My sympathies to the flood victims are nothing to be posted here.
I just want to contend here, despite the seemingly counter-logical statement, that the disastrous floods in Jakarta and surroundings have had only little to do with the natural downpours, but our inability to cope with them. What could be said about this recurring man-made disaster?
It has but shown the failure of the state. The floods that still inundate the capital city Jakarta and elsewhere in many other parts of the country have seen the central and local governments at the mercy of their generous, self-providing people, while most of these people, in fact, themselves are at the mercy of nature. While the people should stop to rethink of their relationship with nature—especially with water as our focal point of crisis in future , the government should long ago have stopped thinking that they know what’s best for the people; that they self-claim themselves as the main “development agent.”
And one of Kompas’ recent editorials was entitled: Banjir Mengganggu Ekonomi, or Floods Disturb the Economy. Something rather amiss—or somewhat inapt, here, which perhaps not many people took notice. Corollary to it is a thought that views economy as of ultimate importance. Such a view is derived from the long believed notion that most people falsely cling to that compares a nation’s economy as that of something organic, likened to the lives of plants, trees, or animals. This is a serious fallacy. Plants, trees, animals live neither with neither will nor plan, unlike us human beings. Talking about a nation’s economy is talking about actions and activities of millions or billions of its people who have both will and plans for the sake of embetterment of personal states or well being. If the wellbeing of most persons in a city is being seriously disturbed, a talk about the region’s economy would be, I'd say, insensitively foolish...
I just want to contend here, despite the seemingly counter-logical statement, that the disastrous floods in Jakarta and surroundings have had only little to do with the natural downpours, but our inability to cope with them. What could be said about this recurring man-made disaster?
It has but shown the failure of the state. The floods that still inundate the capital city Jakarta and elsewhere in many other parts of the country have seen the central and local governments at the mercy of their generous, self-providing people, while most of these people, in fact, themselves are at the mercy of nature. While the people should stop to rethink of their relationship with nature—especially with water as our focal point of crisis in future , the government should long ago have stopped thinking that they know what’s best for the people; that they self-claim themselves as the main “development agent.”
And one of Kompas’ recent editorials was entitled: Banjir Mengganggu Ekonomi, or Floods Disturb the Economy. Something rather amiss—or somewhat inapt, here, which perhaps not many people took notice. Corollary to it is a thought that views economy as of ultimate importance. Such a view is derived from the long believed notion that most people falsely cling to that compares a nation’s economy as that of something organic, likened to the lives of plants, trees, or animals. This is a serious fallacy. Plants, trees, animals live neither with neither will nor plan, unlike us human beings. Talking about a nation’s economy is talking about actions and activities of millions or billions of its people who have both will and plans for the sake of embetterment of personal states or well being. If the wellbeing of most persons in a city is being seriously disturbed, a talk about the region’s economy would be, I'd say, insensitively foolish...
2 comments:
When you say man made disaster are you refering to Global Warming? Secondly I want to say that for sure we know that the climate is changing and man has a responsibility to care for his environment. Still I ask how is it that people think that the only reason the climate is changing is because of mans' actions?
I do agree that when disaster strikes people effected should be the first priority.
I was simply referring to the impending flood against which nothing was really done do anticipate. I do not share the view that the climate is changing only because of man’s action, although an awful lot of things men indeed have done to contribute to it. But if I tried to put myself in their boat, then I would probably reason that that was due largely to man’s dominant place, both positively and negatively, in this world.
Post a Comment