You are here

Why most natural disasters aren't natural at all

From the point of view of many humans, the term "natural disaster" is a convenient scapegoat because it allow a person (or a whole nation) to blame nature for their own poor planning. From Natural News. Originally republished on this site here amongst comments relating to the Queensland floods.

From the point of view of many humans, the term "natural disaster" is a convenient scapegoat because it allow a person (or a whole nation) to blame nature for their own poor planning.

From Natural News. Originally republished on this site here amongst comments relating to the Queensland floods.

When a volcano blows and causes widespread destruction beyond what anyone could have reasonably foreseen -- such as Mt St Helens in the 1980's -- that's a legitimate natural disaster. But getting wiped out by a flood because you built your house right in the flood path of a local river is not a natural disaster.

Rebuilding the low-lying regions of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of mankind just begging to be hit with yet another "natural disaster." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some time in the next 50 years, a category five hurricane is going to strike New Orleans yet again and reclaim the very same regions that technically belong under water as part of the Gulf of Mexico.

Another example is when people build their homes in a giant forest, surrounded by trees, and then they seem surprised when those trees catch on fire and burn their homes to the ground. Did they really think that trees never burn? Most fires are caused by people, and thinning of forests by logging and developments, and more people, means more chances of fires.

Most "natural" disasters are actually caused by poor human planning. The cattle rancher who buys 500 acres of forest and then clear-cuts the trees to make room for cattle grazing (Brazil, anyone?) doesn't usually consider the fact that they have now removed the rainfall / water buffer zone that protected their lands from floods and erosion.

Not all floods are the fault of the people affected by them, of course. There are huge floods happening right now in Brisbane. In that case, it means the victims of the floods in Brisbane are suffering through no fault of their own but rather as a result of some destructive global influences on the planet's weather systems.

Just watch in amazement over the next twelve months as many Australians rebuild homes right back in the same exact locations devastated by this flood. It's not a characteristic of good planning.

Watch in amazement over the next twelve months as many Australians rebuild homes right back in the same exact locations devastated by this flood. It's not a characteristic of good planning.

What "natural disasters" are coming next due to poor human planning?

  • It won't be too long before our food crops suffer a genetic pollution disaster due to the widespread use of GMOs.
  • The massive life extinction event occurring right now on our planet will ultimately be traced largely to the mass chemical contamination of the world with pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, food additives and synthetic chemicals in consumer products.
  • The next great dust bowl will strike within twenty years as abused, over-farmed soils continue to erode, transforming many food-producing regions of the world into food deserts
  • The global use of fossil water -- especially in India -- will soon meet a geologic limit, causing widespread drought and desertification.
  • The massive loss of food pollinators will accelerate, ultimately leading to emergency shortages of pollinators and a detrimental impact on the global food supply.

Humans continue to blame Nature (or God) instead of looking at the real source of these problems: Ignorant "scientific" progress and boundless human expansion!

The upshot is that many "natural disasters" are really only disasters from the point of view of people who don't respect nature in the first place.

While people have confidence that Technology and scientific advancements will solve the world's problems - energy, famine, water shortages, overpopulation, overconsumption, climate change - in reality, little has been achieved to alleviate true natural disasters. The powers of Nature can't be halted or harnessed, and true natural disasters will continue due to our planet's dynamic nature.

With population growth, more people will be forced to live in the extremities of our world, and the changes taking place to it's environments will ensure that lack of planning and environmental illiteracy will cause more so-called mass "natural disasters".

Read more on the web site.

In and around Brisbane (population approximately 911,000), the worst flooding this century occurred during the Australia Day holiday weekend (25-29 January 1974). At least 6,700 homes were partially or totally flooded in the Brisbane metropolitan area and floodwaters entered the gardens of about 6,000 other houses.

A snapshot of the planning strategy for Brisbane to deal with massive population growth expected (ie planned, socially engineered) over the next 20 years shows high-rise development spreading to the outer suburbs, with concentrations of towers around transport nodes.

Queensland needs to build more than 900,000 new houses and units in the next 21 years to meet projected (targeted) population growth. Our "ageing population" threat needs to be addressed by more people!

This growth is expected to continue. The Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan requires Brisbane to accommodate an additional 145,000 dwellings by 2026.

Be it a sustainable Australia, capping migration, or turning back the boats, population is one of the issues that was discussed during the Federal Election campaign. Brisbane's Lord Mayor Campbell Newman is critical of the debate so far and has a different approach to population and growth. Using his city of Brisbane as an example, he says growth has made it a far better place than it was 20 years ago and if the challenges of congestion and infrastructure were addressed, the national conversation would be different.

Human and economic needs can collide. "Better place to live" is subjective, depending on values being held.

The best way to avoid natural disasters is to learn to live in greater harmony with the nature world, respecting its natural cycles of "destruction" which are actually crucial to life on Earth.


It is crucial to examine each new city development to gauge the extent to which the buildings and the spaces around them will be affected by weather extremes and how liveability will fare. The intention is to absorb an extra millions people through planning and higher density living in our cities.

There's an assumption that booming national and metropolitan populations can be accommodated simply by being smarter and innovative and harnessing technology. However, large numbers spoken of aren't a fait accompli. Better that planners and governments turn their ingenuity to ways of limiting that growth and thus the spread of hot and unsustainable cities that stretch our natural resources further.

High density housing has worse thermal properties per occupant than suburban sprawl, It takes people away from the health benefits of pet ownership and of local food production.

Urban sprawl is already essentially continuous and the lack of planning has left little provision, for public transport or even roads, without massive disruption and expense. The expense is passed onto the public.

A tumour will expand but at some threshold start dying, unless some of the cancer cells gain mutations promoting new blood vessels to bring nutrients and remove toxic waste products. This process is essential to the continued growth of the tumour. Without resources and infrastructure renewal, our own numbers could become malignant.

We do need referendum on the topic of population growth so people can vote on this important issue.

I, and others, will refuse to live in a high density towers. When you have people from different countries and ages and religions there is no sensitivity and tolerance and can be very unlivable place. We are not a homogeneous society like Japan or China where people can more easily tolerate closeness.

Why have so many thousands of traditional urban Australians made a quantum relocation outside the familiar area in which they grew up?

Why have so many thousands of traditional urban Australians moved away from the capital cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane?

Why is Australia's eastern coastline now booming with development and mainly by traditional urban Australians?

What is the change that has driven this?

It is not the lure of the sea. The 'sea change' label applies to the demographic phenomenon which began from the late 1980s due to immigrant domination of selective urban suburbs. It has been the ethnic push, not the sea lure.

Many communities of urban Australia have been overrun by single ethnic groups settling in high concentration. Many of these immigrants have been far from poor and certainly not refugees. Property values have soared in these selective suburbs, outpricing the affordability of offspring of traditional locals.

Multiculturalism has enclaved urban Australia with foreign nationalities of non-English speaking foreign cultures that don't seek to integrate, but encouraged to bring their baggage, foreign shop signage, imported racism against locals, reminiscent of the takeover mentality of colonial British to Australia's Aborigines - marginalising locals and psychologically encircling them to the point of fleeing.

What is the demographic mix of Australia's urban unemployed and homeless. Guess, and it ain't immigrants.

Ethnic crime across south western Sydney is out of control - gangs, drive by shootings, home invasions, international drug syndicates, bashing and rapes.
The media report the crimes but remain comply politically correctly not to disclose ethnicity, thus encouraging the real social causes to fester.

Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, African violence in urban Australia - why are the statistics kept secret from the Australian public?

It's a primitive animal instinctive of kind wanting to be with kind - Indigenous, locals and newcomers - no different. It wasn't Arthur Caldwell who buggered urban Australia, it was Whitlam's naive flood gate multiculturalism that started in the late 1970s.

The demographic exodus is very real and the government is treasonous and complicit. We must have quotas on immigration like New Zealand, or Australia will become Southern Asia in every sence.

John Marlowe

Arthur Calwell said, in the 1940s, that Australia's population of 7 million was not enough and wanted it tripled. Now, we have more than tripled it. There is a push for "big Australia" still, despite Julia Gillard's dismissal of it, and the growth continues. This growth is not inevitable, something that we must accommodate. We are likely to be over 36 million by 2050. It is socially engineered by our politicians, not from grass-roots level. Immigration may have helped and stimulated our economy and culture, but it is out of our control. Most Australians accept a small number of immigration, in a non-racist way, but the mass immigration we are forced to accommodate is contrary to our interests. We have seen costs soar, homelessness, unemployment, urban sprawl, "shortages" of public service and environmental damage. There are limits to growth, and no program spelling out the historical significance of immigration will compensate for the effects of forced and misanthropic runaway population growth. The growth-pushing factions are self-serving and are all too powerful.

Add your comment: SBS Immigration Nation

Rebuilding from floods and mudslides in Brazil that killed 647 people will cost at least 2 billion reais ($1.2 billion), according to estimates by the three hardest-hit areas in Rio de Janeiro state.
The floods in Rio are the world’s fourth-deadliest disaster involving floods and landslides over the past 12 months, according to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.
While climate change is pointed to as the main cause of recent flooding in Australia, Brazil and the United States, the lack of vegetation is contributing to the severity of the floods. But while southeastern Brazil has been hit by torrential rains, the Amazon rainforest and other parts of the country have been suffering drought.
Brazil's abundant rainfall that has made it possible for it to become one of the world's leading agricultural producers and exporters, with only about five percent of the country's farmland needing irrigation. But this advantage could largely be lost, due to deforestation of the Amazon jungle. "Flying rivers" are winds already laden with moisture from the Atlantic ocean, and pick up more moisture when they cross the Amazon jungle, before turning south after running into the barrier of the Andes. Without the rains generated by the jungle, desertification would be the fate of a large part of south-central Brazil. Reforestation efforts that are winning back parts of the Sahara desert but monoculture farming does not solve the problem.
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN says well-managed floodplains and good urban planning can help reduce the impact of disasters such as flooding. Illegal construction, deforestation and unregulated housing has been blamed in part for the devastating effects of the flooding in Brazil. Loss of life due to flooding and mudslides has caused huge devastation to suburbs surrounding cities, leading to growing accusations of irresponsible planning by city authorities. The same could be warning to us in Australia, and town planners in flood-prone plains.

Look out - it's Chinese year of the rabbit!

Chinese superstition claims that people born in the Year of the Rabbit are articulate, talented, and ambitious. They are virtuous, reserved, and have excellent taste. Rabbit people are admired, trusted, and are often financially lucky. So lookout Australia!

Calicivirus is a bit cruel, but Costello's baby bonus is still being lapped up by immigrants.

Effective 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 the Baby Bonus is $5,294.
The Baby Bonus is paid in 13 equal fortnightly instalments. Baby Bonus is payable for each child in a multiple birth.

So under Labor/Liberal have as many babies as you want and get $5294 a head!


...more pressure on Australian infrastructure!
..tried booking your infant into childcare in urban Australia lately?

John Marlowe