Is Italy really a developed country?

This may seem like a very silly question, but in light of the fact that at least 207 people have died and 1,500 injured in the Italian earthquake, is Italy really a developed country, as it couldn't deal with an earthquake?

Reply 1

Elegant Elephant

12

What does the death toll of an earthquake have anything to do with how developed the country is? I don't really see the connection tbh, apart from having a good rescue service or not.

Reply 2

Dorito

15

The most developed country could be ripped apart by an earthquake....

Of course Italy is developed. :lolwut:

Reply 3

assmaster

1

North = yes
South = no.

Its country averages hide the south's poverty somewhat. (i.e. GDP is high in the north, low in the south, overall it's passable)

Reply 4

vander Beth

13

Did you want them to stop the earthquake?

Reply 5

mja

10

ElegantElephant™

What does the death toll of an earthquake have anything to do with how developed the country is? I don't really see the connection tbh, apart from having a good rescue service or not.

Lots of things. For example, whether there are stringent building codes to prevent buildings collapsing, and whether there are rigorously enforced by government. Whether it is fair or not, Italy has certainly had a reputation for not being terribly good at enforcing this kind of regulation.

Not that any of this helps if the buildings are hundreds of years old...

Reply 6

PJ991

17

You can't judge it on that. Many buildings in L'Aquila are hundreds of years old, and there hasn't been an earthquake since 1706 before this one, so they obviously weren't prepared as it isn't a cost effective thing to do.

Just how its not cost effective for our Government to build flood defences, but this doesn't mean that we are under developed

Even the USA and Japan suffer fatalities from earthquakes, but no one describes them as under developed because of it

Reply 7

Match25

The UK (especially London) basically stood still when it snowed for 2 days, does that mean that we're living in an undeveloped country?

Reply 8

TheKunstMonkey

The south's not that developed, the mafia steal all the funds and such, and it's quite a backwards frontier (Generally speaking). I'd speculate at least someone died in some kind of earthquake in the rather developed San Francisco Bay, or in Japan or somewhere. When Mount Saint Helens exploded in 1980 America was pretty undeniably a developed country, yet 57 people died, and I think volcanoes are quite alot more obvious to spot than earthquakes (and the damage probably arrives abit slower).

Reply 9

NoHands

17

jburdett

This may seem like a very silly question, but in light of the fact that at least 207 people have died and 1,500 injured in the Italian earthquake, is Italy really a developed country, as it couldn't deal with an earthquake?

it happened is a very old village. The houses were all really old, not substandard, but made from stone/bricks with no real reinforcment. Im sure if the same magnitude earthquake struck bath, cambridge or even london hundreds of buildings would collapse.

Reply 10

NW8_SW1_EC3

Developed countries bribe mother nature to remove tectonic plates.

Reply 11

TheMeister

15

NW8_SW1_EC3

Developed countries bribe mother nature to remove tectonic plates.

That's right, I learnt that the other day - courtesy of OCR Geography. :rofl:

Reply 12

PeanutButterJellyTime

1

NW8_SW1_EC3

Developed countries bribe mother nature to remove tectonic plates.

You know too much. You must be annihalated.

Reply 13

Apparition

The northern region is more developed than the south although the shockingly rampant amount of corruption that plagues Italy is a major.

Yes, Italy is a developed country although it does face numerous problems as a result of corruption.

Reply 14

veggie4life

17

i give you hurricane katrina....

Reply 15

xx..SPOTTABLE..xx

i was thinking the same too

Reply 16

Champagne Supernova

21

Of course it is, the area didn't have adequate protection from such an earthquake. I don't blame it either, as considering the frequency of such a large earthquake compared to the costs of building adequate defences, I'm sure it'd rather take its chances.

Reply 17

burninginme

2

Italy is as developed as the UK, if not more so. If you look at the Human Developement Index, as compiled by the UN, Italy is frequently ranked significantly above the UK in terms of development and services.

Also, what on earth does the death toll of an earthquake have to do with a countries developement? They are unpredictable disasters and no one knows when they will occur, it's difficult to predict even within 10 mins.

If the UK had a major earthquake, I'm pretty certain the consequences would be much more severe. However, you seem pretty clueless.

Reply 18

burninginme

2

assmaster

North = yes
South = no.

Its country averages hide the south's poverty somewhat. (i.e. GDP is high in the north, low in the south, overall it's passable)

The south is certainly poorer than the North, but not enough to call it underdeveloped. The North of Britain is significantly less affluent than the South of Britain, would you call the North underdeveloped? To be quite honest, some parts of Glasgow are quite comparable to parts of Naples.

Reply 19

jburdett

OP

burninginme

Italy is as developed as the UK, if not more so. If you look at the Human Developement Index, as compiled by the UN, Italy is frequently ranked significantly above the UK in terms of development and services.

Also, what on earth does the death toll of an earthquake have to do with a countries developement? They are unpredictable disasters and no one knows when they will occur, it's difficult to predict even within 10 mins.

If the UK had a major earthquake, I'm pretty certain the consequences would be much more severe. However, you seem pretty clueless.

5 red gems, warning level 8.

The value of your opinion < used toilet paper.

Is Italy really a developed country?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you