What I haven't seen explained is what exactly needs to be rebuilt? If someone has nothing, and there is an earthquake, exactly how does billions of dollars restore nothing?
Or because of this earthquake the world should build their infrastructure for free?
Hospitals, prisons, drinking water distribution, sewage, housing, electricity, police stations, firefighting capability. Is this a trick question?
Haiti didn't have nothing; it had a very crappy version of most things.
Charge Haiti whatever you'd like to build a basic survivable level of civilization. They'll never pay, but that doesn't matter. The alternative is Somalia in the Carribean.
I think it is a reasonable question. There are plenty of places without drinking water and sewage infrastructure of any real note. Why then does this earthquake mean that we should fix Haiti's water/sewage. Why not fix Somalia's instead?
Given the comments about Haiti's resources it seems it should be quite rich monetarily, certainly enough to pay for the rapid construction of Hospitals and the like. Yes, we'd want to help with skilled workers if sufficient don't exist locally for the timescales sought.
I don't think (hope) that the parent is saying we shouldn't help Haiti, just asking why only help them or help them in preference to others that are suffering as much.
Well, the point is that we can't have the attitude that we help everyone or we help no one. In the case of Somalia, there is political turmoil there that could (hopefully) be avoided in Haiti if we help sooner than later.
FWIW I was defending the asking of the question, questions are good, not for lack of an answer which would have been a mix of those answers here for sure.
Most pictures show the human suffering, but there are a few that show the destruction to infrastructure. I wouldn't say "nothing" is the right word for what Haiti had, but it's a good description of what's left.
Or because of this earthquake the world should build their infrastructure for free?