A few questions (honest short answers please)

[Gwenick]

1. Do you think that its' human nature to find natural events (sudden weather changes, earthquakes, avalanches, storms, tsunami's, volcanoes) exciting?

2. Do you you think that when such things happen AND loss of life occurs it's wrong to admit how amazing nature can be?

3. Do you think it's wrong for somebody to write about the 'otherside' of people's feelings following a natural disaster - ie not focussing on the death and desctruction but focussing on people's amazement at nature

4. If you could stop ALL natural events such as - earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, avalanches, floods, droughts, landslides or tidal waves (even those where no loss of life occurs) would you?

My answers.

1. Yes I do - the things this planet can do without human intervention is simply incredible

2. No I don't. I think NOT talking about it is simply trying to hide the truth

3. No.

4. No I wouldn't, nature has always done this to our planet, if you stopped all of those things it wouldn't be our planet anymore!

Gwenick, i immediately assumed you were a journalist, or carrying out some kind of study when asking this question.

Am i right? If so i am glad to have answered your questions.

Are you asking them to cause a heated debate? If so, i do not wish to be part of it.

These comments about 'tactless' and 'tasteless' reminded me of a very sad event I once encountered when living abroad.

There had been heavy rains, and driving his son (one of the boys at the school where I was working) home from a rehearsal one evening his father had to cross a road that was starting to flood. He'd crossed it many times before while it was flooded so decided to do it again. Sadly the power of the water swept the car into the river, he survived but his son, Rory Small, died. Naturally he was over come with grief, but before, at and after the funeral he spoke about the 'awesome' power of the water and how nature often worked in a cruel, yet also incredible way.

This was the boys own father - talking about the power of nature - while grieving for his son. Was he being tactless and tasteless talking about such things soon after his son's death??? Or was he just acting on human nature???

Yes I know their entitled to their opinoin - but I don't like being told I shouldn't express mine!!! Which is what people are saying!!

Gwenick, I am going now

1)Not sure about the word "exciting" as that implies a good thing. Maybe "fascinating" more appropriate.

2. Not wrong to admit how amazing nature is as long as this doesnt take away from the sadness of what happened.

3. I do think people are entitled to say what they like but family has been affected greatly by what happened and will continue to be so more many years yet. I have no time for "amazement at nature" feelings. I'm amazed anyone has.

4. Where it affected human life, yes of course I would.

Why isn't now a time to discuss what human nature naturally makes people think? What A BRITISH attitude, - I've visited other forums from across the world and they're not afraid to talk about these things - because we're British we're not allowed to???

And no Fran - I'm not a journalist - someone ELSE posted the link to the article in the times. I added my opinion and was asked to move it elsewhere - which I have duly done.

Why the assumption we're all British?

Gwenick, people aren't saying you're not entitled to your opinion, they're saying you may find that some people feel it's inappropriate to ask these questions now. Which is fair enough.

Cut and pasted from Gwenick's post of 1st Jan 8.02.59pm

Quite honestly if you are being how you are being on here tonight then I don't find it strange at all.

We have feedom of speech, but I would hope that we would all have the taste and sensitivity to know when to use it. It would be singularly inappropriate to go to a funderal and discuss how facinating the disease was that killed the person. I think that most of us have the imagination to realise how 'impressive' nature can be without wallowing in the grief of others.

The right of free speech comes with the responsibility of knowing when to use it.

1. Yes. Just look at all those 'extreme weather' type programmes on channel 5.

2. It depends what you mean...my answer to no.1 is that I think it is natural for people to be fascinated by the power of nature, and also by disasters per se - witness all the books on serial killers etc. The fact that people find disasters titillating (the 'pornography of violence') doesn't mean that it is OK to go on about it as it is satisfying a 'natural' interest. So Yes, I'd say it was OK to say how amazing nature is, how awesome/aweful the power of nature is, how small and fragile it makes human life seem - but not to glory in it in a 'wow, OK so a few thousand people died, but hey it gave us some good TV pictures' kind of way. 3. I think this is OK - if the people quoted as being amazed by nature are the same ones who were affected by it. Eyewitness accounts of people who excaped their communities destruction command respect, and if their genuine reaction is 'well it was horrible but also kind of awesome' then fair enough. But I think the reaction of people watching from a distance and unaffected is fairly irrelevant and tasteless. 4. If i were God... well, I could only answer this one if i knew what the alternative was. As someone said further down, presumably these things are part of how our planet works, and stopping them could have far worse impacts. What we should do is put resources into early warning systems, coastal protection, earthquake-proof builidng methods etc, in all areas of the world not just in the rich west, and not just focusing on those areas which are more likely to affect the rich west.

ON the discussion this thread has generated, I'd like to say that I do think it is OK to ask and discuss such questions. WE shouldn't censor our curiosity and spirit of philosophical enquiry so as not to hurt hypothetical feelings. But it is important to ask the questions in a sensitive and 'academic' way, not in a way that implies that those who may be offended are being a bit pathetic. Its important to bear in mind that thousands of lives have been lost (though I agree we have an obsession with numbers - and that in newspaper terms 1000 lives in India equals about 1 life in London in terms of newsworthiness....), and to be sensitive in tone.

I can't tell you when the time would be right but when they are still finding bodies and people are in the most raw state of grief and want makes it the wrong time to be asking 'clever' questions like this.

I think HMB's analogy "It would be singularly inappropriate to go to a funeral and discuss how fascinating the disease was that killed the person" is a very good one, and she is making a lot of sense.

Gwenick, I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions like these, but I do think that it is too early, and you can't be surprised when people are offended.

Hmb - spot on. That has summed up how I feel too.

1. Yes, but excitement and amazement should be the most we have to suffer.

2. Nobody can question Nature's strength.

3. There is a time and a place for such stuff - consider the feelings of those who have really suffered.

4. No I wouldn't, in theory science is advanced enough to give us all "a heads up". It doesn't mean it will always happen that way.

Therefore my thoughts are with those who have suffered, not my entertainment value.

To be honest your questions are interesting, provoking and, at any other time, worth going into depth. However, right now isn't the time. Your tone is brash and not well placed, just like the very article that provoked this thread in the first place.