I basically have to parrot Glenn Reynolds’conclusion in his TCS Column about the aftermath of the Asian tsunami:

Over the longer run, of course, the best protection against catastrophes, whether foreseen or unforeseen, is a society that is rich enough, and diverse enough, to be well-prepared for all sorts of contingencies. Which means that economic growth, and the freedom that produces it, may be the best guarantor of safety for us all. A rich society can afford to worry about things that a poorer one wouldn’t have the resources to think about. A rich society can take steps to prevent disasters before they happen. And a rich society is better positioned to survive disasters once they occur, even if they are completely unforeseen, or unforeseeable.

Where survival is concerned, rich is better. That’s something to keep in mind when people describe economic growth as “anti-human.”

And James Joyner’s observation:

The combination of natural disaster, an island location, poverty, and government corruption is deadly. Even this level of earthquake would have inflicted substantially less property damage and loss of life in a developed area with proper construction.

“Heartless” as they may seem—as most post-facto analyses really are—these analyses all basically point out the same thing: rich (as Glenn calls it) or first-world or developed countries can handle the aftereffects of a natural disaster much better than developing countries can.

Glenn, however, misses the chance to underscore one perspective, one that he could have further emphasized with this sentence of his as a lede: Poverty, of course, leads people to live along the waterline in ramshackle housing…

Poverty on a national level, and the immediacy of meeting basic needs, leads to environmental destruction. For all the talk and doomcrying of American environmentalists against our technological advances, the running proof is that higher tech is more environment-friendly. The simplest example is in our petroleum use. Efficient engines, the products of technological advancement, produce less pollutants than inefficient ones.

A disaster like this, or that of the earthquake that hit Bam last year, underscore the stupidity of Rosseau’s Noble Savage ethos. At one point or another a society has to make sacrifices in its culture in the name of taking responsibility for its own progress, and its own safety. Rarely do I flat out say that some peoples’opinions are wrong, but those who think that universal impoverishment through redistribution, along with cultural preservation of back-asswards practices that ravage the environment in the name of “preserving cultural wealth,” have it wrong. We saw it yesterday in Thailand, Sri Lanka and India. We saw it earlier this year in the Philippines. Where will we see it again?