What Causes Disasters?

When you picture a disaster, what comes to mind? The Asian Tsunami? The Haitian Earthquake? Hurricane Katrina? What about the Syrian Civil War? Is it a disaster? Most people think of disasters in terms of the natural hazards that act as the trigger; earthquakes, cyclones, floods and tsunamis are some of the most widely perceived hazards. The prevalence of this outlook produces a myth of disasters as natural occurrences. This masks the fact that disasters occur due to complex social, political and economic choices and circumstances.

Certain cities, countries and regions are undeniably more exposed to natural hazards than others. Residents of New Zealand and Japan understand and accept the likelihood of earthquakes impacting on their lives, just as residents of the Philippines and Caribbean island nations understand and accept the likelihood of destructive typhoons/cyclones. In many cases, relocation away from a hazard is not a possibility.

However, not every individual or community or nation that faces a high likelihood of natural hazards occurring due to location is equally affected. Impact is determined by factors other than the strength or the frequency of the hazard.

Since the Industrial Revolution we have witnessed significant changes in every aspect of our society. Much is made of the "progress" of the human race since then. However, as much as the wealth and health generated has allowed our species to flourish, more people have been the victims of this progress than have been beneficiaries. Billions of people today suffer from hunger, thirst, poverty, discrimination, conflict and other injustice, often stemming directly from the "progress" of others.

Disasters are simply inevitable in this world of deep injustice, where the majority have been left behind (and in many cases left worse off) as the privileged few have moved ahead.

We can analyse people that have been left behind at different levels. Certain countries benefited greatly from colonisation and more recently, globalization. In both cases, the majority are left to serve the minority from a position of powerlessness. This translates into a widening divide between the rich and the poor. Rising inequality is not only a growing issue between countries, but between communities and classes in most nations. At the scale of the individual, personal characteristics and circumstances are key.

Right now, in 2016, it feels as though we are hurtling towards catastrophic collapse. From the refusal to take real action on climate change (and in many cases outright denial of the problem) to the power-grab by reactionary political elements, strengthened by public discontent with the neoliberal status quo. Rhetoric is becoming more divisive, more hateful, more intolerant.

Our finely tuned ecosystems are breaking down. The "progress" of the human race has resulted in great losses for all other life on earth. Our coral reefs are dying. Our oceans are being emptied. Our forests and jungles are being destroyed. Almost all agricultural diversity is being lost. Species are becoming extinct at 1000 times the background rate (without our influence). We treat everything (living and otherwise) on earth as a resource to be exploited for profit.

We are in the middle of a mass extinction and we carry on as if things have never been better. Hubris. Blissful ignorance. Dangerous delusion.

When I started on my research journey in this field, I wrongly assumed that the best I could do was discover how to manage disasters more efficiently, competently and sensitively. Of course, I quickly realised that this approach is based on a highly reactive ideology that does not offer real hope for reducing losses in the future, particularly in a world changing in the way that it is. To commit to only managing disasters seems to assume that we cannot do more.

My view is that we need to advocate for an approach based on a deeper understanding of and concern for the reasons why disasters happen, why people are vulnerable in the first place and what the human and non-human impacts of disasters are.

We must respond to the needs of our planet and all forms of life on it. We should not accept disasters as natural, or associated losses as an inevitable outcome. A disaster risk reduction approach is committed to addressing the socially constructed root causes of disasters. Scholarship in this field asserts that pre-existing vulnerability is always the main predictor of disaster impact, and efforts to reduce risk begin invariably with root causes rather than symptoms.

By finding ways to help people become less vulnerable, and opposing the political, economic and social norms that hold them back, it is still possible to envisage a world with less disasters.

Why Study Disasters?

People often ask me how I got into research, and disaster research in particular. It was actually quite accidental. In late 2005, I was a postgraduate architecture student at Queen's University Belfast, trying to pin down a topic for my research thesis. The list of potential supervisors included a recently arrived academic with an interest in 'building performance in extreme events'. Just months previously, Hurricane Katrina had devastated the U.S. Gulf Coast. I was concerned, as a citizen and as a budding designer. I knew little about disasters, and even less about research.

This, my very first research project, opened my eyes to the incredible complexity of disasters and piqued my interest, for good. I realised quickly that the wind, the storm surge and the flooding experienced in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Katrina, were only the most superficial factors contributing to this disaster. This was quite profound for me, and challenged the myth that I had so easily absorbed; that disasters are natural occurrences. They certainly are not. As I investigated the many reasons for death and destruction during my field work, I started to understand that disasters were caused primarily by humans living in vulnerable conditions.

Since that first research project, I have undertaken investigations in a range of diverse contexts around the world. I have become a part of the scientific community and seen the rapid growth of a body of knowledge related to the study of disasters. It is a research domain that has emerged in various fields, and one in which cross-disciplinary collaboration is absolutely essential, if not always enacted. It is a domain that naturally challenges silos; one that attempts to solve problems where shared expertise is vital to obtaining the right solution. I feel a great belonging in that space, and I deeply respect those who choose to spend time there. 

Now, that is not to say that my area of research is devoid of the 'academic' problems that challenge other research areas. It is not easy to secure funding for cross-disciplinary research, for one. Both funders and reviewers seem confused by the concept. As a result, many potentially high-impact projects are shelved. Perhaps more significantly, research for the common good is not seen as a worthwhile investment. The Australian government recently paid Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Centre $640,000 for their contribution to a report stating that investing in disaster resilience for poor people was likely to yield 'poor returns'. Somehow I'm not convinced that the poor would agree. You can always count on the elite to decide whose lives are 'worth it'. Funding is directed towards projects that comply with allegedly depoliticised agendas (I.e. Uphold and if you really have to, reform, the status quo). Such incremental change will not save us. 

Most scholars in disaster-related areas recognise that 'managing disasters', while essential of course in the event, is not going to prevent future losses. We must instead focus on reducing the level of existing risk and preventing the creation of new risk. As losses mount and our future becomes more uncertain, the call to deal with the root causes of disaster is gaining momentum. These root causes are not natural. We have a choice. Humans are in the driving seat of risk creation and reduction. 

There are many reasons that I do what I do. Of course, the disaster field captures and holds my attention intellectually, while I personally enjoy working in a domain that involves close interaction with a diverse group of people that represent a range of perspectives and ideologies. There are, however, a number of reasons that I think that the study of disasters is particularly critical and that motivate me to continue.

1) We are rushing headlong into a calamitous future - The future is uncertain and the evidence that we have predicts apocalyptic scenarios if we do not change course but rather continue to over-consume and destroy our only world. This gives a massive sense of urgency to the research field.

2) It is a pathway to protect the vulnerable - Disasters are about people at risk. Those most affected by disasters are the most marginalised, discriminated against, dispossessed and displaced in our society. They need to have a platform for their voices to be heard. A disaster researcher has a great opportunity to connect human IMPACTS to ROOT CAUSES, and make evidence-based arguments for change. 

3) Complex, extreme conditions are not well understood - Most conventional knowledge is built on what we can predict and, ever more widely, what we can model. Outliers are not recognised in our computations and as a society we are broadly ignorant of disaster risk. We need more complete, more straightforward and more challenging data. 

4) It is an outlet for activism - Disasters are political! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The biggest challenges in communicating truths about disaster are myths and misconceptions, widely held in our society. BUT people are interested, and they do care. Convincing arguments can be made and turned into action in this field that certainly grabs the attention. 

5) The current system is not working - The status quo is creating risk, not reducing risk. Our leaders are either blind to the dangers of maintaining the social/economic/political order or are owned by special interests in rejecting the consideration of alternatives. The study of disasters provides a perspective on this dilemma. 

6) Disasters highlight socio-economic inequality and injustice - This is a unique place from which to critique the many structural failures in our society. As we investigate why people are at risk, how they are impacted and how they can avoid future calamity, we have the opportunity to collaborate with other disciplines to develop more holistic responses to injustice.

I choose to express my deviance and my rejection of the status quo through my research activities. I want to spend time asking uncomfortable questions and challenging orthodox views. Within the disaster sphere there are of course many 'safe' subjects and my observation is that those asking the right questions are often a) young and idealistic (uncorrupted?) and likely to be dismissed as naive by more established peers or b) distinguished Professors that are likely to be dismissed as cynical and cranky. On both end, deviants have their ideas labeled 'too radical' and just 'unfeasible'.  I think what they mean is inconvenient.

I'm sure that there are many more reasons that the study of disasters is important. These are just some of my thoughts to get the conversation started. Why are you interested in this subject? Please feel free to share your thoughts, ideas and perspectives. I would love to hear what others have to say. 

We Must Democratise Disaster Risk Creation

As we know all to well, those impacted most by disasters are the poor, the marginalised and the dispossessed. Base vulnerability underpins disaster risk. The most pervasive driver of risk creation is a political and economic system that operates for the benefit of the powerful, and to the detriment of the powerless. Those that face the greatest threats in the 21st Century have no voice, no representation and no justice.

This system is inherently undemocratic. There is nothing that the powerful fear more than empowered peasants. Western democracy has become little more than a show, having been bought and paid for by special interests. In the United States we are told to choose a 'lesser evil' candidate from the ruling parties, while the dying two-party system fights to ensure that progressive change can never take any real hold. The great global institutions, the UN, the IMF and the World Bank, despite a pretence to represent democratic ideals, fight largely to uphold a status quo that enables continuing neo-imperial conquest and accumulation of private wealth at the expense of those least able to defend themselves. If we are hoping for neoliberal institutions to save humanity, we are still asleep.

The more that we invest in and perpetuate the injustice of this system, the more rapidly risk is created. The public are largely unaware or ignorant when it comes to disaster risk, particularly in consumer-driver societies where immediate self-gratification has replaced any sense of community responsibility. Politicians skirt the issue so as to avoid spending on core risk reduction solutions (may demand more health, education, welfare, science spending!), preferring to save the day in the event of a disaster rather than take any proactive action that may not 'pay off'. Re-election is generally more important than service.

The actions of a political class that has gone all-in for a neoliberal system based on economic myth, 'legal' corruption and global corporate dominance, are creating endless new risk, faster than people can be drawn out of risky starting conditions. Whether it is taking away social safety nets in Australia to 'help' people discipline themselves, or assisting developing countries with unrepayable loans that primarily serve the lender and its collaborating countries and corporations, there are few glimmers of hope WITHIN the system. It is easy to see why voters in the UK, the US and around the world are determining to 'burn it all down', whether or not they support the extremist demagogues that are leading such movements.

Will we survive the challenges that this Century will bring? It's possible. I hold out hope that we can still deviate from this destructive course, that democracy can be saved and that most people actually care about each other. We must, however, democratise disaster risk creation. No longer can we allow those in power to create risk, reap the financial reward, and socialise the losses. 

The US Presidential Election: Lesser Evil for Whom?

Trump or Clinton? Who will America choose?

This is the question on everyone's lips, from Brooklyn to Bangkok. The U.S. Commander-in-Chief represents a position as close to complete power as exists in the modern world.  The global economy hinges on U.S. interests, and its President is head of arguably the largest and most dominant military force the world has ever seen. The relationship between the economy and the military is unmistakable, and dictates foreign policy. The choice to be an economic ally of the U.S. is hardly a choice at all.

Source: CNBC

During the month of July, we witnessed the circus that was both the Republican and Democratic Conventions, where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were nominated as Presidential candidates by their respective parties. Trump's key message was that America is in deep trouble and that he is the only one that can save it. With a message that echoed Ronald Reagan, he insisted that he will restore law, order and greatness. He argued for a withdrawl from the global community, an 'America-first' position, ignorant of the face that America is indeed the primary beneficiary of globilization. "Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America first, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect, the respect that we deserve. The American people will come first once again." (Trump acceptance speech)

Hillary's message, as expected, was much more focused on 'issues' but rather cliched, leaving many sceptical. There was not really a central theme to the speech, or the Convention, bar that voters need to save America from Trump, and that Hillary is that saviour. "America's strength doesn't come from lashing out. Strength relies on smarts, judgement, cool resolve, and the precise and strategic application of power. That's the kind of Commander-in-Chief I pledge to be." (Clinton acceptance speech) 'Strategic application of power' indeed. Among the massive protests from within her own party, the walkouts, the heckling and a DNC coffin over the fence, the 4-day show served more to alienate progressives rather than unify.

Even as Noam Chomsky, the darling of the left, threw his weight behind the idea of Lesser Evil Voting (for Hillary), Andrew Smolsky countered that in Clinton we have a candidate with a "clear record, from Serbia to Libya, from Honduras to Paraguay, of supporting coups, militarization of authoritarian regimes, breaking international law, and genuinely following the neoconservative playbook in trying to make the 21st Century another century of American hegemony and empire". Her demonstrated 'experience' advocates for exactly the ideology and practical application that Chomsky has spent decades fighting.

There is something entirely flawed in our acceptance of a flawed hegemonic political system, and it inevitably leads us down the path of lesser evil voting. Will Clinton be better than Trump? Ben King argues that 'it doesn't make the threat of fascism go away with Trump losing, it makes the the eventual fascism likely to be even worse.' The amount of anger now directed at hackers, protesters and conscience voters has intensified, largely from the left. Self-professing liberals are smearing Green candidate Jill Stein, even though she is campaigning on a revolutionary platform that more Americans identify with (well, they would if they knew about it) than either of the two main-party candidates.

If Trump does become president, there will be an inevitable wave of progressive insurgency mobilised by the left and in 2020 the challenger for the White House will likely be rooted in this insurgency. If Clinton becomes president, she will continue with a strictly neoliberal agenda, while the insurgency will rise up from the far-right. Progressives will have been widely co-opted by the Clinton campaign as a lesser evil and will be more disillusioned than outraged.

So, where do we want to be in 2020? Perhaps it's time to rethink the political system before complete meltdown. A great start would be opening the presidential debates to 3rd parties so that at least voters are aware that they have options.

Disasters of Imperial Power

Power, in the wrong hands, leads to disaster. 

The United States-led 'war on terror' has made the world anything but more safe and secure. Australian journalist and activist John Pilger asserts that rather than a war on terrorism, this particular war IS terrorism. Indeed, in the deeply divided Middle East, the resentment of western influence and repeated resource-related intervention solidifies. The bombings, invasions, war crimes, attempted regime change and 'state-building' have not made the powerful western backers of the destruction a whole lot of friends in the region. Suicide attacks in Iraq were unheard of before the US invasion, and are now commonplace. ISIS has arisen from a web of western-backed militia, in the grand design supposed to overthrow non-compliant leaders but now beyond control. Although terrorist attacks are still uncommon on western soil, we have seen well-publicised revenge attacks, of course most recently with France as the target. While desperate people flee the region, the West secures her borders. How willing we are to support regime change, but not take responsibility for the unthinkable losses inflicted on local populations.

Destabilisation of nations and entire regions leaves millions displaced, unemployed, hungry and thirsty, without education opportunities or any kind of security. In terms of disaster risk, imperial power continues to compound the problem. 

This power, wielded by western nations and corporations and intended to devour the resources of country after country, is something that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi defied. Of course, the brutality of these dictators is well documented, but their countries were ultimately targeted for regime change for refusing to bow to proposed imperial masters rather than any human rights agenda. To retain any credibility for a 'humanitarian regime-change' premise, the US/UK and allies would need to not only come clean on their own human rights record, but respond appropriately to the abuses of their friends and not only their enemies. This is simply not going to happen, as weapons and goodwill continue to flow to the blatantly abusive Israel and Saudi Arabia, for example. Consolidated imperial power is 'as old as Columbus', as Pilger puts it The New Rulers of the World (p. 4), but it has taken on new robes for the 21st century. How much more destructive is this powerful club than any threat posed by ISIS, Al-Qaeda or Boko Haram?

Allied political and corporate power cares little for the vulnerable of the world, so long as they are grateful for the handouts that they receive. Decisions are purely economic, and human rights are not considered (bar as an inconvenience). The vulnerable are generally left worse of than before they were 'liberated'. 

The threat and illusion of 'necessary' endless war (remember Dick Cheney predicting 50 or more years of the 'war on terror') has been used to justify state repression and increased social control. The profiteers of disaster capitalism are gleefully rubbing their hands. Western 'patriots' say that we must blindly follow the instruction of the political elite for 'national security' and wreak eternal carnage on those countries that do not agree to serve our interests. Indeed, carnage in itself is the end game. Peace would not be profitable to the arms industry. The military industrial complex is now part of western psyche. Why are we so compliant? It does not have to be this way. Do we really subscribe to an ideology that says our lives are more valuable than those of Iraqis or Syrians? The horrors of the illegal Bush/Blair/Howard invasion of Iraq (now sold to us as a mistake rather than the obvious war crime and business decision that it was) have somehow fogged the memory of the brutal UN Security Council sanctions regime that killed half a million Iraqi children under Bush Sr. and Clinton, while barely affecting Saddam's rule. These children are the un-people of the world, and today the children of Syria and Yemen face a similar fate as collateral damage. Their deaths are 'worth it' in the scheme of things, as Madeleine Albright infamously reminded us. The delusion of imperial power is supreme.

Those annihilated by imperial power no longer face disaster risk, given their untimely demise. However, those left behind are tortured by the psychological, physical and economic impacts for generations. This risk creation runs deep. 

Richard Nixon called Indonesia 'the greatest prize in South-East Asia' and the World Bank lauded its pro-western 'reorientation' from 1967, going so far as to call it a 'model pupil' of globalization shortly before Suharto's resignation in 1998. The grisly details of another 'worthwhile' regime change are less well known, but were wholly acceptable to imperial power brokers that included the US, British and Australian governments, the IMF and World Bank and countless western corporations. Starting with a US-supplied kill list of 5000, up to a million Indonesians were murdered by the pro-western Suharto regime, while accolades flowed in from the press and western foreign offices. Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt clearly approved. "With 500,000 to a million communist sympathisers knocked off," he said, "I think it's safe to assume that a reorientation has taken place." In the wake of this genocide, the World Bank and IMF were happy to create unrepeatable debt, turn a blind eye to corruption and divide the resources of Indonesia between western corporations. A second western-backed horror in East Timor finally turned the tide on the Suharto regime in 1998.

The fate of both Indonesia and Iraq, mirrored around the world throughout the 'American Century' and today, demonstrate the destructive potential of imperial power and conquest. The human cost is unfathomable and is demonstrably far more devastating than what the west calls terrorism. 

Modern imperial power games not only kill immediately, but they significantly increase disaster risk for the most vulnerable in the societies affected. Minorities are marginalised. Inequality is actually designed to increase. Poverty is entrenched and indeed demanded under this system. Have we, as argued by the advocates of western imperialism, really witnessed such remarkable 'progress' to justify the great cost of crushing all cultures that stand in the way? When our ideas of progress include skyrocketing consumption, a throw-away consumer mindset and culture of entertainment, perhaps we have ceased to represent progress. When we measure the success of a country by GDP growth, perhaps we have ceased to represent progress.

When we see the world's most vulnerable people as collateral damage, cheap labour, a security threat or simply as 'unfortunate' (given our actions that have made them so), perhaps we have ceased to represent progress. 

Maybe we should consider the possibility, uncomfortable as it may be, that our idea of progress is as hollow as our justifications for atrocities that have enabled it.  

Punishment Over Reform: A Twisted Morality

When the stories of abuse of Indigenous children at Don Dale juvenile detention centre broke last week, outrage and shock flooded our screens. Anyone following the story on social media may have observed that structural racism and white privilege is still defiantly espoused and resolutely defended in Australia.

Against a backdrop of colonial brutality and a history of racial discrimination and violence, author Tony Birch writes, “that it was a shock to many people is itself a stain on the nation.” Indeed, many Australians adopt the mentality advocated by broadcaster Kyle Sandilands, who says that we should simply, "get over it, it's 200 years ago." This argument denies the ongoing colonialism imposed through policy by every Australian government in history.

In Australia, successful rehabilitation programs are shut down in favour of locking more and more people away for as long as possible (with Indigenous members of society particularly targeted). Perhaps it will encourage 'jobs and growth?' Pray tell, Mike Baird. Undoubtedly the private sector is making a killing out of the commodification and outsourcing of cruelty.

Kathleen Maltzahn tells us that the current culture in Australia allows and indeed implicitly approves of physical, sexual and psychological abuse of prisoners. She asks us to consider whether prisoners really deserve it. I think it is hard to argue that our culture is not simply one that approves of a punishment ethos, and that this is what makes people ignore abuse. 'These are our values', wrote Antony Loewenstein of Australian society's malaise.

Fast forward a couple of weeks and the Nauru files scandal erupted. The scale of trauma being inflicted on asylum seekers in offshore concentration camps has been laid bare. Financed by Australian taxpayers. If you were to listen to the government, you would hear that it was the asylum seekers' fault, or the government of Nauru's fault, or the contractors' fault. In turn, those being paid to carry out Australia's punitive policy maintain that they are simply doing a job and diligently reporting abuse to those stakeholders ultimately responsible. Ferrovial, Broadspectrum and Govt of Nauru maintain their claim to innocence and professionalism.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/photomequickbooth/

Will we see the closure of Nauru and Manus? It really makes no sense financially to keep the camps open, considering the military-style turnback operation that is underway to prevent arrivals. Every argument that is put forward to demonise refugees has been repeatedly debunked. We arrive at the fact that they are simply there to be punished; men, women and children. Is this justice? Is this western morality?

We can hope that we are reaching a breaking point, but realistically there is bipartisan political support to continue abusing the most vulnerable in society. Until we decide collectively to fight back and be heard, soulless politicians will not deviate, and corporations will continue to profit from abuse. This SHOULD be an election issue; not as to which party will punish asylum seekers the most, but as to which party will be most welcoming and will work to solve core issues causing displacement in the first place.

The Displacement Crisis Revealing our Humanity

The world is finally waking up to a global displacement crisis. While we debate what to call the displaced, refugees...asylum seekers...migrants...the number of people seeking a new 'place' as a matter of urgency is swelling like never before in history. What is 'place' and who deserves one to call their own? Do citizens of failed states have a right to seek another place? As we consider the cauldron of violence and instability that is the Middle East, are we asking questions about the underlying causes of displacement?

Photo by Giuseppe Forino

This crisis is only likely to grow. As Australia and the UK prepare to join the US-led bombing campaign in Syria, will the politicians making the decision to kill ever more civilians be held accountable for the impact? How has this strategy worked out before in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Violence is a lucrative pastime. The global arms trade generates massive revenues, and soaring military spending is justified based on the perceived risks posed globally, often as a result of intentional destabilization. Quite a business model.

However, it is not only conflict that creates displacement. Climate change is occurring whether you like science or not. Disaster impacts are evolving as societies urbanize and people adopt less sustainable living in the pursuit of 'development'. In many ways, people are become more exposed to disaster risk because of how they choose to live. The drive to 'modernize' and 'advance' inherently supports the incumbent economic system of our time. A devotion to market fundamentalism practically locks us in for whatever disasters will eventually befall our race.

Put it this way. Our economic and social order is built on the premise that limitless growth is healthy. Anything that might challenge this premise is dismissed as problematic, idealistic and unreasonable. Solutions that involve equality and justice for all are labeled socialist. This belief system taken to the extreme brings us humanitarian bombing and coal is good for humanity. Orwell was spot on; blind, selfish, self-absorbed consumers want to believe that 'war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength'.

It is great to see the outpouring of empathy for the Syrian refugees reaching Europe. It gives me hope that most of us really do care about others. Perhaps it takes a picture and the tragic story of a dead toddler to really wake us up from our busy, stressed out existence. My hope is that this crisis will create thousands of activists around the world. There are huge ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but not a lot of time to take action.

The world certainly needs to come up with rapid and collective solutions to this humanitarian crisis, but we need to be careful not to apply a band-aid to a deep laceration. Increasing refugee intake is commendable, but are we prepared to interrogate the problem at its source?

Disasters, poverty and the paradox of limitlessness

I think that we, the human race, are in a bit of a pickle. The consensus seems to be that now is a great time to be alive. Those spreading such optimism trumpet the achievements of industrialisation and globalisation. Sure, the human population is soaring, but more people are healthier and happier than ever, aren't they? Limitless growth seems to be working.

As a result of humanity's rapid development during the 20th century, consumption has been exceeding the earth's ability to regenerate since the early 70's. Last week earth 'overshoot day' came earlier than ever before. We no longer live on the 'interest', but are eating into natural capital. The human population could hit 11 billion by 2100, exacerbating existing dilemmas in health, poverty, civil unrest. Per capita share of environmental resources must decrease as population increases, but as a minority of the human race consume more and more, there is less for the remainder. Much of the growth in the 21st century is projected to occur in Asia and Africa, regions that are largely still to fully develop (and reach consumption levels on par with the West). A bleak outlook, I know.

But honestly, the contamination of ecological systems is out of control. So called 'ecological debt' is growing rapidly, and regardless of the political posturing, serious measures are not being taken to avoid the disasters that will surely come as a result. The environmental, political and social ramifications could be world-changing. Will technology or human ingenuity save the day? Neo-liberalism has redefined the 'limitless' worldview, aided by a taboo on the discussion of population. However, this is not a technical problem. It is not even a population problem. If we propose technical solutions we will solve the wrong problem.

The real issue facing us is the ideology of limitless consumption and progress measured by economic growth. However, questioning the wisdom of perpetual economic growth is tantamount to heresy in a neo-liberal society. As Garrett Hardin posits, 'It has long been recognised that some of our most deeply held views are not neat, precise propositions but broadly "global" attitudes that act as the gatekeepers of the mind, letting in only those propositions that do not challenge the dominant picture of reality.' The ecological problems we face today reduce to balancing supply and demand. Ecological 'services' are limited, while demand is essentially endless.

The paradox of a growing global population that protects the 'limitless' worldview is astounding. I do not agree with everything Hardin writes, but his assertion that 'four centuries of sedation by the delusion of limitlessness have left humanity floundering in a wilderness of rhetoric' is difficult to argue with. Poverty has not ended, inequality is growing and we are killing the planet; and we feel entitled to carry on! Forced displacement due to conflict, climate change and disasters will create lasting impacts for countries both producing and receiving refugees. What is the plan? No amount of cruelty perpetuated on those escaping will actually stem the tide, much less address the actual problem(s).

It would appear that the limitless paradigm offers few solutions when it comes to the core issues facing the human race. Perpetual growth and boundless consumption might satisfy our desires in the present, but what are the long term impacts?

The rising challenge to entitlement: disasters, migration and western values

2015 is a year of global agreements regarding climate change, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. The new frameworks proposed will invariably require innovative strategies for change. But is society ready to accept change and adaptation for the good of future generations? Change invariably involves sacrifice. The belief that our very way of life is being eroded by the demands of environmentalists is prevalent, but we must consider who this narrative serves. The ‘risk’ of change to those who have accumulated power, wealth and resources under the status quo must not be ignored. An assessment of ruling-class risk may indeed help us to contextualise some of the important debate of 2015.

Entitled to Succeed

If schooling has taught us anything, it is that success manifests as wealth, power, achievements and accolades. ‘Work hard and succeed`, they say. ‘If you don't succeed, you didn't try hard enough’. Nobody likes to admit that disadvantage runs deep and 'failure' according to our system is more accurately predicted by socio-economic indicators than by work ethic. Those 'born to rule' hate to admit that privilege is a factor and will point to rags to riches success stories that supposedly prove that a meritocracy exists. However, the systemic inequality that is all around us challenges the very values of a free society that our democracies uphold.

What, in fact, are 'western values'? Freedom, justice, compassion? The freedom to accumulate. Retributive justice. Conditional compassion. Perhaps it's the expectation that someone be employed and pays taxes (so that our government can fund war and distribute private sector welfare).

In these times of austerity, most Western governments favour neoliberal economic ideologies and, as a consequence, policies that target the least at fault for economic crisis and the least able to afford cuts, taxes and levies. Underpinning this agenda is an insidious belief that the poor are lazy and the disabled are frauds. We are told that to help such poor souls, we must impose some sort of punishment. It’s the moral thing to do, after all.

Outsiders:

How does our perception of western values (and the incentives and punishments attached to these values) affect our attitude towards those outside our borders, and indeed towards the ‘others’ within our borders? It's hard to know what our values truly are, if you consider the rhetoric of our elected leaders. They preach social justice while passing legislation to persecute the vulnerable. Perhaps that is what social justice means to such ideologues. How do we view more than two billion in poverty worldwide, populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine exposed to ongoing conflict or the disproportionate number of people in developing countries vulnerable to climate change?

Despite all of our advances, every second child on the planet lives in poverty. Of the world’s 2.2 billion children there are 1 billion in poverty. 18,000 children (under 5) still die every day from poverty, hunger and preventable disease. As UNICEF articulated in 2000, these children,

“die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

Do we consider that many of the problems felt beyond our borders persist as a result of inequality? Indeed, systemic inequality is capitalized upon by western corporate and governmental entities to maintain growth and accumulate wealth for the 1%. However unintentionally, we in the west are born with a perceived entitlement to benefit from this inequality, established hundreds of years ago, largely through slavery and the global domination and destruction of indigenous people groups.

Climate change, migration and disaster risk reduction:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts that,

"people who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally or otherwise marginalised are especially vulnerable to climate change."

Those most vulnerable; children, women, the elderly and the disabled, located in developing countries, already suffer disproportionately due to conflict and disaster. Needless to say, programs that address the underlying causes of this vulnerability have a significant impact on long term disaster risk. However, the current near-consensus towards technocratic solutions to poverty does little to reduce growing inequality and lack of individual freedom. Indeed, the solutions imposed by development experts often serve to increase vulnerability among the most marginalised in a society.

Extreme events force many more people from their homes than conflict, yet few governments are facing up to the potential of future mass migration. As of end-2013, 51.2million people were forcibly displaced worldwide. We cannot be entirely sure what the consequences will be of planetary boundaries being exceeded, but it is hardly a stretch to imagine that more people than ever would be forced to seek safe refuge from violent conflicts, stronger and more frequent natural hazards and food and water shortages.

Photo credit: worldmaritimenews

Perhaps the Hunger Games narrative isn’t so far-fetched.

Risk reduction holds a different meaning for the wealthy and for the poor. As renewable energy alternatives become accessible to all, entire industries are at risk. The opponents of freely available sustainable energy will fight on for their ‘right’ to collect profit in the years to come. Global agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will attempt to reinforce structures designed purely for profit and domination. Whether it is energy generation or food production - sustainability and resilience for you and I come at a cost to the global elite. Sustainability demands that we moderate/reduce consumption (largely procure from established corporate elite) while resilience empowers ‘people’ to cope for themselves (thus reducing reliance upon elite derived/powered systems and products).

Sameness or Variety:

No amount of positivity or optimism prevents people dying of thirst and starvation daily. Meanwhile, the west gets fatter. We place our faith in business, in foreign aid, in development, to provide the solution. Are we wrong to assume that this system, created by corporations, banks and government, will act in the interests of humanity? We so easily swallow the narrative that says that ‘the others’ are out to ruin life as we know it- single mothers, unemployed youth, the disabled and asylum seekers. But does our existence really depend on protecting ourselves from these vulnerable groups? The lie is pervasive. Our leaders tell us to just believe, over and over again.

While 3 million people turn out to advocate for free speech in Paris, there is little outrage against what Joseph Conrad called "the merry dance of death and trade." As sections of Western society become more and more polarised and marginalised, the ability to empathise with ‘others’ is rapidly eroded, within and beyond our borders.

Current global systems (economic/social/moral etc.) are ideologically flawed; they assign power, wealth and resources to the few at a detriment to the many. These systems are also highly contemptuous of change. A healthy system should naturally transition through periods of creative destruction, allowing innovation and creativity to flourish. Instead, we have been programmed to favour growth and conservation at all costs, while protecting the status quo.

Voltaire and Inequality

Can we envisage a world where no one starves to death or dies of treatable disease in any given day, and where everyone has access to life’s basic necessities? Do the poor choose to remain poor?

‘The comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor.’ - Voltaire

If we truly do aspire to a more equitable and sustainable way of life, what needs to happen to make it a reality? Can current global systems deliver on such a vision or is such thinking ultimately utopian? The current status quo gives us a scenario where the poorest 10% of humanity account for just 0.5% ofconsumption while the wealthiest 10% account for 59%. The demand for global resources and strain on our environment does not arise due to the actions or inactions of the global poor. Economic distress is never caused by families on social welfare, it is caused by banks and corporations that effectively benefit from publicly sourced subsidies (source?). What is the tipping point for injustice, the last straw before moral outrage?

Is the very (western) way of life that we protect and treasure part of the global malaise? Are we so devoted to materialism, consumerism and individualism (the religions of the West, as defined by Russell Brand) that we would cast off all responsibility for the consequences of the flawed ideological underpinnings of empire and globalisation?

Voltaire’s oft-quoted and adapted words, ‘the best is the enemy of the good,’ in the poem La Begueule, are commonly used to justify failed systems or as pretext for trivial solutions. The correct meaning was in fact to warn against greed, envy and lack of gratitude. It was upon such a misconstrued meaning of Voltaire’s words that the Obama administration oversaw the robbery of US taxpayers to feed a reckless and greedy banking sector, as Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz points out. Consider this on a global scale...does the current economic system ‘require’ an abundant supply of the poor? Is growing inequality a positive thing, as argued by Kevin O’Leary? A 2014 report by Oxfam states that the richest 85 people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the poorer half of humanity. Inequality is increasing all across the globe. The clear warning is that,

“when wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favour the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else.”

Poverty. Inequality. War. The military industrial complex. Human trafficking. Crony capitalism. Humanity requires drastic reorganisation. However, those who benefit from sameness will not make way for variety without resistance.

‘Stop the boats’...but for how long? Mounting Humanitarian Crises and Australia’s Asylum Seekers

Around the world, when natural and man-made hazards meet human vulnerability there are devastating consequences. The impacts of climate change, rapid urbanisation and a growing economic divide will undoubtedly force more people into conditions of extreme disaster risk. It is inevitable that many of these people will attempt to find safe and secure living conditions for their families, away from exposure to disaster risk.

At the same time we are witnessing an explosion of conflict and instability on the global stage. Across multiple continents, people groups are divided across religious, cultural and ideological lines, and as a consequence violent conflict rages. Adding fuel to the fire, spending on global militarisation has grown exponentially in recent times. The impact of this 'arming-to-the-teeth' is felt around the world where such weapons are put into use, usually far away from countries that produce them.

The number of people displaced by conflict and persecution grows daily, as a constant flow of refugees are forced from countries like Iraq and Syria. Those displaced are mainly hosted in adjacent countries but are often hoping for permanent settlement in a safe country, fleeing conflict, persecution and an absence of human rights. In the coming years people will not only flee conditions of disaster risk. They will flee climate change impacts. They will flee conflict and persecution. They will flee poverty and inequality. It is clear that we are facing mounting humanitarian crises in the years to come.

What are the key drivers of these conditions humanity finds herself trapped in? Lack of education? Corruption? Geopolitics? Neoliberal economics? Crony capitalism?

As the international community faces up to an age of human displacement, Australia stands determined to prevent anyone reaching its shores, no matter what they may be fleeing from. A shift towards a military-style border defence operation since the Coalition government took office in 2013, as well as the offshore detention policy carried over from Labour, has drawn widespread criticism from national/global watchdogs. The use of Manus Island and Nauru as a ‘deterrent’ or ‘punishment’ for seeking asylum from the conditions outlined above has brought Australia under the spotlight in the international press. Will cruelty against the victims of global humanitarian crises that arrive in Australia do anything to prevent more and more asylum seekers being produced in future?

Has cruelty ‘stopped the boats’? Or is there a military operation massively invested in locating, stopping and returning the boats? How is the horror of offshore detention making any difference, apart from diminishing Australia’s reputation on the international stage? Is the current cruelty a ‘necessary evil’? What are the other options? Instead of considering a more compassionate way to participate in solving the global displacement crisis, Australia is focused on shipping off its existing refugees arrived by boat, while ensuring that there are no further arrivals by pushing boats back to Indonesia and refouling asylum seekers to Sri Lanka. 

Ask yourself this: If you feared for your own and your family’s safety, would you not use whatever means you had to protect them? If you had the financial means to secure passage to another country to seek asylum, would you instead choose to seek out a refugee camp and wait for 5-10 years for resettlement? We must not ignore the suffering of those asylum seekers with means, simply because there are others without means to do the same thing.

The question is, therefore; for how long can Australia maintain a 'push-back' policy in the face of increasing human displacement, due to mounting humanitarian crises caused by multiple hazards, both rapid and slow-onset, as well as increasingly chronic human vulnerability and global economic inequality? 

An Introduction

It's a little bit daunting to start a new blog, with zero readers and zero backlinks. However, every great endeavour must start somewhere so we, a group of researchers at the University of Newcastle, Australia, have decided to start a blog relating to our research on disasters and development. Our group is based within the School of Architecture & Built Environment and we are part of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Built Environment Research.

The researchers that make up the group each have their particular expertise and body of work, but we have collectively been drawn to this area of research though an interest in some of the key issues facing humanity, and we believe that while the built environment voice is particularly valuable, it is not always heard on these issues.

As we face up to mounting challenges in the way of more frequent and powerful hazards, researchers from all disciplinary backgrounds are realising that we must do our utmost to not only develop effective processes and innovative technologies for disaster response and recovery, but more importantly we must strive to prevent disasters from occurring through disaster risk reduction and preparedness activities.

At the heart of the matter, disasters are a product of extreme human vulnerability and we must go beyond treating the symptom to investigating the disease. Though a built environment lens, our group will explore systems of inequality and injustice that ensure that vulnerability cannot be adequately addressed through aid or goodwill gestures. We recognise that a broad appreciation of the economic, social, ethical, cultural and political dimensions are a basic necessity for any discourse on disasters and development.

This blog will chart the progress of our various research projects and allow a platform for all members of our growing team to contribute to an important dialogue. This will be a place to open up some of the frequent discussions had at UoN in corridors, offices and coffee shops for wider comment and public debate.

On the right you will find researcher profiles that introduce the members of the group. The intention is to develop the site to include relevant publications and activities. Please bear with us as we build the site and make sure to enter your email address (on the right hand side) in order to receive updates.

Thanks on behalf of the group