Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Earthquakes

“Earthquakes are often not natural disasters but are in fact human disasters” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (33 marks)

Reply 1

username2088165

Original post by J.Fitchford

“Earthquakes are often not natural disasters but are in fact human disasters” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (33 marks)

Hi, what ideas have you got for the answer so far? :smile:

Reply 2

J.Fitchford

Earthquakes are human disasters due to a high population density.
Earthquakes are human disasters due to a high level of development.
Struggling on how earthquakes are a natural disaster

Original post by Leviathan1741

Hi, what ideas have you got for the answer so far? :smile:

Reply 3

username2088165

Original post by J.Fitchford

Earthquakes are human disasters due to a high population density.
Earthquakes are human disasters due to a high level of development.
Struggling on how earthquakes are a natural disaster

Yep! You could also discuss social and economic factors such as differences in the type and varying properties of building materials being used, building structure, quality of infrastructure and communication systems, level of earthquake preparedness etc :smile:

Reply 4

ThatOldGuy

0% of earthquakes are human-caused disasters.

Do you mean sinkholes?

Reply 5

Plagioclase

Original post by ThatOldGuy

0% of earthquakes are human-caused disasters.

Do you mean sinkholes?

“Earthquakes are often not natural disasters but are in fact human disasters” is a completely reasonable statement.

Reply 6

anosmianAcrimony

It depends on whether a natural disaster is one caused by nature or one that happens to nature, and whether a human disaster is one caused by humans or that happens to humans. So far as I know, earthquakes are a naturally-occurring phenomenon that have an impact on humans but aren't caused by humans (outside of the odd fracking-induced tremor I guess). But I'm no geologist.

Reply 7

ThatOldGuy

Original post by Plagioclase

“Earthquakes are often not natural disasters but are in fact human disasters” is a completely reasonable statement.

That is cautiously true, so long as you're saying that humans are the recipients of the disaster. In that case, putting 'Not a natural disaster' is just untrue - It is both a natural disaster(Caused by natural forces) and a human disaster(Involving humans).

Reply 8

Plagioclase

Original post by ThatOldGuy

A disaster is by definition anthropocentric. Large earthquakes occur constantly away from human populations yet they're clearly not disasters because they don't affect anybody.

Reply 9

ThatOldGuy

Original post by Plagioclase

A disaster is by definition anthropocentric. Large earthquakes occur constantly away from human populations yet they're clearly not disasters because they don't affect anybody.

Yes. So why bother calling it a 'human disaster' rather than assume it involves human? You don't call it an 'Earth disaster' despite the fact that every single disaster we see is terra-centric. The term 'disaster' implies it, as you say.

Reply 10

idk01

One good evaluation point to make would perhaps be nature and human activity working collaboratively to cause an earthquake. For example, fracking is known to cause minor earthquakes and tremors; if this was to occur along, for example, a fault line, or a particularly weak part of crust, or an area that is known for frequent earthquakes, it may lead to a 'disaster'.