You’ve probably heard the saying,

“Pay the farmer or pay the doctor.”

The idea is simple: invest in prevention (the farmer), or brace for the costs of neglect (the doctor). Either way, we’re going to pay.

In disaster management, the “farmers” are investments in mitigation, preparedness, disaster risk reduction, training, exercising, research, and technological advancements like AI.

The “doctors”? That’s response, relocation, shelter, rebuilding, sky-high insurance premiums, injuries, and, tragically, loss of life.

There’s plenty of evidence that prevention costs less than response and recovery. Yet, most of our resources are channeled into the most expensive part of the cycle: reacting to disasters after they’ve already happened.

Why is that?

1. Optimism Bias

Humans are terrible at imagining worst-case scenarios. We convince ourselves that risks are lower than they really are.

We choose the cheaper insurance. The more affordable (but lower quality) food. The pain pill over the vitamin.

In disaster preparedness, it’s no different:

• “The bridge hasn’t fallen in 50 years—why pay for maintenance this year?”

• “We haven’t flooded in over 100 years—why invest in barriers, pumps, or new technologies now?”

But here’s the thing: historical data and our own biased memories are becoming terrible predictors of present and future risks.

In this age of disasters, betting on optimism isn’t just a bad idea—it’s a costly one.

2. Misaligned Political Incentives

Politicians rarely get rewarded for preventative investments. A bridge that doesn’t collapse thanks to regular maintenance? No ribbon-cutting ceremony there.

Big capital improvements often outlast political terms, so there’s little incentive to focus on long-term wins. The credit—and the photo op—usually goes to whoever shows up after the disaster to “save the day.”

3. Voter Behavior

Let’s be honest: voters reward disaster relief, not disaster prevention.

We love visible, immediate action. A politician wading through floodwaters or allocating millions for rebuilding looks heroic. But the one who budgets for flood barriers, stronger building codes, or emergency training? They’re less likely to get the applause they deserve.

This creates a tricky blend of accountability and irrationality in our democratic process. Politicians know this, and they focus on what gets noticed—short-term wins, not long-term resilience.

4. Short-term Costs vs. Long-term Savings

When budgets are tight, prevention feels like a luxury. It’s easier to justify spending on immediate needs—response and recovery—than on potential future risks.

But this mindset misses the point: investing in preparedness saves money in the long run. Research consistently shows that every dollar spent on mitigation saves at least four dollars in recovery costs.

We just need to get better at seeing beyond the next fiscal year.

Why This Matters

The truth is, we’ll pay either way.

We can pay the farmer—by investing in preparedness, prevention, and resilience—or we can pay the doctor, cleaning up the mess when disasters strike.

One costs us less, in dollars and lives. The other costs us everything.

So, What Needs to Change?

We need a shift in mindset. We need to prioritize the “farmers”: the strategies and investments that prevent disaster in the first place.

• What if we rewarded politicians who championed prevention instead of reaction?

• What if we built systems—like Preppr—that make preparedness easier, faster, and more accessible?

• What if we stopped relying on hope and started acting on data?

Because in the end, the choice is simple: pay now, or pay later.

But prevention, planning, and resilience will always cost us less.