Managing risk
The earthquake in Chile this weekend was 500 times more powerful than the one that hit Haiti in January. Yet the death toll in Haiti was 300 times greater than in Chile (though numbers there will probably rise further). Why? In Haiti, most of the deaths were the result of building collapses. In Chile, a country with frequent tremblers, the enactment and enforcement of building codes seems to have successfully prevented most structures from collapsing (though they may be heavily damaged and in need of rebuilding).
While we will never prevent all threats and hazards from occurring, we can take steps to minimize risk. But this, of course, costs money. So we are left with a normative question that must be answered. How much risk should we buy down? Should we spend money to earthquake proof buildings in New York City, where a 6.0-magnitude quake will happen there every 670 years or so, recognizing the scale of destruction should an event could cause? Or is that a risk worth accepting? Should we issue tsunami warnings every time there is a possibility of such an event (as was done this weekend). Or are the economic costs of evacuating large parts of island nations so great that we should only issue warnings when we are confident that a tsunami will occur? The philosophical literature on risk management is quite slim, though a former TA of mine is trying to change that. These are hard questions. Any thoughts?
-Marc
Related posts:
- A Faustian bargain
- Why can’t we talk about foreign aid?
- Brooks vs. Taibbi on Haiti
- Should journalists stay out of Haiti?
- Involuntary risk
ShareComments
One Response to “Managing risk”
Leave a Reply
[...] written on risk and moral responsibility a few times on this blog. Like many good ideas we have, the mainstream media has followed suit. In [...]