Regards the flooding in the American Midwest...

Why is it flooding?

 

It is raining more than the historical average, a result of global warming (according to a report from the WHITE HOUSE, not a souce you'd expect to be using that explanation!).  Water is the slave of gravity, the river is the lowest point to flow to, and it filled up!

 

One reason it filled UP is that it is confined by levees and can't simply flow WIDER when there is flood, it flows HIGHER...therefore, the flood is causing extensive economic damage because LEVEES are FAILING (partly due to the higher pressure they experience when the water is higher...it seeps in more easily!)

 

Here's HUMAN technology at it's finest and a great example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences"...

 

We decided that the river needed to be "controlled" (so property owners nearby would not be flooded every year, and their plot wouldn't be under the river itself over the course of time and farmers could predict when to plant and not worry about flooding, and the river would have a "channel" for freight traffic that is predictable and dredgeable, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

We kept it from meandering with levees, which did control the flow...for a time.

We built cities nearby, below the level of the river, since we were protected by the levees.

We increased CO2 levels, and that caused more rain.
Water, the slave of gravity, seeped through the levees, they failed, and all those nice cities went down the toilet, so to speak. 

(and more rain is falling, and more cities are at risk, and summer hasn't even started!)

 

It would be compelling, as a "B" movie, if it wasn't so sad, as Reality...

 

The reports on TV include the title "Fighting the Flood"...a fascinating perspective - HUMANS MUST FIGHT NATURE, even though we caused the flooding in the first place.

 

That is exactly what Humans have done since there have been humans, we use our culture to FIGHT nature!

 

Just another reason not to have kids...since it is fairly obvious that one cannot trust decisions humans make regarding "controlling nature" with technological "fixes" to problems that maybe weren't problems to begin with.

 

Greed, and laws greedy people created to protect their "private property" at public cost, appears to be the rule instead of the exception. 

 

By the way, Sacramento California and environs have levees too.  http://www.safca.org/floodrisk/index.html 
The amount of food grown there (in the "shadow of the river") is between 5 and 10% of the ENTIRE agricultural output of the USA!  If you think higher energy prices have caused high food prices, just wait until those levees fail...it won't matter where in the world you live, your food bill will be SIGNIFICANTLY higher...

 

LET'S NOT BAIL THEM OUT THIS TIME.

MOVE THE CITIES AWAY FROM THE RIVER.

LET IT FLOW AS IT WILL.

DON'T TRY TO CONTROL THE MEANDERING, IT RENEWS THE FERTILITY OF THE LAND, ETC. ETC. ETC.

LET THE FARMERS and other economic interests SORT IT OUT EVERY YEAR...

 

Ain't gonna happen, they are already throwing billions at the perceived problem ("We need better levees!") which simply demonstrates our COLLECTIVE INSANITY - Let's do what we did before, "control the river", since that's what we did before...and we know how to do that.  No need to inconvenience any VOTERS with a mandatory move 10 miles away...we must rebuild where we were, It's Our Heritage! (and we're PROPERTY OWNERS (as though a human can own part of the planet, what a concept our entire economy is based upon!))

 

I don't think it a good idea to rebuild New Orleans either, but, not many listen to me.

 

Happy Solstice All!

Hi Hal and All

First of all, Frish, I don't have any kids.   (THAT'S THE BEST ANYONE CAN DO TO SAVE THE PLANET, WELL DONE HAL.)

Secondly, I prefer "rosy" optimism to the do-nothing, wring your hands, we're all doomed pessimism you seem to advocate.

(Okay, not sure I adovocate do nothing, besides don't have kids...I had a rather dramatic suggestion re: TRUE COST ACCOUNTING that has yet to be discussed for example...I just would caution that the unintended consequences of our technology, has, so far, been the engine of our distress...what safeguards COULD be in place to avoid that in the future?  NONE!  That's because we've never been able to predict what results from a new disruptive technology (anything planet saving will definitely be disruptive!))

 

If we follow the logic of your position, then why not have kids? What difference can it make? There's nothing we can do to improve things, right, except maybe junking every bit of progress made since the Pleistocene and pretending to be cavemen instead, so we can once again have the joy of struggling for every scrap of food, struggling not to be someone else's food and dying at the ripe old age of 40.

(First, if one knows the future consequences are as I believe they will be, having children is immoral.  And, even way back then (I have an Archaeology degree, by the way, I am a Scientist!) we were doing detrimental things to the environment, we've been a stressor for a long long time, we're just lucky enough to be here near the end.  Our disruptions today, thanks to technology and 6+billion individuals conspire to be PLANET CHANGING, not like 6000 years ago.)

 

The technology that you deride gave us the information we needed to see how we are damaging the environment. Yes, I agree, technology alone won't save us, but without it we don't have a chance. We could develop a green technology that won't come from magic but from science( You're a Bright. Don't you accept the scientific method?) There's little scientific basis for your pessimism, just a philosophy, just like it's obsolete philosophies of politics, religion and economics that holds us back from changing our ways for the better, along with an obsolete understanding of what "self-interest" means. Science, and the clear thinking that comes from it, and technology can help us, not hurt.

(Okay, science and clearly thought technologies got us here Hal.  Excuse me...I'm being realistic not pessimistic at all.  We DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK TO ARRANGE OURSELVES TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE.  (that's my scientific opinion).  Humans have no RIGHT to be forever on the planet, we'll go extinct eventually, but, in my opinion we DON'T have the interest in saving ourselves, it is too damn uncomfortable to do what needs to be done...and people continue to go along without a care, since it wasn't so bad yesterday, perhaps tomorrow will be just as fun!  Even with the wonders of science, what will get the individual human (worldwide) to act properly, since HUMAN BEHAVIORS need to change too.  Our social structures do not "evolve" as fast as our technologies, and human nature being what it is, won't easily be changed to support the goal.  But, perhaps the idea of totally totalitarian means to "save us" aren't something you'd find adverse, if only humans can survive.  That's what it will take, and that's my prediction for what will happen, eventually, when the debate society surrounding the science actually settles down to fix the problem...and the evidence of our abuse becomes more visible.)

 

A great deal of the problem (from a motivation of change of human behavior point of view) is that what we've ALREADY DONE in terms of CO2 emissions hasn't been noticed much yet, since natural buffering systems have soaked up much of our excesses.  Much more dramatic effects, OF OUR ALREADY EMITTED GASSES, will become evident, over time, which will do much to get people's attention.  But, in my opinion, you are correct, we are ALREADY DEAD MAN WALKING, therefore, don't have kids so fewer people suffer at the end.  That's why no one should pro-create, to reduce human suffering at the end, it's the only moral choice.

 

From Hal who wonders what your Bright friends think of VHEMT.

(I wonder that too!  Some get it, some don't!)

Hal, the interesting thing is that you agree that the world is MESSED up, since you pine for a technological Eureka Moment! 

 

You HOPE that technology and science will somehow pull a rabbit out of a hat, and, given human ingenuity and our talent for technology you may well be correct...I'll HOPE so too, but I seriously doubt we can be successful...we don't know enough about ALL the planet's systems and therefore "fixing" something will have unintended consequence, almost by definition.  (The really great thing is that we don't have enough TIME to even study what needs to be done, since we're continuing to disrupt things, at an increasing rate (how many coal fired energy generation plants are being built in China?  Something like 20 a month or some ridiculous rate...)).

 

Here's a thought:  gunpowder originated as a means to entertain via fireworks...unintended consequences followed...

 

I see our views as a matter of degree, not type, so thanks for agreeing with me on the base case, glad to continue our debate on possible "solutions".
--
Cheers,

Frish