Shpoop

I have a hard time beleiving that. Nature's disasters have always existed, and mankind has generally found a way to cope with them. There have always been fires, but before the "Mankind Civilization" we know today took hold, fires were a regular event and would only burn the underbrush and dead trees, and not grow into raging blazes that kill thousands. Native Americans could tell when hurricanes were coming, based on the activity of local animals, and knew to move inland, and deaths were always minimal. There was even a small town in Thailand on the coast, very secluded and ancient, where every single person survived. As soon as they felt the earthquake, they knew to move to the hills because a tsunami would ensue. The problem is when we see ourselves killing the forests, polluting the oceans, and developing wetlands and prairies, we think that we have conquered nature, and get a false sense of invincibility. Nowadays, instead of bending to nature, we expect it to bend to us, which just doesn't work. So, in conclusion, most of these natural disasters are really products of mankind anyways, or at least are greatly worsened by mankind.

point #2, which I've already made: even when it is as bad as this, mankind is worse

Let's assume that the death toll rises to approximately 200,000, which is a reasonable guess. A generally accepted lower-end estimation of the death toll of World War II is 55 million. The tsunami is about 1/275th as large, or 0.36% as large as World War II. Again, I'm not trying to take away from the disaster of it, just stating that it pales in comparison with the horrors mankind is capable of. And even without the sheer numbers, it is still less tragic. I would rather drown than have to pick which of my children is executed first, watch him die, then watch the other die, and then finally die myself (holocaust).