"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think
we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of
people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable
to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug
with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable
to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations
centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look
like a zit on a flea's butt.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which
is something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say
it would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities
which are now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew
gills or drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd
have died a few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains.

Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall
bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live
longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork.



Like Venice and the Netherlands? My argument was that instead of spending
trillions to move those who can't move on their own, why not spend far less
dealing with the pollution, expanding sustainable energy technology, etc.?
Makes sense to me, but oh-my-god the government might have to make it a
priority. How terrible.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com