You are viewing [info]laeth_maclaurie's journal

Heathen Dawn - Hurricane Katrina and the Wages of Consumer "Culture" [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
laeth_maclaurie

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Hurricane Katrina and the Wages of Consumer "Culture" [Aug. 31st, 2005|07:44 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
[music |Therion- Asphyxiate With Fear]

Hurricane Katrina has signed her name across the face of the Gulf Coast.  Thousands are homeless, hundreds are missing and presumed dead, the very trappings of modern existence have been swept away and strewn across the landscape by the wrathful hand of Nature.  Fittingly, it is New Orleans, a perfect microcosm of the consumer "culture" gone mad which spawned the disaster in the first place, that the attention of the US and the world is now riveted to.

New Orleans, The Big Easy, City of jazz, miscegenation and the beads-for-boobs barter system.  Now, in a delightfully ironic twist of fate, it lies drowning in it's own filth and wracked by chaos as its negro community takes advantage of the storm's aftermath to steal television sets and other talismans of the cult of money.

The horror!  People living without electricity, at the mercy of Nature!  Of course, the government is rushing to rectify the situation.  And, as usual, private charities are cashing in on the parade of sympathy squeezed out of a well trained and socialized populace, ever ready to fork over their cash to a "worth cause" without every stopping to think whether the cause really is worthy.

Inevitably, in the rush to "Save New Orleans," things that should be painfully obvious are overlooked.  Namely, that New Orleans and all the places like it, traffic choked cesspools dumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, are the reason that hurricanes like Katrina are increasing rapidly both in numbers and in ferocity.  The West, as typified by New Orleans, long ago traded in an inheritance of greatness for the easy comfort of the automobile, the microwave and the television set (and through Western military might, this insane lifestyle has been forced upon the entire world).

This trade off has not been without catastrophic costs.  Biodiversity is sacrificed at every turn to fill empty souls with plastic dreams.  Human cultural diversity has likewise declined in the face of the spread of the consumerist money culture.  Everywhere we are fouling our own nest, turning our water to sewage and the air we breathe into a carcinogenic misama. 

And, the hydrocarbons from our automobiles and the power plants that light our homes and keep the boob tube running are turning the planet into a sauna.  Global warming means just that, global warming.  And this includes warming the waters at the surface of the ocean, which, as any idiot who has taken an intro atmospheric sciences course should be able to tell you, means more hurricanes.

But, of course, in our rush to pat ourselves on the back for our admirable pity and empathy, this truth will be lost.  Money will pour in and New Orleans will be rebuilt.  The city's cars and refineries will once again spew toxic sludge into the air, and the next hurricane will just be that much bigger (and come that much sooner).  And we'll only have ourselves to blame.

linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: [info]slackerace
2005-09-01 12:52 am (UTC)

(Link)

You know what? Fuck you. My family lives 60 miles away from this "perfect microcosm" as you call it, and they lost everything. Every fucking thing. I hope you suffer a great tragedy so that you can feel what it's like. Dick.
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-01 02:02 am (UTC)

(Link)

Then perhaps they shouldn't have built below sea level.

Common sense is a bitch, ain't it?
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-01 07:50 pm (UTC)

(Link)

New Orleans was below sea level when it was built, that's why it has always been surrounded by levees and dams. Not to mention that the draining of the wetlands to make room for the city's suburban growth is a major factor in the flooding. Those wetlands once provided a safety valve, a place for the water to go. But now they've filled them in and paved them over. The result? A city neck deep in flood waters and sewage.
(Deleted comment)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-09-02 02:38 pm (UTC)

(Link)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40752000/gif/_40752130_n_orleans3_inf416.gif
(Deleted comment)
From: [info]trisha2001
2005-09-03 03:23 am (UTC)

(Link)

When N. O. was founded it was a port town on the Mississippi River. The "town" consisted of the French Quarter. And that part was built above sea level. The rest of the town that sprang up over years and years. Was built on low lying land.

[User Picture]From: [info]slackerace
2005-09-01 11:35 am (UTC)

(Link)

They're not in flooded in. Do know anything about geography? New Orleans is 10 feet below sea level. I said they live sixty miles outside of the city. Mississippi gulf coast is 25 feet + above sea level. Sea level doesn't mean shit when you are dealing with 145 mph winds. Storm surge didn't cause the most destruction, the winds did.
From: (Anonymous)
2005-09-01 07:52 pm (UTC)

(Link)

145 mile an hour winds are stiff, for sure, but they're not enough by themselves to destroy "everything" as you claim.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-02 09:47 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Of course, but it takes a hell of a lot more than 145 mph to structurally damage most houses or apartment complexes.
From: [info]trisha2001
2005-09-03 03:30 am (UTC)

(Link)

I beg a differ. As an Ivan Survivor, and living 20 mile inland from the gulf. It wasn't the water that destroyed our home and many homes in our small community. It was the 145 mile an hour winds. Completely ripping roofs off. Collapsing walls. Blowing 100 feet tall oak trees over. I am talking homes made on solid foundations and of brick. The wind can and did flatten houses, business, schools,

May I ask what part of the country are you from? Have you ever been through a category 4 or 5 storm?
[User Picture]From: [info]scottopic
2005-09-01 04:54 pm (UTC)

(Link)

You're just dumber than a sack of hammers, aren't ya?
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-01 09:59 pm (UTC)

(Link)

"as a meteorology major, i'd just like to say on behalf of the science as a whole, that u cannot possibly sit there and blame the citizens of new orleans for this natural disaster."

Read again, I'm not singling out New Orleans as the cause of Katrina, but it is emblematic of the cultural defects that are contributing greatly to the marked increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes we have experienced in recent years.

"on a side note, thanks to the actions of human beings, the ozone layer is finally beginning to repair itself due to less polutants, so heating should be starting to stablize, if not regress."

The ozone layer isn't a global warming issue, it's a radiation issue.

"aside from that, any paleoclimatologist will explain to u that we are still coming out of an ice age and, as such, the earth is warming due to its own course of nature, and will continue to do so until the warming energy that is released form the melting of the ice caps and the change of climate that occurs runs out and the earth begins to col down again. ice ages form for cyclical climatic reasons and have for millions upon millions of years and, although global warming is a horrid thing and does tend to enhance/speed up the process, u cannot blame the course of human existence for the natural course of climate on this planet. if it didn't happen now, it would've happened eventually."

We're not coming out of an ice age, the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago, and the current climate change is a very recent phenomenon, and clearly linked almost solely to human causes.

"also, yes, global warming does change the environment and cause an increase in global heating and yes, warm water does assist in allowing hurricanes to form, but there are many other conditions which cause those types of storms to form, and i have spent countless hours studying how these types of storms form and analyzing equations that explain the behavior of said storms in the atmosphere, the dynamics of which i will not entertain at this time.'

Yes, but the natural factors HAVEN'T CHANGED, the only variable that has changed in recent decades (when we have seen a vast increase in the number and intensity of named storms) is human induced climate change. This isn't a mystery, and it is something that was predicted at least 40 years ago.

"all we can do now is try to help victims.'

Fine, get people food, water, medical care etc. But don't dump good money after bad by rebuilding a city so stupidly placed, or we'll just be rebuilding it again in a generation.


(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-02 09:53 pm (UTC)

(Link)

"the amount of storms is not increasing too drastically. the reason that we see more today per se is because we have the technology to see more of them today."

It doesn't take any technology whatsoever to record that a hurricane struct shore. Try again.

"the ozone layer absorbs much shortwave radiation from the sun, which then cannot reach the earth's surface and heat it, hence not as much long wave radiation can be released back into the atmosphere to cause the so-called increase in storms which u speak of. radiation is directly linked thermodynamically and dynamically to the climate of earth."

The ozone layer is of little real significance in surface temperatures, carbon dioxide levels are much more important, and these are increasing, not getting better.

Like I said, please try again.

"the last ice age just began to "regress" in the 1800s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Only by defining "ice age" in the broadest possible sense can you even begin to justify your statements.



From: (Anonymous)
2005-09-02 10:41 pm (UTC)

(Link)

accurate records of storm occurence did not begin to take place until world war 2.

sorry to break it to you, but aerosols and most pollutants generally tend to decrese surface temperatures due to the fact that they absorb longwave radiation that is released form the ground and reflect shortwave radiaiton from the sun. ergo, ozone is of significance. co2 may reflect shortwave, but it does not drasitcally increase the bad effects of greenhouse warming nor drasticaly decrease the good effect of the greenhouse efect. although higher today then they were 100 years ago, loking at ice core samples demonstrates that co2 levels have been found at even higher levels in the past, and not always due to volcanic eruptions since the most gas released within a volcanic eruption is h2o vapor.

instead of trusting an internet source not regulated by ams, noaa, wmo, nssl, or any other groups of the like, turn to sources that are experts on weather and climate.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-03 05:23 am (UTC)

(Link)

Higher carbon dioxide levels in the past doesn't make it safe to elevate them now. Such fluctuations are very likely linked to past mass extinctions, so fucking around with isn't in our best interests.

"accurate records of storm occurence did not begin to take place until world war 2."

So how can you even BEGIN to talk about 40 year "cycles" from less than 60 year worth of reliable evidence?

You're reaching honey, and it shows.

"sorry to break it to you, but aerosols and most pollutants generally tend to decrese surface temperatures due to the fact that they absorb longwave radiation that is released form the ground and reflect shortwave radiaiton from the sun. ergo, ozone is of significance."

Aerosols make up a minute portion of the pollutants that are released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (which RAISES surface temps) is far and away the most common pollutant.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-03 05:53 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Your classes clearly haven't helped you obtain knowledge or wisdom. Instead, you mindlessly repeat what shills for Big Oil would have you believe.
From: (Anonymous)
2005-09-03 08:47 pm (UTC)

(Link)

i don't support big oil or anyone associated with big oil. however, i do believe in logic and in interpreting the data as i receive it in my classes, and i'm fairly sure that i most likely am more educated in this field than you are.
[User Picture]From: [info]laeth_maclaurie
2005-09-04 12:54 am (UTC)

(Link)

If you don't see the connection between global warming and hurricane formation, then clearly you DON'T know more than me about the subject.

Plus, your classes are probably full of oil company sponsored disinformation.
From: (Anonymous)
2005-10-12 09:41 am (UTC)

Wikipedia.

(Link)

Wikipedia is technically not a very valid source.
[User Picture]From: [info]sonic_integer
2005-09-07 01:09 am (UTC)

(Link)

touche...
From: (Anonymous)
2005-09-01 04:02 am (UTC)

(Link)

I'd read just a wee bit more about buddhism if I were you fine gent.