It’s such a shame that a state with such valuable natural resources is filled with people that just straight up don’t appreciate it.
Should we drain the Everglades?
121–126 of 126 posts
Re: Should we drain the Everglades?
#122what an odd clickbait type article, it goes over the history of people who previously wanted to do this. But mention there is no current effort to do so, and asking the question is irrelevant.
I was disappointed too. It was a topic of the 1908 election and the 1880's, not something people discuss now.
Re: Should we drain the Everglades?
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
“a few meters above sea level” is still not sea level. That’s a good 12-15 feet to work with.
Iirc, there are scientific estimates that Greenland's ice sheet alone would raise sea levels by 24 ft if it melted. 12-15 ft may really not be enough for very long.
Not to mention being 15 ft above sea level doesn't help if the shore keeps washing away. A lot of the houses being moved/abandoned on coasts now are above sea level, but the sea level is undercutting the cliffs they are built on.
Re: Should we drain the Everglades?
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not take much familiarity with the history of Mississippi flood control and the Army Corps of Engineers to realize how risky, fraught, and short-sighted the whole project has been. The delta's dying and the Old River Control Structure is one bad day away from diverting the entire river to the Atchafalaya. _The Great River_ by Boyce Upholt from last year is a good place to start learning about the Mississippi.
Or John McPhee's "Atchafalaya".
I'm currently reading Annals of the Former World. :-)
Re: Should we drain the Everglades?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leeches freak me out, I can't imagine swimming with (or falling on) the gators!
Why? That's like being afraid of mosquitoes. You can't even really feel a leech.
Umm, I'm hugely afraid to mosquitos: the biggest killer of people among all the world's fauna.
Re: Should we drain the Everglades?
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atheism isn't a religion and as an atheist I find that an offensive statement. Nature existed before we did and will exist after us, it can't be true that it exists for us.
> it can't be true that it exists for us You're saying it as if you assume some external entity judging whether something exists for somebody or not. As an atheist you would acknowledge that the entire concept of "existing for something/somebody" is entirely a construct of human mind, which human mentally applies to the observable universe around them. So for an atheistic human mind, everything exists for human, as t…
We're putting too much pressure on the word "for", here. There are no great truths to be found at this level of linguistic imprecision .