tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post301181198109963273..comments2023-12-30T07:04:30.897-05:00Comments on <b>Life at DrTom's</b>: Does the existence of New Orleans make ecological sense?lifeatdrtomshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07303447463058689011noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post-83711313487145594442011-11-29T18:18:53.902-05:002011-11-29T18:18:53.902-05:00Well said, Tom, pretty hard to compare this to thi...Well said, Tom, pretty hard to compare this to things we CAN easily prevent!Being from Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes, it becomes OBVIOUS that water will always win! Normally, anywhere there are swamps there is a chance of 'unsettled foundations' that man cannot tame. It seems like banging your head against the reality of rock makes as much sense as fighting Mother Nature! I say build New Orleans inland and perhaps sculpt the coastline, but DON'T live there!Zadabeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post-22915685056063443762010-05-02T13:54:55.435-04:002010-05-02T13:54:55.435-04:00Sorry, I think you missed my point, I was probably...Sorry, I think you missed my point, I was probably unclear. The two examples are different, clearly. Instead I was focusing on the argument: that (a) we can't prevent x from happening, therefore (b) we should not waste time/effort/money etc. on prevention but instead (c) should do something else, such as mitigation/adaptation. <br /><br />Your example in the second comment ("New Orleans could be rebuilt 10 or 20 miles inland") would be an example of doing something else, i.e., an example of mitigation/adaptation through investing differently.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post-33307581246807192512010-05-02T13:11:20.908-04:002010-05-02T13:11:20.908-04:00I don't see the two examples as the same at al...I don't see the two examples as the same at all. We have only one planet, so we have no choice, IMO, from fighting against the effects and causes of global warming. New Orleans could be rebuilt 10 or 20 miles inland and avoid the entire scenario. Of course, I am assuming that the repeated destruction of that city has a probability of 100%, in its current location. <br /><br />It is like someone complaining to me that every time they jump off a 2 story building, they break their leg. My advice is to stop jumping off the building. Don't build cities at or below sea level on the coast, don't build on floodplains of rivers, avoid construction on known major earthquake fault lines, etc.lifeatdrtomshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07303447463058689011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post-63125375910468488102010-05-02T12:29:36.250-04:002010-05-02T12:29:36.250-04:00Tom, you realize the logic of your comment is the ...Tom, you realize the logic of your comment is the same logic that climate "lukewarmists" employ to argue against taking drastic steps to cut carbon emissions now? i.e.:<br /><br />"Can humans prevent [climate change] from occurring within the next century. I think no. So let's cut our losses and make smarter choices as to where to [invest now]."<br /><br />This is the argument made by neo-classical economists such as <a href="http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~mshannon/Nordhaus_on_Stern_050307.pdf" rel="nofollow">William Nordhaus</a> and by climate change "skeptics" (or "lukewarmists") such as <a href="http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/?PHPSESSID=307db5c160b24d372d349ab245c9c34d" rel="nofollow">Bjorn Lomborg</a>.<br /><br />Just strikes me as odd, that's all. Not sure your New Orleans argument works all that well, without some kind of auxiliary premises to do more of the normative heavy lifting.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post-56518302056387286672010-04-21T13:17:12.472-04:002010-04-21T13:17:12.472-04:00My basic question is this: can humans prevent the ...My basic question is this: can humans prevent the ocean from flooding the city again within the next century. I think no. So let's cut our losses and make smarter choices as to where to develop.lifeatdrtomshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07303447463058689011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3282914367983132683.post-62991101138031437802010-04-21T12:52:31.511-04:002010-04-21T12:52:31.511-04:00Well, if you were actually to consider the past, y...Well, if you were actually to consider the past, you might come to understand just how important it is that there is a major port city at the mouth of the Mississippi. The native Americans realized it, the French, the Spanish...<br /><br />What I'd love to see is a couple of Yats head down to the river and string a section of anchor chain across. Then we'll see pretty quick just how important this nations values what comes and goes through New Orleans!<br /><br />It's not the City that s ecologically unsound, it's all the poorly engineered projects screwed up by our Army Corps of Engineers that are ruining the delta!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com