posted
I'm watching the news tonight about New Orleans, especially how the levees have broken in several places, flooding pretty much the entire city. The N.O. mayor is saying that the water is not even going to stop rising for a while yet. But already, people seem to be talking about pumping the water out and cleaning up the mess.
My question is: Why bother?! This hurricane has dramatically proven already that the entire city was a disaster waiting to happen. So many of those houses are already submerged to their rooftops -- they're going to have to be completely razed. Other, taller buildings will probably have to be demolished because their foundations have been compromised, or the supports in the lower floors have been weakened. And that's not even considering the wind and impact damage from the hurricane itself.
I'm sincerely hoping that people will manage to emotionally grasp the scope of this disaster and realize that this is one of those few cases where it's not worth rebuilding in the aftermath. It's not just a matter of building a bigger, better series of levees to keep the water out... there's always going to be a bigger storm coming along to knock down what we build. And in the case of New Orleans, the potential for flooding is just far too massive, I think, to justify anything more than razing the buildings and moving the vast majority of the city to higher ground.
Am I the only one who's thinking along these lines? I know it's a huge undertaking, and I'm not the most experienced to make such a judgment myself, but surely I can't be alone in the belief that sometimes, we just have to let Nature win.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Except that the city is there for a reason, or rather a whole legion of reasons, historical and economic and, well, mainly economic, but anyway. There's always going to be a bigger storm, or earthquake, or volcano, or tsunami. Sure, in the long run New Orleans is doomed, but what isn't?
I mean, you sort of have a point, inasmuch as that entire region of Louisiana is dependant upon thwarting the whims of the Mississippi, which would much prefer a course divergent from its present one, but how do the costs of realignment compare to the costs current maintenance?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Florida's been struck by about five or six major hurricanes in just a little over a year. It's obviously a danger to people; it just sticks out into the Gulf of Mexico like a toreador shaking a red sheet at the hurricanes. We should abandon it also. Plus, it looks like a wang, and that's just not appropriate for children to look at.
Seriously, there's a lot that can be done to New Orleans to make it more resistance to hurricane damage. The Army Corp of Engineers could take a page from the 1900 hurricane that leveled and killed 5,000 on Galveston Island: raise the city. In fact, a good place to get the fill material would be Lake Pontchartrain; with a deeper Lake Pontchartrain, it can contain a larger amount of water generated by the surges and rain runoff.
That's on the grand, expensive side of matters. Let's just look at the current flooding. We have levee breaches on the 17th Street Canal. It's a small canal that runs through a neighbor and connects to Lake Pontchartrain. If the terminus of that canal had floodgates, the breach of levee would have just dumped a portion of the canal instead acting as a pipeline for the entire lake. Updated drainage plans, improved pumps, drain to the delta region and swamps rather than the lake, there's a lot of ideas that could be an improvement to New Orleans.
Will it make New Orleans perfectly safe? No, but no city on this planet is safe from some disaster. Buildings in California still collapse in earthquakes, but improved building materials and construction codes make it safer than it once was. It comes down to acceptable risk. Even with any improvements, the city will be another flood disaster waiting to happen. But for many people, it's where they want to live, have lived for generations, have built a community, and established an major economic center for the region. It's not just an easy thing to say "Abandon this area and leave", especially in light of mankind's desire to rebuild from destruction.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: ...no city on this planet is safe from some disaster.
The exception being, any city in Finland. Our ground doesn't shake or spit molten rock, our forests are too wet to burn and too cold to harbor deadly diseases, our rivers flood onto virtually empty plains, our storms are moderated by mountain ranges and alternating sea/land/sea formations in neighboring areas, and we have no mountains of our own to send lavines or mudslides to our cities...
Seriously, if we were to abandon our cultural ties to existing cities, shouldn't there be plenty of room to accommodate all of mankind in disaster-free areas? Most of inland Asia suffers from no malady save drought, which in turn is just a matter of technology. Evacuation of areas of high volcanic activity at least should be fairly feasible, given sufficient totalitarian means. Flood-vulnerable areas would be fairly easy as well. Broad climate hazards like monsoons are a different matter, of course.
A species that takes refuge in the safe inland areas of its planet would probably be a highly polluting or at least energy-consuming species, considering the imposed traffic and sustenance-infrastructure problems. It might still be a logical direction of development on the long run, though.
All the best to the people of the South. Here's hoping that one always gets as much advance warning... And has the means to get out of the way in time.
posted
Well, natural disasters. New Orleans does have a slightly better track record when it comes to, say, Russian invasions. And I do wonder what effects a warmer arctic will have on the Nordic countries in general.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, one has to remember that peak oil is almost upon us, and soon long-distance food transportation will be too expensive. When that happens, arable land will be at a premium.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"...surely I can't be alone in the belief that sometimes, we just have to let Nature win."
Yes, but who decides when it's one of those times? I mean, unless you know a place on Earth where we CAN beat the elements, that's like saying we should all go back to living in caves and wearing bear-skins. And those things itch.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It would be interesting to see how we would colonize another planet. We would have the technology to observe and plan where we would set up settlements before we even step foot on that planet. Of course, wherever there are valuable resources, the gains may outweigh the risks. Originally, New Orleans was a key port since it's at the mouth of the Mississippi. Obviously the risks were insignificant to the gains at the time. Now, I don't know if it would be worth it since it's not really a major port anymore.
As for disaster-free areas, IMO you'd have to abandon most of North America if you really wanted to be safe. Too many earthquakes, volcanos, tornados, hurricanes and floods. And there's that really pesky Super Volcano threatening us as well.
"The exception being, any city in Finland." Anyone care to aim an asteroid in the general direction of Finland?
posted
Yeah, but some places -- particularly those under sea-level -- are, I think, a bit more prone to this kind of shit then others. Like the idiots in California who build their houses on rockfaces that have a prediliction to sliding into the sea.
New Orleans is dead -- if you believe in divine intervention, Katrina was a warning: Get out, because it might get better temporarily, but it'll get bad again, and this time none of you who stay are getting out."
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay, I can agree that it's not up to just individuals to decide when it's appropriate to cut and run. I know that it IS possible to beat the elements like Cartman said, and like Siegfried said, there's few places on the planet that are safe from any disaster.
But I've got one more point that I didn't think to mention before: global warming. The Siberian permafrost is melting, the Arctic ice cap is melting, the Antarctic ice shelfs are shrinking... it's only a matter of a few decades before the entire sea level starts rising by at least a couple of feet. And when that happens, will any existing levee be enough? If it's only a few inches of additional water, that's one thing, but scientists are talking about the complete melting of the Arctic ice cap within 100 years, and that's going to disturb weather patterns as well as "just" raising the sea level.
Combining the problems of hurricanes, the flooding of the Mississippi, the diverting of the river, and especially the "bowl" effect of the terrain, it seems to me (at least) that the region is far too dangerous to have such a large city in that location. Most of it, I think should be moved -- like most of Galveston was moved to Houston.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I would so totally change the name of the place to Galvatron.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Our ground doesn't shake or spit molten rock, our forests are too wet to burn and too cold to harbor deadly diseases, our rivers flood onto virtually empty plains, our storms are moderated by mountain ranges and alternating sea/land/sea formations in neighboring areas, and we have no mountains of our own to send lavines or mudslides to our cities...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
