Should they rebuild N O?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
No.

It would be far better and probably cheaper to start elsewhere, above the waterline.

Rebuilding NO is akin to rebuilding a homes where mudslides happen all the time.

NO was built over time. Time to move.

Move Amsterdam while you're at it. And Galveston. How about San Francisco since it's on a fault line. Hell, let's just relocate ever city somewhere else.

If you havent noticed, all those other cities are presently intact. Right now for practical purposes there IS NO N.O.

Now there will be a city in the general vicinity. If it is below sea level, we will have neglect of the levees or whatever is used to hold that water back in a generation or two. Witness now how the system failed, and that maintainence and upgrades haven't happened. Like previous generations, we WILL fail to keep up, because we do wars, social programs, everything except vital work because it's PORK. Oh, now it's not, but before when congressmen would try to get roads, levees, etc fixed, that is what is was called.

Every generation forgets. They don't learn. Consequently, if you insist on making some place below sea level it WILL be destroyed again, because in a hundred years we will all be dead and the future wont care. It's not like they can do anything anyway, because we built a whole city designed to flood in the long run.

Someone needs a good kick in the nuts, and get of this idiotic pride thing, and rebuild, but not there.

Nature WILL bite them, and whoever in this generation lacks foresight will be responsible. Is your ego worth that price?

 

[imported_Ant]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
No.

It would be far better and probably cheaper to start elsewhere, above the waterline.

Rebuilding NO is akin to rebuilding a homes where mudslides happen all the time.

NO was built over time. Time to move.

Move Amsterdam while you're at it. And Galveston. How about San Francisco since it's on a fault line. Hell, let's just relocate ever city somewhere else.

If you havent noticed, all those other cities are presently intact. Right now for practical purposes there IS NO N.O.

Now there will be a city in the general vicinity. If it is below sea level, we will have neglect of the levees or whatever is used to hold that water back in a generation or two. Witness now how the system failed, and that maintainence and upgrades haven't happened. Like previous generations, we WILL fail to keep up, because we do wars, social programs, everything except vital work because it's PORK. Oh, now it's not, but before when congressmen would try to get roads, levees, etc fixed, that is what is was called.

Every generation forgets. They don't learn. Consequently, if you insist on making some place below sea level it WILL be destroyed again, because in a hundred years we will all be dead and the future wont care. It's not like they can do anything anyway, because we built a whole city designed to flood in the long run.

Someone needs a good kick in the nuts, and get of this idiotic pride thing, and rebuild, but not there.

Nature WILL bite them, and whoever in this generation lacks foresight will be responsible. Is your ego worth that price?

New Orleans is still there.
I'm sure they'll learn to live with it as they gradually sink into the sea. I believe some of it is already at least 2m below sea level.

Look at Venice. Many of the buildings are into their second story. They just move around with boats.

I'm actually quite interested in seeing how long stupidity can last.

It's lasted a long time in The Netherlands. I'm getting a bit bored waiting for disaster there, although there aren't any real natural disaster threats every year.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
No.

It would be far better and probably cheaper to start elsewhere, above the waterline.

Rebuilding NO is akin to rebuilding a homes where mudslides happen all the time.

NO was built over time. Time to move.

Move Amsterdam while you're at it. And Galveston. How about San Francisco since it's on a fault line. Hell, let's just relocate ever city somewhere else.

If you havent noticed, all those other cities are presently intact. Right now for practical purposes there IS NO N.O.

Now there will be a city in the general vicinity. If it is below sea level, we will have neglect of the levees or whatever is used to hold that water back in a generation or two. Witness now how the system failed, and that maintainence and upgrades haven't happened. Like previous generations, we WILL fail to keep up, because we do wars, social programs, everything except vital work because it's PORK. Oh, now it's not, but before when congressmen would try to get roads, levees, etc fixed, that is what is was called.

Every generation forgets. They don't learn. Consequently, if you insist on making some place below sea level it WILL be destroyed again, because in a hundred years we will all be dead and the future wont care. It's not like they can do anything anyway, because we built a whole city designed to flood in the long run.

Someone needs a good kick in the nuts, and get of this idiotic pride thing, and rebuild, but not there.

Nature WILL bite them, and whoever in this generation lacks foresight will be responsible. Is your ego worth that price?

In case you weren't aware, at least one of the places I mentioned, Galveston oh Galveston (damn you Glenn) has been totally wiped away numerous times and has been rebuilt.
You seem to be arguing that when a place is badly damaged it should not be rebuilt. I disagree. It's not pride. It's not hubris. It's someone's home. If you don't get that, there's something missing in you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
No.

It would be far better and probably cheaper to start elsewhere, above the waterline.

Rebuilding NO is akin to rebuilding a homes where mudslides happen all the time.

NO was built over time. Time to move.

Move Amsterdam while you're at it. And Galveston. How about San Francisco since it's on a fault line. Hell, let's just relocate ever city somewhere else.

If you havent noticed, all those other cities are presently intact. Right now for practical purposes there IS NO N.O.

Now there will be a city in the general vicinity. If it is below sea level, we will have neglect of the levees or whatever is used to hold that water back in a generation or two. Witness now how the system failed, and that maintainence and upgrades haven't happened. Like previous generations, we WILL fail to keep up, because we do wars, social programs, everything except vital work because it's PORK. Oh, now it's not, but before when congressmen would try to get roads, levees, etc fixed, that is what is was called.

Every generation forgets. They don't learn. Consequently, if you insist on making some place below sea level it WILL be destroyed again, because in a hundred years we will all be dead and the future wont care. It's not like they can do anything anyway, because we built a whole city designed to flood in the long run.

Someone needs a good kick in the nuts, and get of this idiotic pride thing, and rebuild, but not there.

Nature WILL bite them, and whoever in this generation lacks foresight will be responsible. Is your ego worth that price?

In case you weren't aware, at least one of the places I mentioned, Galveston oh Galveston (damn you Glenn) has been totally wiped away numerous times and has been rebuilt.
You seem to be arguing that when a place is badly damaged it should not be rebuilt. I disagree. It's not pride. It's not hubris. It's someone's home. If you don't get that, there's something missing in you.

Then put it right back where it was then. When what I say comes to pass, you or your survivors can boast how they made tradegy possible. I understand home, what seems to be lacking is sense. Don't keep building you house on shifting sands. Find some rock.

 

[arsbanned]

Well, my house is on rock . Different areas have different geological makeups. That doesn't mean nobody lives there.
Applying your logic, anyone who supports rebuilding the Tsunami affected areas will be guilty of murder when the next big wave hits. It's silly reasoning, IMO.