Two weeks after Taal Volcano erupted in the Philippines, spewing toxic ash and smoke which overwhelmed the province in a blanket of grey, more than 376,000 residents have been cleared to return to their homes. Following the eruption, an evacuation zone had been enforced around Taal Volcano, with police and a security cordon blocking roads.
The evacuation came quickly, forcing residents to flee with no warning and cram into 257 evacuation sites, many of which lacked protective masks, medicine, and water. For most, fleeing meant losing everything, including the livestock and crops they depend on for their livelihood.
Earlier this week, the alert level at Taal Volcano lowered, enabling much of the evacuation area and thousands of residents to return home. The notice came with a caution that this "should not be interpreted that (the volcano's) unrest has ceased or that the threat of a hazardous eruption has disappeared."
With some of the mandatory evacuations lifted, tensions have eased, however this situation raises the question of the line between freedom and danger, loosely related to the ideas raised in Schenk v US where freedom of speech and national security clashed. What do you think? Should people have the freedom to decide to stay put even if it means putting themselves in peril?
Taking on a broader scope, the Taal Volcano situation is only one of many crises faced by those abroad over the past few months. With the rise of so many natural disasters, should foreign aid go higher on the US’s list of priorities?
3 comments:
I think it is right for people to choose whether or not they remain in a danger area or not, as long as all the potential threats have been broadcasted to the people. Since risk is a relative term, everyone can evaluate the actual risk they face in natural disasters like this one. However, people that don't have their full mental capacity should be ushered out of the danger area. There is also the issue of housing; it may be easier for more wealthy people to stay out of the danger area longer because they have money to pay for external housing. Thus, if the government subsidizes housing then people will have the full capacity to decide if they want to remain in their houses. In terms of the U.S. priorities list, I think that more focus should be put on foreign and natural disaster aid, as it is a larger issue now.
I agree with Shirleen, if the people know the risks of going into this evacuation zone, full of ashes and such, they should have their own choice. If they want to go back to salvage what's there, then they do so. US could help people in these situations go through and salvage what is left. We could support those in need there replenish their items. Will the US do this to our best ability? I don't think so. At least we have organizations try their hardest to help, like the red cross.
Like Shirleen said, I think that purely on the principle of freedom, people technically should have the right to choose to go back, optimally if they are informed of the dangers of doing so. However, I think this methodology could also see itself as being problematic. It's ultimately the job of the government to take precautions necessary to ensure the residents' safety, which makes me think that even if the dangers have seemingly quelled, national security should still be the highest priority. I can't help but think about the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, which resulted in the death of 57 people, many of whom stayed because the threat of eruption was arguably understated by both the government and news broadcasting the event. When it comes to natural disasters, the unpredictability of the situation is one of the most difficult factors to juggle on an individual and national level. For many of these people, it does mean losing everything, but I think at the same time, the government must acknowledge that the well being of these individuals is of highest priority, and potential danger at this scale is still incredibly immense, even if it's simply a possibility. It's better to be safe than sorry. Because of that, I think that it's also important that the US mainly prioritize assist those currently misplaced, and aid those who have, and will continue to be impacted.
Post a Comment