The article explores the complexities of urging people to leave during crises like California's wildfires. It emphasizes that the reasons for staying—such as family, comfort, and love—are deeply rooted, making leaving anything but simple. Evacuations are fraught with loss beyond physical homes; they include community connections and cherished belongings. The author calls for a deeper understanding of these emotional ties, highlighting that a safer place might not compensate for the intimacy of community. Expert insights on trauma add depth to the conversation about the psychological impacts after disasters.
When you ask it of people in bad romances or miserable careers, they can be forgiven for ghosting. The word just is the poison.
Is an actuary-calculated measure of safety from wildfires worth giving up intimacy and proximity to the people who make life worth living?
In demanding that people leave their homes, we may be asking them to leave the most important thing of all: their communities and their loved ones.
Practically speaking, people who experience disruptions after a disaster deteriorate the fastest.
Collection
[
|
...
]