is unfortunate for those who are suffering the damages but we have to go with what is best for us.
In response to J.Barrington,
I disagree. I find it hard to find a safe place to live. I was raised in California and we had earthquakes all the time. I still remember the 1994 earthquake that left us living in tents at the park for a week. When living in Mexico we had droughts every summer. Corn fields would literally burn and we had no water to stop them. I lived in Texas for some time and we had floods every time it rained. Now we live in Georgia we have tornados and hazarders freezing weather during winter. I think that you just have to take your precautions and not be ignorant to warnings.
Lauren G
ReplyDeleteWell with the whole flooding issue, I think that the city should buy the land from the people so that they can move from that part of the land. Its seems like its too much of an issue with the flood. The other option is to build a better dam that would stop the flooding, that way the people in that area could live there without worrying.
Martha-Jane A.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about the issue. This is something I haven't heard much about other than what was said in class and what is posted here, but I think the government is doing the right thing. 25,000 v. 2.1 million people? It seems fair to me. Its sad that those people are having their homes destroyed, and it's tragic that some are choosing not to leave, but I can't argue with the decision that's been made.
Cara H. Online
ReplyDeleteI feel that suvival and sacrafice is two different aspects. It is tragic all of the recent natural disaster. I believe they did the right thing by taking action to minimize the disaster the best way possible.
Cara H. Online in response to Alton P. Online
Well put. I cant agree more!
Matt Schmidt ONLINE
ReplyDeleteI think that the people living in the town knew what could happen. It's like the people in New Orleans, they are below sea level so it was kind of expected for it to flood eventually.
in response to Martha, i agree with you 100%. Although, it is totally not fair for the 25,000 people who will be effected by this.
I think the issue of "survival of the fittest" is different from scarifice. Those that sacrificed there property to the flood did the right thing to safe other people's life. I dont thinking buying property very close to water which can be easily eroded should think smart, and that is when the issue of "survival of the fittest" works. A house close to a sea is prone to flood.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lauren G
ReplyDeleteI think you are right. The people should move away from that particular area, because there will still be re-occurence of flood in the future. Its natural and building a better dam can minimize the effect of the flood.
Rondi W Online
ReplyDelete“Survival of the fittest” to me is about if you were one of the Rugby players that crashed landed in the Andes would you eat the dead. The survival of the fittest in this situation would be the ones that could eat the dead and the ones that could not. The levee flooding does not pertain to this because this was another grand example of the greed and power of mans decisions on the less fortunate. The less fortunate that are our farmers. Yes they built their homes there, but with the expectation that the levee was their protection not their demise. Do the math 25,000 as compared to 1,000,000? One of the biggest reasons for the decision was not to flood the oil refineries downstream. Why do you think there are only 25,000 people in this area? Farm land so we can save 20cents a gallon on gas and pay hundreds more a year on groceries because some big brother official decided it would impact the greater good to devastate our bread basket than the oil refineries. Anyone that lives in a city under sea level should not be surprised to find their home underwater.
In response to T Foreman
I agree with your points of the construction of protection of flooding by I do not agree that this is survival of the fittest. Government making decisions is not survival of the fittest. It’s called politics
Its not right to put anyone in harms way but when it comes down to saving that many lives you have to do it. I believe they should pay for the peoples food and housing while the flood comes through but the people have the right to stay at there homes but that is their choice. If they were to die it wouldnt be anyones fault but their own. I agree with the governments decision and think they chose the best path.
ReplyDeleteLesley G. Online
ReplyDeleteI've never really agreed with "survival of the fittest". I think it was wise to do what they did to put less people is harms way and I know God has a plan for it all. He isn't going to leave or forsake those people who are in danger. Survival of the fittest insinuates that we are all on our own in this world. That is totally contradictory to what I believe about God and His promises in the Bible!
Lesley G. Online
ReplyDeleteIn responce to Nicolette E.
In response to J. Barrington's response...
People should know the dangers of living in certain areas and be prepared to handle situations that arise, but all areas have dangers to some extent.
I think that the'survival of the fittest' was tampered with because of the water being diverted. With the survival of the fittest I think it is suggesting natural hardships, not diverted natual hardships. So, it becomes a hybrid of survival of the fittest. Someone makes the decision to effect only 31% of the people who could have been effected. Allbeit a smart FINANCIAL and life saving decision, if I was that 31% I would be pretty upset and would want compensation for my loss by the persons who made that decision.
ReplyDeleteChristina C. - Online
ReplyDeleteI think in a way it is survival of the fittest, but only to an extent. It is survival of the fittest in that we saw problem after awhile and found a way to semi-fix that problem so a whole lot less people are killed. However, I don't think that 25,000 has much to do with survival of the fittest. It is more than likely there choice to live in the danger zone; it's kind of like when you go to Sea World and they warn you it is the splash zone. They are warned, but ultimately it is their decision to live near the Spillway.
Ryan M Online
ReplyDeleteSurvival of the fittest is just that. The people know the danger they are in when they buy a home on a flood plane, near a volcano, in tornado alley. They do it because they think it won't happen to them. Sadley, they are for the most part, wrong. With industrailization, people stopped learning how to look out for themselves and just wants to be taken care of by handouts. It's not that easy. Everyone should know how to hunt, fish, and live off the land. That's what it means to survive.
In response to
Taylor Reynolds
Agreed. No one should be put in harms way but sometimes they have no choice. You do what you have to to save as many lives as possible. If that means having to make a choice such as destroy more area but save more people, it has to be done.
Christina C. - Online in response to Matt S. ...
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily agree with your comment to Martha. I'm going to use a little cliche here and say life isn't fair. It's how you take it and what you do. Those people more than likely have a choice to live there and if they know the dangers, it's in their hands. Having 25,000 people at risk is better than 1,000,000; though I do acknowledge every life is precious. If they have proper evacuation procedures, then maybe things would be better.
In responce to Josh Fallin...
ReplyDeleteIts definitely a neccessary evil, but we have to ask ourselves - does the end ALWAYS justify the means? Allowing government officals to run rampant with power like this can be very damaging. I moved to Macon, GA a couple of months after the Flood of the Ocmulgee River in 1994. If they had diverted the water maybe that would have saved the lives of the people who were killed, it would have flooded bigger farms. This could have a huge negative inpact on local economy. I would not like to be the one to make these decision - either way there would be a loss.
Micah S- Online
ReplyDeleteI think that compared to the alternatives, they made the right decision. The goal is to keep as many people possible from harm and disaster and when there is only one thing to minimize the disaster then thats what you have to do. I mean come one, 25,000 versus 800,00 or 1,300,000.
Micah S @ J.Barrington
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. People know the possible dangers where they live and if they want to take the chances then so be it. Personally, I would never live somewhere that is a disaster area.
Jeryl C. Online
ReplyDeleteThere are always comprises. The decision to divert flooding water and reduce the population that will be in harms way (in this case, 99% reduction!) is an obvious choice. But on the other hand, I don't believe it was a very good idea to build such a large population center in the middle of a flood area. And then once it flooded and was destroyed, to just rebuild it again the same place.
Jeryl C. Online
ReplyDeleteIn responce to Aqeelah
I agree with you that the people living in the flood-zone knew perfectly well what could potentially happen living in that area. They were even warned of the impending floods. Those who gathered their things and evacuated, I applaud them. Those who stayed behind or ignored the warnings, it's unfortunate, but ultimately it was their choice to stay and now they have to live with their decision.
R. Roebuck-
ReplyDeleteI don't know anything about this situation, but based on reading the introduction, "survival of the fittest" would not be the right term for that situation. That term should be used for situations that just happen without any prior knowledge that it is a possiblilty. The People who lived near this water way knew the possibilites of facing a flood when they decided to live there. I don't feel sorry for people who make or chose not to make the most sensible decision when it comes the their own lives.
In response to Micah S @ J.Barrington
I totally agree, people know the dangers of where they chose to live and if they still decide to live there that is on them.
Olalekan O/ online
ReplyDeleteSurvival of the fittest is not the appropriate term here. Some things have to be sacrificed in order to save the more important things. We all say that some people should know where to build homes and have a family but some people just dont have a choice. Must we run away from everywhere because there is a scare that disaster will strike? we will be running forever becasue every state or country has its problems.
Olalekan O online in response to Lesley G
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that God is not an evil God and he will make a way out of no where for these people. I also think that it was good that they put less people in harms way because it is easier to deal with a smaller situation than something so massive.
Nina C - Online
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that I would use the term "survival of the fittest" but more of necessary evil, it was just common sense that it's something that HAD to be done in order to reduce the catastrophe that it could have been. Although I would be very upset if I was in the shoes of the people who lost their homes, I think looking at the bigger picture would I believe it would give me somewhat of a sense of peace. 25,000 people affected vs. over a million - that's a big difference. At least the people by the spillway had WARNING enough to at least be able to attempt to prepare and protect their homes, get belongings, and get away from the danger. In terms of it being a disaster, it is a lot easier to recover and to get assistance if there is a smaller number of people versus people by the masses. I personally would give up anything material if I knew it was going to save lives. God provides for the willing and believing.
Jillian Downs - Online
ReplyDeleteI believe that these people moved to that area knowing the dangers. Like most people have stated here, there are people all over the world living near volcanoes and places where tornadoes and hurricanes run rampant. There are dangers to living anywhere really, there are natural disasters, poisonous creatures, flooding, and fluke hazards.
But, the decision to divert the path of the flood was a good one in my opinion. Sacrifice the good of the few for the good of the many.
Jillian Downs
ReplyDeleteResponse to: Kevin O
I laughed a little at your comment about the alligators. That is very true, this flooding was very good for the habitats of native animals haha.
Nina C - Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to J. Barrington and R. Roebuck
I don't think you would have that mentality if you were were the one in the same position. Some people don't have the option about where they live...their family may be there, they might have grown up there, or they might not have been financially able to live elsewhere - or they could have actually chosen to move there. Until you know the circumstances, you have NO IDEA why they are where they are.
Everywhere in the US has a certain danger to it (ex. the coast - hurricanes, California - earthquakes, the midwest - tornadoes)Do you not feel any sympathy for the people affected by those things either because they knew that such things could happen??
Maurice G online
ReplyDeleteI understand survival of the fittest, but what I don't understand is why would you want to risk living in an area like that. I'm not sure but I guess in this case you are saying that you can survive. But I guess in this situation, it is better to sacrifice the few in numbers as suppose to the ones who are still trying to recover from the last disaster in New Orleans. Tuff situation, but I wouldn't want to live in an area if I knew the potential dangers. I know dangers are all around, but for the commons sense dangers it's a chance you take.
Maurice G online response Micha S
ReplyDeleteThis one is kind of easy to say. Just look at the numbers and think which one will we have the most media attention about. Compare the numbers and say 800,000 plus in danger you talk about a mess, this would have started a big one.
Like Lindsey B said, I would also think that humans believe tragedy won't "happen to them." Or that they don't expect it at all even if they have been warned. A good example is Mount Vesuvius near Naples, Italy. The volcano is active today, and if it were to erupt, the people who are living at the bottom of the volcano or near the it would die in a fiery inferno. Despite that the volcano is still active today, people who live in the city, near it, still live there and live life without danger.
ReplyDeleteThe people who are living near the Mississippi River are facing the same situation as the people near the volcano.
I also think that these people who are in near danger don't really have much choice because it is where they live and it is not like they want to leave/or can't leave the area. I would agree with Nina C. when she says "you have no idea why they are where they are."
BREAUNA JONES- ONLINE
ReplyDeleteI believe that humans have inhabited thse majority of this world, and nature has not be able to take its natural course because the humans are destroying and stopping this. The reasons humans are beeing hurt is because we have made the world "sick" it needs to cleans itself. We are dependant upon this eatrh so why are we adjusting something that needs no tuning up?
I haven't seen a lot of this situation on the news. I do feel bad for the people affected but I am looking at the big picture. I do not feel like this has anything to do with survival of the fittest. I believe that the Army Corps had to consider the possible damage by looking at the numbers. They could open up the channel and affect maybe 25,000 people or not open it up and let the Mississsippi flood and affect up to 1,300,000. Honestly which would you choose? Also, the people who lived their knew that they lived in an area that could flood. I feel like they should have been prepared for that and had insurance or some other type of plan B.
ReplyDeleteIn response to R. Roebuck.
ReplyDeleteyou said that you dont feel bad for the people that chose to live there. this was a bad thing to happen to anyone. even if they had knowledge of the fact that this might happen. I do believe that since they knew this might happen they should be prepared just in case this should happen. I dont believe that you or anyone else should just turn away from anyone and just say well you knew that this could happen. I think the Red Cross, FEMA, National Guard and everyone else should rush to those peoeple aide, and not just say, "Oh well, You knew this could happen."
Sun Anderson - online
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else that "survival of the fittest" is not quite the term to be used in this type of situation. I think that the government chose the location for specific reasons that made more sense and not because of what "type" of people live there. It's really sad but I guess in certain circumstances you have to do what you have, right??
In respons to Lauren Puopolo-
You are so right! Especially when it comes to our government...it's all about the money!!
The recent string of natural disasters has really been disheartening. It's east to say what you would do in a given situation but until you are actually put in the situation you never really know how you will react. It's unfortunate that some people's homes and lives had to be sacrificed to save others but considering the magnitude of the numbers I think they did what they had to do. I'm glad I'm not the one that had to make that decision.
ReplyDeleteresponse to Christina C.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of people may live in an area not because they choose to but because of circumstance. If you're born in a certain area and that's all you know and your family is there then that's just where you happen to end up. yeah you may know the potential risk but until something like this happens do you really just pick up and leave everything behind?
Lisa L - Online
ReplyDeleteSurvial of the fittest is not the right term for this. This is nature, and humans working together with what nature brings us. I wouldn't want to be one of the ones that has to pack up and leave my home, but at the same time I wouldn't want to intentionally harm anybody else either.
The Mississippi River has been altered my man so that urban centers like Baton Rouge and New Orleans may exist, people can live safely along the river and commerce flows which were all necessary for the society to advance. These safeguards on the system present those affected by it with tough decisions similar to those faced when the river systems in the South were dammed. Whole communities were moved or flooded forever so that we can have power for our homes and industry, water reservoirs in times of drought and for pleasure.
ReplyDeleteIn response to J.Barrington. If humans only ever lived in "safe" places then we as a species and our society would be but a pale shadow of what it is today. Humanity has always been willing to take the risk as you search the historic record from the fertile crescent, china, egypt, the vast regions of cold and desert and siesmic activity. Plus sometimes people are duped when purchasing a home into thinking it is safe, just look at the flooding in the Sweetwater area in recent years. Many people had no idea the new subdivision they moved into was part of a flood plain. They should have done more research before purchasing their home but I'm also sure the developers failed to inclued the information in the floor plan.
ReplyDeleteJessica C.-online
ReplyDeleteI think what happened to the Mississippi River is horrible. It is heartbreaking that wildlife and people were put into such danger. I just hope that people are recovering from this disaster. I think that the reason people live close to an area that is considered dangerous is because people find it hard to believe that such enormous disasters could really happen to them. You never think that something horrible is really going to happen to you. The people who live near the oceans or the earthquake areas don't feel that anything will actually happen. Just like the tornodoes that recently hit Ringgold, nobody thought anything would ever happen to that area but you can never truly know how safe you are because anything's possible. That's why you should take precautions and take disaster warnings very seriously.
It is my belief that survival of the fittest is the way God intended things to be. If everything survived the planet would be over run and there would be no balance in nature.
ReplyDeleteBobby W. -Online in response to Maurice G online
ReplyDeleteI agree that people want sympathy for what has happened to them but they are well aware of the dangers of living in the area that they are in.
Courtney DeBord- Online
ReplyDeleteI believe that the term is correct. We as humans place our homes in places that we feel comfortable living. These people knew the risk of living next to a major river but still placed their house there. And when flood warning were issued many disregarded them. As humans we always try to do the least amount of harm so placing 25,000at risk was alot better then the millions that were going to be at risk.
In response to Lisa L
I agree I would not want to leave my home and belongings either but my life is more important than anything else. Surviving a flood might be difficult but you cant survive if your not living.
Tomeka D. online
ReplyDeleteI think "survival of the fittest" maybe a hard pill to swallow in that part of the region. Not all people are aware that the homes they by are in a flood zone and if this information is given, no one thinks it would happen to them and or at this magnitude. Its unfortunate that anyone would have to lose their homes, but for the sake of all the numbers, it does make sense. And since it would be a sacrifice for the people that are going to lose, the government should do something about it. I understand this is nature and we cannot prevent it, but really was all information disclosed to these homeowners? and if so to what extent did anyone think this would happen? I'm just saying, If I'm going to be the casualty in this, then I am expecting my family to be taken care of in this event.
Tomeka D.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Stephen,
I totally agree with you about the Developers & New Homeowners. But since Sweetwater is an older community, the records may not have been available and or the homeowners are not able to understand what they are reading or looking at. We don't always research and if we do research, we are only looking for information that would be familiar to us. We must education ourselves on huge purchases such as houses that are not too far from rivers.
Caitlin L. - Online
ReplyDeleteI dont feel like "survival of the fittest" is the right phrase to describe this situation. People were warned and I think far too many of them had the mindset of "it wont happen to me". It's extremely unfortunate that these people were affected, but at the same time, they were warned.
Caitlin L. - Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sadika J.
I agree entirely that the recent string of natural disasters has been very disheartening and that it's easy to say what you would do in a given situation but until you are actually put in the situation you never really know how you will react. I've experienced this many many times, and its so true. I hate that anyone has had to make such life-altering decisions over this mess.
Melissa D.
ReplyDeleteNothing good comes out of this situation, someone somewhere looses, and in this instance it is the people with not much to loose, but in reality they have everything to loose because of their financial situations. It always seems as if the lower income people are the ones to loose, and they are the ones who will be unable to rebuild their lives due to limited finances. The families affected by this live in the flood planes because many have limited financial resources.
Hannah Sherman
ReplyDeleteI think survival of the fittest is the correct term, because the people chose to move to an area where they knew there was a chance this could happen one day. Even though the people tht live in this area are of lower income, this is not the only place they had to choose from. Although this is a sad situation, they were warned this was going to happen and many chose to stay.
Moiya H. - Online
ReplyDeleteI feel that it was a government call. I believe it came down to this area because recovery would be less expensive than in other areas and less people would be effected. Although they gave them time to gather belongs and leave, the government should have had some kinda of money already in place for people and made sure everyone had somewhere to go.
Moiya H. -online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alton P.-
This is the most correct phrase for the situation "sacrifice the few to save the many". Perfect. And Now that i think about it you are so correct. After all the work and money put into rebuilding New Orleans, the government is not going to let it flood. They not going to let onw drop of water touch there, and Baton Rouge would be just as costly. So its lets take out the little guy, he won't mind cause there's barly anything there anyway.
In response to Maurice G: I agree, those numbers would have been ate up (so to speak) by the media. I really doubt that New Orleans is going to take another hit, due to flooding, if it can be prevented.
ReplyDeleteEric C.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it's not so much about "survival of the fittest". I believe it's more about mother nature taking care of herself. Every so often, a flood, storm, or natural dissaster comes throgh, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. The situation we have now in the flood plains is another example of this. Opening the spillway is still putting thousands of people in harms way, but it's the best possible action to take. Not to mention, the number one goal is to keep New Orleans from flooding again.
Abigail C.-ONLINE
ReplyDeleteI have been watching all about the flooding on the news and I feel horrible for the people that are having to leave their homes and farms because the spillway was opened.I saw that one man built a 19ft wall around his house and said that he refuses to move.Its especially said because these people wernt living there expecting to get flooded to keep from other cities getting it instead.But i think it was the right choice for them to save so much more by opening the spillway.
Abigail C.-Online
ReplyDeleteResponse to Youlinda J.
I agree with you that I wouldnt live anywhere where there is a higher chance of flooding or anything that could take my home or my life,but when you really tink about it you never know what will happen and dont expect it because it could happen anywhere.Just a higher risk in some places then others.
Florence G.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is not really a matter of "survival of the fittest". These people have lived in this town for years now they need to move it is not that easy to just pack up and leave like that not knowing where to go next. On the other hand who can fight nature? No One!
Devyn G.
ReplyDeleteI think it was good for them to open the spillways. It didn't put as many people at risk as opposed to not opening them.
I am from New Orleans and I was there during hurricane Katrina. I think that we have gone through so much already that the decison to spare Baton Rouge and New Orleans was a wise move, because so many lives would have been lost. Although no decision could ever be easy to make. I am just thankful for the family and friends that are still there they are safe!
ReplyDeleteI am hurt that so many people feel that we should move from a disater state it's not a choice that we made to be born in New Orleans. Many of you to stated that we should move, away from our homes everything that we have know all of our lives people who heritage is here lively hood is here. Everyday I think about my hometown I currently live in Georgia not by choice but by force. It's sad that so many feel that it is so easy to just get up and relocate. NOT THAT EASY!
ReplyDeleteI think that "survival of the fittest" not only is being used to describe a physical state, but also a mental one. We have to be smart in where we choose to live, establish roots, and where we can prosper taking into accounts of all the variables. Most people don't think beyond which house and whether they can qualify for a loan. It's not their "fault" per se, but it is something that needs to be considered. This is probably why early natives were nomadic. They understood and appreciated the strength and volitility of nature.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Deyvn G.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, that tough decisions must be made to prevent more damage to homes, business and people. On the surface those that suffer appear to be collateral damage, but in the end, more damage would only prohibit the region from faster recovery.
Olubusola online...
ReplyDeleteI am totally agreed that it is not the survival of the fittest, instead it is the choice that we are made to reside in the flood plain and those who do not. But when the government is faced with these decisions, it is a lot easier to make these decisions when it is this large of a scale, since there is a much broader spectrum compared to a small more intimate group, where it's harder to choose one over another. But we do have choices to make in life even if this includes moving somewhere else that you and your family would be safer.