4 ms·
You make a fair point about effective disaster resilience planning, but optimizing for the poor, elderly, mobility-limited, homeless, etc (while virtuous) would
by rch 7y ago
You make a fair point about effective disaster resilience planning, but optimizing for the poor, elderly, mobility-limited, homeless, etc (while virtuous) would merely make that group less vulnerable than those otherwise capable populations, thereby making a new group the most, by the simple definition of the term vulnerable... Thus a tautology.
- vore 7y agoThe point is to prioritize assistance for people who otherwise would not be able to take care of themselves as much as less vulnerable people. Prioritizing care for the elderly doesn't necessarily make them less vulnerable than otherwise capable people, after all: they have more risk factors that can't be fully minimized. There's not some kind of straightforward calculation like you imply that you can make here.
- zaroth 7y agoRight, in this context, for example, it could mean people who are not able to stockpile several days of food and water, versus people whose biggest concern is the Whole Foods spoiling in the fridge if power is out for too long.
- rch 7y agoI can only say that I've witnessed some of these situations first-hand, with tragic conclusions. But I'd in no way diminish the importance of addressing the most pressing needs discussed here.