![harvey.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmXw7of7QRS3zysC4nrHbMh6dMLBaprcQNfQMwhusE5yTi/harvey.jpg)
(Hurricane Harvey)

I’ve got some upper management in town this week for work. We went out for lunch today and one of the guys posed an interesting question in regards to the current hurricanes in the southern part of the United States: 

Would it be better for more damage to happen to the already destroyed part of the country (the Houston/south-eastern part of Texas) or should the damage occur elsewhere? 

It took me almost no time at all to answer – it would be better for the damage to occur in the same place twice rather than spread out. For one, many of the people will already have to deal with severe damage from flooding. Another bout, while SUPER shitty, would simply ruin the same ruins a second time. 

Conversely, if Storm A hit one area and caused destruction while a Storm B hit a totally different area and caused destruction, then we’ve got two completely separate areas that have been destroyed rather than a single one. This necessarily leads to even more people being displaced and more structural damage due to flooding and crazy strong winds. 

Obviously, in an ideal world, most of us would rather not see either city destroyed by weather (or watch as its inhabitants are forced to deal with the loss of many of their possessions and possibly their lives). But, if you were given this same choice and had the actual control to make that choice a reality, which would you choose and why? 

![hurricane irma.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmasJDFuXevAW7EKozi6J1FsJGBTMRF1eKTaLriaFWoZnV/hurricane%20irma.png)
(Hurricane Irma)