Is one tragedy bigger than another?

Tragedy, like anything in life is what we make it. Its about perspective and attachment, which is why its difficult to have a discussion about "which is more tragic" with anyone.

There are those who feel the Paris attacks keenly, because it is within the realm of their understanding and connection. They may not feel the same way about an ecological disaster or humanitarian issues somewhere, because people seldom feel anything for something that they do not feel connected in some way with, whether emotionally or geographically.

Just as an example. Someone might understand that honeybees are dying out in their millions but have absolutely no interest in that fact. Make them feel some kind of affinity for the bees and you may get a reaction. Make them understand that they survival may actually depend on it, and bam, you have someone who is attached to a situation.

This may sound like a cold way to consider this question, but the reality is that we decide with our focus and attachment what a tragedy is.

MrBruno wrote: Just to keep you updated, now mud polluted the Rio Doce has now reached the sea, no one was able to avoid the progress of all this toxic debris, the actions were very slow and ineffective. Those affected are numerous and environmental inpáctos are incalculable.
To show how people have worship by foreigners, a tv station made a comparison with a disaster in the US in Buffalo Creek in 1972, but I think a very empty comparison, is like saying that technology in Brazil today is equal to the US in 1972. It is very sad to see such an oversight grandecom nature and life, the environment completely destroyed, dead animals everywhere and people out of work and homeless.

I'd go as far as to say that Mariana's tragedy can be equated to Chernobyl. The disaster essentially killed the river and its effects will be felt even 100 years from now. Several plants and animal species were extincted by the disaster, and thousands of people are homeless, living in hotels and in relatives' houses while they expect for a solution that won't come.

I consider this question every time I am asked to promote one cause or another for my company. First, I think it is important for me to make clear that I work for CBS, an international media giant that is responsible for choosing much of what America sees in the news media. As such, we are often TOLD from the top down which causes we are to promote or support. As examples, CBS heavily promoted the Red Cross Donation Text Codes following the earthquake and Tsunami in Japan, the earthquake in Haiti and Hurricane Katrina. We were told to encourage donations of cash, blood and goods. We ran stories about these tragedies ad nauseam for days. There were even 1-hour television specials dedicated to fundraising for relief efforts. And what coverage of Mariana? Nothing.

Sadly, it seems that death toll and proximity have a lot to do with the decision making. The more graphic and horrifying the event, the more likely it will be covered. The closer to home it hits, the more likely we are to talk about it, and not just in a geographic sense, but in a cultural sense as well. Americans tend to think of our allies in France and Japan as "like us" and therefore more important, when we should be focused on the HUMAN family as a whole. Sometimes it is easier to turn a blind eye until the tragedy lands in your own backyard. It really is disheartening sometimes.