... the ark will end up on higher ground.
mhaze,
So, where's that high ground then ?

.

Dear David,

.

Like many other commentators here, I am inclined to place the subject under discussion in its broader context of our attitude to risk in general and our individual and collective responsibilities.

Risk attitudes are generally implemented subconsciously and without mindful validation. As a result, the first and probably most important factor in determining our attitude to risk is our awareness or unawareness of risk. We sometimes take risks that we either ignore completely or, in our enthusiasm, simply overlook.

We build houses in pristine forests that are potential furnaces, a few meters from the shores of splendid ocean views, downstream from lakes and dams designed to prevent flooding. We take our families on holidays in caravans and tents that are vulnerable to attacks by violent intruders and other risks and menaces. We swim in shark-infested waters. We allow ourselves to be locked into nightclubs and other places that turn out to be death traps when a fire breaks out. We patiently dig our graves with our knives and forks. etc., etc.

So much for risk awareness and risk perception. Then there is the degree of risk aversion of various sociological groups and individuals. Women are generally more risk-averse than men and elderly people more than young people. Though, in each group, some individuals are reckless daredevils while others are afraid of their own shadows. Between the two extremes is a kaleidoscope of individuals capable of varying degrees of risk acceptance and risk aversion.

The state, of course, owes protection to us all as citizens, including in respect of our individual liberties – a mutually conflicting goal, a paradoxical, “catch 22” situation. Arbitrating between preventive regulation and respect of individual liberties is no easy task. Where to draw the line between the two ? What are the criteria of decision ? How to define the individual and collective responsibilities ?

Rules and regulations are necessarily couched in terms that define the general principles that apply. Individual liberties depend on particular circumstances.

It is the unenviable task of our system of justice to arbitrate between the two.

.

Hi David f,

From a purely economic perspective your opening post is correct, and of course we could extend that to a whole range of natural, economic and social disasters, fire, cyclone, earthquake, unemployment, refugees, drug addiction, car accidents, the list could be endless.

If we were devoid of all social and moral obligations, those of us on dry land could point the finger and say "serve's you right, wet people!" As human beings we are not simply economic entities devoid of emotional feelings, of sorrow, compassion and kindness towards others less fortunate. So I'm saying from a moral perspective we as individuals, and as a society as a whole, should override our economic principles and help those less fortunate affected by this natural disaster.

Paul1405,

Are you aware that you have just espoused a socialist option for a better world?

You'll have the LNP capitalist sexist deviants on The Forum hounding you forever over that transgression.

Q: How many LNP MPs does it take to change a sexual deviant?
A: Ask Jen.

individual asked..."So, where's that high ground then ?"

Mt Ararat, probably.

So much damage is done by floods, bushfires, and other
disasters as we've seen. Valid points have been
raised as to what kind of society we want to live in.
Do we help out in times of need? What history has shown
is that we do - and very generously. Most Australians
come together to help each other out. As do our governments.
It has always been thus, and hopefully will continue to be.

Of course, boundaries and laws should also be put in place
as to what needs to be done to try to prevent the disaster
ahead of time. Land management is crucial as is flood
prevention techniques.