Poll: If the Haiti quake had happened in your home country would it be considered worse?

[Kif]

In answer to the subject line, yes, absolutely... for 2 reasons.

The first reason is pretty much as you've stated and it has been proven in history, if you ask a lot of people what the most powerful earthquake in American history was they would likely say the 1906 San Francisco one. However, it was not, it simply has the most notoriety because of its location. Alaska has the largest recorded earthquake in American history. I know it's not technically the same, the amount of damage was far greater in San Francisco than in Alaska, however, I think the fact that people are misinformed about the magnitudes implies people would consider an earthquake in a wealthy country far more devastating.

Secondly and far more jovially given that I live in the UK where small tremors are considered crazy a big earthquake would become world news simply for the lack of geological reasoning and the sheer bafflement it would cause for geologists.

In answer to your post, no. There would not be such a world wide effort to provide help, there would likely be an internal effort, but generally I think because the country could cover itself it wouldn't be expected to call out for aid.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

If it happened in America, no one would care.

 

[NuclearPenguin]

If it happened in my country it wouldnt be called the Haiti quake now would it?!

 

[Cherry Cola]

I don't think as much help would even be required.

But it's probably true that they would gain more help.

 

[SquirrelPants]

Yes, it would be worse. If it didn't happen to me, I'd have to listen to the constant patriotic complaining, since my country is just into that or something, and if it did happen to me, I'd be dead or dying.

To be completely honest, I don't care that an earthquake happened in Haiti. I'm still safe and that's all that really matters to me.

 

[Wilbot666]

If it happened in my country it wouldnt be called the Haiti quake now would it?!

Now that's just not cricket Nuclear, although I did chuckle at it.

More seriously though, I think Kif (2 posts ago) has the right idea. It's all about perception in some ways, not damage control.

 

[stabnex]

This is all moot. Earthquakes have hit wealthier countries before and they took care of their own asses most of the time. Only difference now is that we have a sympathetic leader who actually gives two shits about his fellow man unlike that cold hearted bastard George W who wouldn't even lift a finger to save one of his own damn cities when it was washed out to sea.

 

[Kollega]

I rather think it happens in reverse - the wealthier the country, the less aid it gets. The situation in Haiti is outstandingly bad, and it provokes empathy. Did U.S. get buttloads of foreign aid when Katrina struck? Don't think so.

As for my country - no. My country is the last target for natural disasters there is. The world would be too confused and baffled by it to actually help. LOL

 

[silasbufu]

No it wouldn't . People from USA or UK for example , are not more important than people from Haiti.

 

[Wilbot666]

This is all moot. Earthquakes have hit wealthier countries before and they took care of their own asses most of the time. Only difference now is that we have a sympathetic leader who actually gives two shits about his fellow man unlike that cold hearted bastard George W who wouldn't even lift a finger to save one of his own damn cities when it was washed out to sea.

Look, my intention wasn't to turn this whole question into a debate about which is the better president (although Obama's certainly looking better than Bush in the international media, I don't know what it's like on US TV) but from what you've said here I gather I was on the money when I said that the government took forever to help out the victims of Katrina?

 

[Slash Dementia]

Honestly, I think I would consider it worse, though not because it is, but because it's happening to me. Things look different if they happen to someone else; they don't look as bad because we're not living it.

 

[Abedeus]

Mmm... no.

Poland is in the non-seismic area of Europe. The only quakes we get are anthropogenic, in the mountains or mines.

 

[havass]

Nah. Singapore will never get an earthquake. for us to get an earthquake, malaysia or indonesia would have to get it first.

 

[oppp7]

I think the Americans would be more upset, but everyone else wouldn't care much.

 

[havass]

The recent massive earthquake in Haiti has been devastating to the population there.

My question is do you people think that if it had happened in a Western (read "more wealthy") country, rather than a poverty stricken island nation, that international aid would be more forthcoming?
If it was a country that was more of a producer, would the rest of the world be more interested in saving the malaised population?

Well if its in a developing country then it'd be harder to get aid across isn't it? If it was america they would already have all their aid stationed there to help. Its not so much about people caring, but about accessibilty.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

The aftermath of Katrina wasn't handled very well. In a developed nation fewer people would have died as the buildings in Haiti where made out of inferior materials so they collapsed more easily.

 

[Wilbot666]

Well if its in a developing country then it'd be harder to get aid across isn't it? If it was america they would already have all their aid stationed there to help. Its not so much about people caring, but about accessibilty.

Maybe. I see what you're trying to say but wouldn't it be less about accessibility and more about having the (remaining) infrastructure necessary to make sure that any aid available gets distributed fairly? The fights for food in Haiti have become pretty notorious already and that's less because of a lack of resource than it is about strongest taking all.

People can get to the food lines, but unfortunately that doesn't mean that they'll get their share.
I'm not saying you're wrong by any means, but a country like the US has that infrastructre (ie. troops police etc) guaranteed. Haiti doesn't.

 

[The Last Nomad]

To the OP, the Title and poll are kinda 2 different questions, and heres my answers:

No.. I don't think so... Haiti was one of the poorest places in the world... people were already in need of help before the quake hit...
So i think it wouldnt have been considered worse if it hit Ireland... (or other western countires) because we would have had money to help ourselves.
But we would have received aid I imagine, and probably quicker than Haiti too.
So I assume that answers the 2 questions...

But if an earthquake did hit Ireland, most of the world would be very confused as Ireland doesn't lie near any plate boundaires, nor are there any active volcanoes, or anything else that could cause an earthquake.

 

[Yuzzi]

If an earthquake hit Finland, the next day Fox news, and probably some other news channels would be full of stuff about Finns being depressed alcoholics. But actually on topic, probably yes.