Another great argument that fails completely. Disasters happen everywhere, all along the Gulf Coast with hurricanes, not just New Orleans, all along the East Coast with hurricanes (though not as often, still happens), all along the West Coast (again not as often, but still happens), all through the middle of the United States in Tornado Alley, floods happen all along any river or creek (which practically any city or town is near one), and blizzards and heat waves (heat waves!) kill people every year in the rest of the country.
Now tell me, where exactly should New Orleans residents move?
I, on the other hand, think that the city with the most still existing history of any city in the United States, is worth preserving. I think any city in America is worth preserving, because it is fucking America, no matter where you live. Get off your damn high horse and realize that.
Lived in Kentucky for 21 years and never came close to being the victim of a tornado, earthquake, or hurricane.
I agree with both of you:
They need to get the hell out for a week or two when these hurricanes hit, then come back.
I also think you're both wrong though. People can't just "move" whenever they feel like it, it's a huge financial decision that most people living there probably couldn't do even if they did want too.
But saying everywhere else is just as risky as living in New Orleans, a land mass that is quite a bit below sea level and a target for huge hurricanes, isn't true. There are other places that dangerous, but they're not as common as you're making it sound.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1776-3011
Nintendo ID: Valabrax
First off, I don't remember now where I read that New Orleans has the most nationally recognized historic landmarks of any city in the U.S. While New Orleans is certainly one of the most historic cities, a Google search doesn't seem to back that it has the most historic landmarks. New York City by far has the most, with 108. That's ironic, though, because New York City, along with New Orleans and Miami, is considered one of the top three cities to be at risk of major disaster from a hurricane.
I guess New York City residents should also fucking move already, Professor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyr
Lived in Kentucky for 21 years and never came close to being the victim of a tornado, earthquake, or hurricane.
First off, 21 years is not that long of a time in the grand scheme of things. I don't know specifically how in danger Kentucky is of disaster, but most people in the United States are at risk of some kind of disaster in their lifetime. The whole point is, where does Prof. S's line of thinking stop? Should the whole of the Gulf Coast be transplanted to Kentucky? What if some part of Kentucky is hit by a major river flood, should then all of those people near there be transplanted somewhere else? Where does that end? The line of thinking is ridiculous.
Quote:
I agree with both of you:
They need to get the hell out for a week or two when these hurricanes hit, then come back.
I also think you're both wrong though. People can't just "move" whenever they feel like it, it's a huge financial decision that most people living there probably couldn't do even if they did want too.
Another excellent point that I forgot to bring up. How exactly do all of the people in New Orleans and all the people in the surrounding areas that depend on the economy of New Orleans (one of the biggest and busiest ports in the U.S.) just get up, leave their lives, and move? Would you be able to do that, Prof?
Quote:
But saying everywhere else is just as risky as living in New Orleans, a land mass that is quite a bit below sea level and a target for huge hurricanes, isn't true. There are other places that dangerous, but they're not as common as you're making it sound.
Of course other places may not be as risky, but like I said, where does that line of thinking end? When we all live in one spot that is deemed the safest in the United States?
A better line of thinking is, how do we protect New Orleans? With all the engineering we have today, how can we just say, "let's give up and move"? Taking a good look at the Dutch Delta Works is a pretty good start for figuring out a solution. It is possible to protect the city, but backwards thinking like Professor S's and others keeps us from doing that.
I guess I can see both pespectives, but I personally think voluntary evacuation sooner is better than forced evacuation later. Maybe if I lived there I would feel differently, but I don't think so. Most suggestions for preserving the city are temporary at best, and it comes down the fact that monuments can be moved and businesses can be relocated. You can't rebuild or relocate dead families, and I don't think you can place the history of the dead over the existence of the living.
Mana, you need to get over yourself a little because I wasn't exactly trying to put together a thorough argument. It was mainly meant in jest, but you've been a bit humorless lately so I understand your reaction.
In all seriousness, no one is mentioning that New Orleans isn't merely a area prone to disaster, BUT ITS BELOW SEA LEVEL. There is a difference between sticking it out an inviting disaster.
As for just moving? Plenty did right after Katrina. They took the government money, and left, opening businesses as far away as New Jersey that I know personally (best po boys ever). Thats the main reason why the 9th Ward is still a disaster area... no one came back to rebuild it. They were the smart ones, and more should have followed their example with that government check they received.
I'm finding it very difficult to sympathize when it happens again, and I certainly don't want my tax dollars invested in an area that dares God to destroy it by its moronic location alone.
I know it doesn't feel good to say that people are stubborn idiots for living in a an area that invites disaster. I know it doesn't feel good to say that people should either abandon it or fix it themselves because it is a frivilous waste of money to maintain. But feelings have nothing to do with it, and mother nature does.
Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist about what humour is and what social function it serves. People of most ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are able to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a "sense of humour".
On a more serious note...while I don't expect everyone in New Orleans to get up and move, Katrina was a reminder of location location location. I think, especially over time, that people become less self aware of the inherent risk of disaster. Cali has earthquakes, the mid west has Tornadoes, Illinois has Tornadoes, Blizzards and is sitting on one of the most destructive fault lines, New York has tidal waves, and the list goes on.
So, the point is, if you live in a city below sea level don't be all that surprised when your shit gets flooded. Just like if my house gets hit by a tornado I won't be all that surprised. That said...people who could have evacuated but didn't evacuate deserve to drown and be looted, and Katrina hopefully motivated people to put some better evacuations plans into motion.
BOTTOM LINE: All the fucking jazz and shrimp in the world won't stop a city that is under sea level from flooding during a powerful hurricane.
Mana, you need to get over yourself a little because I wasn't exactly trying to put together a thorough argument. It was mainly meant in jest, but you've been a bit humorless lately so I understand your reaction.
In all seriousness, no one is mentioning that New Orleans isn't merely a area prone to disaster, BUT ITS BELOW SEA LEVEL. There is a difference between sticking it out an inviting disaster.
As for just moving? Plenty did right after Katrina. They took the government money, and left, opening businesses as far away as New Jersey that I know personally (best po boys ever). Thats the main reason why the 9th Ward is still a disaster area... no one came back to rebuild it. They were the smart ones, and more should have followed their example with that government check they received.
I'm finding it very difficult to sympathize when it happens again, and I certainly don't want my tax dollars invested in an area that dares God to destroy it by its moronic location alone.
I know it doesn't feel good to say that people are stubborn idiots for living in a an area that invites disaster. I know it doesn't feel good to say that people should either abandon it or fix it themselves because it is a frivilous waste of money to maintain. But feelings have nothing to do with it, and mother nature does.
Its called common sense.
I know your argument, you've made it before here and I've heard it before from several other people. And until you respond to my criticism of your argument, you're just repeating yourself.
Yes, I am mostly humorless on the subject of New Orleans and the rebuilding of the city. Your lack of care (and others like you who think it's such a simple answer) for a major and historic American city baffles me. And it's the same thinking that causes the federal government to drag its feet on supplying the money it agreed to supply.
What if this were New York City? Or what if it were your city that was destroyed by a failure of a federal levee system? Think you don't have any levees? If there is a river nearby, chances are there is a federal system of levees to help keep it from flooding the area. Now what would you do if the federal government failed to upkeep those levees and thus a storm that the levees were supposedly designed to protect against failed and left your town destroyed? TOO BAD, it was your moronic decision to build your city near a river! Just move somewhere else!
You say New Orleans is different because it's mostly below sea level, but the only difference is a higher risk. What risk is acceptable to you, then? Who gets to decide that?
The fact is New Orleans is able to be protected. And the cost of building a system of protection for New Orleans is a literal drop in the bucket, about $10 billion. The Dutch Delta Works cost an estimated 5 billion euros, about $10 billion. Compare that to any other system of levees across the United States, or the estimated $3 trillion by the Washington Post that the Iraq War will end up costing. Little wonder why people in New Orleans think the federal government doesn't care about its own people.
Quote:
BOTTOM LINE: All the fucking jazz and shrimp in the world won't stop a city that is under sea level from flooding during a powerful hurricane.
This is simply not true (assuming you're being serious beyond the joke). Yes, some flooding will always happen, but building a protection system to keep disasters like Katrina from happening are easily possible.
Mana, your comparisons are beyond stretches. I already stated that there is a difference between sticking it out and tempting fate. My points rebutted yours, and I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I did target my comments at yours.
Mother nature is a fickle bitch, and one that is irresistable when it threatens. Time and nature erases anything that we attempt to achieve in overcoming it, and out best bet is to invest in areas that make the most sense. Below SEA level beside the SEA doesn't make the cut I have the same argument about Tornado Alley. Once again, reality doesn't care about NO's history and whether or not it sounds good. Reality does what it wants, and we are it's bitch.
And KG, if my post wasn't funny to you then its your loss, as I thought it was hilarious. And BTW, a very famous comedian made a lot of money based on humor like I posted:
Mana, your comparisons are beyond stretches. I already stated that there is a difference between sticking it out and tempting fate. My points rebutted yours, and I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I did target my comments at yours.
They are not beyond stretches, and you would agree that they are not if you studied up on the history of Katrina and what actually happened and the similar levee systems that exist throughout the U.S. And your points did little to rebut mine, in my opinion.
The reason I'm going on like I am about this is because you are an influential person here, and when you're ignorant on a subject it tends to breed ignorance. And that's not just here, this ignorance of Katrina seems rampant throughout the U.S. Notice I said ignorance, not stupidity, in case anyone takes that personally. I mean just a lack of knowing the facts of what happened.
I recommend for anyone interested to read more about Katrina and what really happened, to read this.
Well I read the article, and you are correct... N-O flooded because the levees broke... because its was built below a lake and a river and not JUST the ocean... SORRY. That doesn't excuse the city' existence... it only makes it all the more rediculous of a placement for a large amount of people. You're quibbling over small points. The point is New Orleans was doomed to disaster eventually.
I have an idea! Lets build a city at the bottom of the ocean, but make it watertight! When it eventually fails, lets just fix it all over again and act like it was the engineers and government that failed, and not the concept. Makes sense to me!
The arrogance of manklind never fails to amaze me.
The core of my argument still holds...
Does this make sense to you?
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 08-28-2008 at 07:31 PM.
Now Playing: ...Always playing: Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2:Episode One, Half-Life 2:Episode Two, TF2, EVE
Posts: 2,007
Re: An Open Letter to New Orleans Residents
Hahaha, thats such a dumb placement of a large amount of people. But I suppose most of the people living there dont have any common sense or else they would realize that they are below the sea level. I say let natural selection deal with everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manasecret
Another great argument that fails completely. Disasters happen everywhere, all along the Gulf Coast with hurricanes, not just New Orleans, all along the East Coast with hurricanes (though not as often, still happens), all along the West Coast (again not as often, but still happens), all through the middle of the United States in Tornado Alley, floods happen all along any river or creek (which practically any city or town is near one), and blizzards and heat waves (heat waves!) kill people every year in the rest of the country.
Yes, disasters happen everywhere, no one said they didnt. But this thread isnt about everywhere, its about new orleans.
I think that's a terrible way to look at it Combine. Yes, it's unfortunate and yes, I believe people should relocate. But you can't just condemn them for wanting to keep their roots.
They are not beyond stretches, and you would agree that they are not if you studied up on the history of Katrina and what actually happened and the similar levee systems that exist throughout the U.S. And your points did little to rebut mine, in my opinion.
The reason I'm going on like I am about this is because you are an influential person here, and when you're ignorant on a subject it tends to breed ignorance. And that's not just here, this ignorance of Katrina seems rampant throughout the U.S. Notice I said ignorance, not stupidity, in case anyone takes that personally. I mean just a lack of knowing the facts of what happened.
I recommend for anyone interested to read more about Katrina and what really happened, to read this.
I still think the heart of the debate is rooted in the fact that rebuilding efficient levees that can withstand the impact of a Category 5 hurricane will cost a lot and require a lot of upkeep and take a long time to finish. So, what's the debate? I think people want to know if it is worth spending all the money when an evacuation is just as practical.
People could build their houses out of reinforced steel in tornado valley. But they don't. When a tornado comes they go to their basement and tough shit up. People who live in the path of Mount St. Helens could reinforce their properties with a lava-stopping barrier, but that's not really cost-effective or practical.
I guess the real debate probably lies in the Is It Worth It vs. Is It Not Worth It argument. Also, as Professor S implied...
as T (time) approaches Infinity, Nature > Humans
[ T ---> ∞ , N>H ]
That is to say...over a period of time, nature ALWAYS beats humans. So, a levee system will be an initial investment upfront, plus the cost of repairs until the end of human existance.
Personally, I'd rather our government invest billions of dollars in an asteroid defense system. Me? I personally don't give a shit about New Orleans. I'm more worried about defending earth from an oncoming asteroid or comet...then we will really have problems.
An Open Letter to New Orleans Residents
Linear Mode
