Obviously, that question is so rhetorical in many ways. First world countries enjoy more stable economies, better support systems, provide more opportunities for their populace, and feature superior infrastructure.

But perhaps, if we view things using a more human perspective, the answer may not be so clear after all. Here’s a brief summary of what happened in Mumbai, India, after record-heavy rains:

The torrent showed the best and the worst about the city. Hundreds of people drowned. But unlike New Orleans after Katrina hit, there was no widespread breakdown of civic order; though police were absent, the crime rate did not go up.

That was because Mumbaikars were busy helping one another. Slum dwellers went to the highway and took stranded motorists into their homes and made room for one more person in shacks where the average occupancy is seven adults to a room.

I totally understand what the writer felt while he wrote that, because I’ve experienced the same random acts of generosity here in the Philippines. When my car stalled because of heavy floods, people immediately helped me push the car out of the water, which was knee-deep. I witnessed a snatcher cornered by people working together on the street, who forced the thief to not only return his ill-gotten goods, but to apologize to the victim as well.

No doubt the article’s impression of what happened in New Orleans after Katrina left out some uplifting anecdotes. And it’s definitely bad that the citizens have gotten used to the inefficiency and incompetence of their institutions. Yet I like to think that this also makes us accept disasters better, and take them in stride. Instead of raging against life and its unfairness, we’d rather help one another out.

It could be ironic that the constant disappointment found in the third world may actually make it easier to be happy. Just ask the Filipinos who continue to smile after disaster takes away everything they have.