Full Version: Should They Repair New Orleans?
Do u think they should repair it? Note:first poll have really no idea what im doing.... i think i got it right tho.
Yes. Check that there billion topic.
No. As some say, it's God's way of saying gtfo.
If you don't believe in God.. why re-build when it is just going to happen again?
If you don't believe in God.. why re-build when it is just going to happen again?
We have the technology. We can rebuild it, better, smarter, faster. It will be the (multi) million dollar city.
I say if we do rebuild it in which he must, then we just need to do it so that if the a storm of the same magnitude happens it wont cause as much damage.
I say if we do rebuild it in which he must, then we just need to do it so that if the a storm of the same magnitude happens it wont cause as much damage.
From the other topic.
Your sole argument is that there's a good probability that it would be hit again. Okay.
...So what? I mean, really. So what.
Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes recorded to hit America in the last 100 years, and it moved dead center into New Orleans. Do you honestly believe that sort of thing happens every other year to New Orleans? That's a rhetorical no. Plus, the levees were not strong enough for such an occasion, and if they were the devastation would not have been nearly as bad. It's sheer folly to think for a second that New Orleans would experience such an event again, or at least not for another hundred years.
In other words, even if it is hit again, there's what I would call a "horrible probability" that it would come come close to the damages that Katrina caused.
Added to that, New Orleans was not the only place hit; the entire coast was (hell, even Cuba). Florida and Mississippi, along with Louisiana, and even Texas, have received plenty of hurricanes, and that's only to name a few states. And, you know, these hurricanes don't just hit the coast; they travel inland. So really, every other place has just as good of a chance to get hit by another Katrina as New Orleans does, yet somehow the entire SE America musters up the guts to keep living there, and repairing whatever damages they reap from it. No idea how they do it. Maybe it's because it would be utterly retarded not to.
By the way, that whole god thing is such a weak argument...
QUOTE
Your sole argument is that there's a good probability that it would be hit again. Okay.
...So what? I mean, really. So what.
Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes recorded to hit America in the last 100 years, and it moved dead center into New Orleans. Do you honestly believe that sort of thing happens every other year to New Orleans? That's a rhetorical no. Plus, the levees were not strong enough for such an occasion, and if they were the devastation would not have been nearly as bad. It's sheer folly to think for a second that New Orleans would experience such an event again, or at least not for another hundred years.
In other words, even if it is hit again, there's what I would call a "horrible probability" that it would come come close to the damages that Katrina caused.
Added to that, New Orleans was not the only place hit; the entire coast was (hell, even Cuba). Florida and Mississippi, along with Louisiana, and even Texas, have received plenty of hurricanes, and that's only to name a few states. And, you know, these hurricanes don't just hit the coast; they travel inland. So really, every other place has just as good of a chance to get hit by another Katrina as New Orleans does, yet somehow the entire SE America musters up the guts to keep living there, and repairing whatever damages they reap from it. No idea how they do it. Maybe it's because it would be utterly retarded not to.
By the way, that whole god thing is such a weak argument...
umm..
DUH?
Of Course,but Bush has wasted too much $$ in The middle east.
DUH?
Of Course,but Bush has wasted too much $$ in The middle east.
QUOTE(Igna @ Sep 21 2007, 03:33 PM) 
From the other topic.
QUOTE
Your sole argument is that there's a good probability that it would be hit again. Okay.
...So what? I mean, really. So what.
Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes recorded to hit America in the last 100 years, and it moved dead center into New Orleans. Do you honestly believe that sort of thing happens every other year to New Orleans? That's a rhetorical no. Plus, the levees were not strong enough for such an occasion, and if they were the devastation would not have been nearly as bad. It's sheer folly to think for a second that New Orleans would experience such an event again, or at least not for another hundred years.
In other words, even if it is hit again, there's what I would call a "horrible probability" that it would come come close to the damages that Katrina caused.
Added to that, New Orleans was not the only place hit; the entire coast was (hell, even Cuba). Florida and Mississippi, along with Louisiana, and even Texas, have received plenty of hurricanes, and that's only to name a few states. And, you know, these hurricanes don't just hit the coast; they travel inland. So really, every other place has just as good of a chance to get hit by another Katrina as New Orleans does, yet somehow the entire SE America musters up the guts to keep living there, and repairing whatever damages they reap from it. No idea how they do it. Maybe it's because it would be utterly retarded not to.
Wow. Summed up my thoughts. It was a booming city with lots of traditions, people live there. Why not. Hurricanes like Katrina won't come along that often
Yes, but only in certain areas.
There are some parts of New Orleans that are lower lying than others. This, in part, explains why some of the levees were so easily broken through. The levees were already lower lying than they were when they were first constructed. It left gaps where water could be let through, and it was. The lowest areas of the city are estimated to be sinking at a rate of 1 inch (2.54 centimeters) a year, which means it'd be more flood prone, regardless of hurricanes or not. It may not sound fair, but it's practical. It doesn't make much sense to rebuild an area that will likely be washed away in coming years does it?
-Raganork
There are some parts of New Orleans that are lower lying than others. This, in part, explains why some of the levees were so easily broken through. The levees were already lower lying than they were when they were first constructed. It left gaps where water could be let through, and it was. The lowest areas of the city are estimated to be sinking at a rate of 1 inch (2.54 centimeters) a year, which means it'd be more flood prone, regardless of hurricanes or not. It may not sound fair, but it's practical. It doesn't make much sense to rebuild an area that will likely be washed away in coming years does it?
-Raganork
QUOTE(Igna @ Sep 21 2007, 05:33 PM)
From the other topic.
QUOTE
Your sole argument is that there's a good probability that it would be hit again. Okay.
...So what? I mean, really. So what.
Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes recorded to hit America in the last 100 years, and it moved dead center into New Orleans. Do you honestly believe that sort of thing happens every other year to New Orleans? That's a rhetorical no. Plus, the levees were not strong enough for such an occasion, and if they were the devastation would not have been nearly as bad. It's sheer folly to think for a second that New Orleans would experience such an event again, or at least not for another hundred years.
In other words, even if it is hit again, there's what I would call a "horrible probability" that it would come come close to the damages that Katrina caused.
Added to that, New Orleans was not the only place hit; the entire coast was (hell, even Cuba). Florida and Mississippi, along with Louisiana, and even Texas, have received plenty of hurricanes, and that's only to name a few states. And, you know, these hurricanes don't just hit the coast; they travel inland. So really, every other place has just as good of a chance to get hit by another Katrina as New Orleans does, yet somehow the entire SE America musters up the guts to keep living there, and repairing whatever damages they reap from it. No idea how they do it. Maybe it's because it would be utterly retarded not to.
By the way, that whole god thing is such a weak argument...
That's why I also put the (if you don't believe in God..) statement below it. How is it weak? Tell me... Would you rebuild your house in the same place if it was likely to get hit by a tornado at least once every ten years? I wouldn't; but I'm a sane person.
It doesn't matter if a hurricane like Katrina only comes once every 100 years; the fact is other hurricanes WILL come and WILL destroy the place. Whether or not if it's as large as a scale as Katrina, we will just keep spending money to rebuild cities that will be likely to be destroyed again.
It will take years to rebuild and by time that is done.. another hurricane is due. Just because hurricanes like Katrina don't come by so often means nothing; lots of tornadoes and hurricanes hit places every year. It's not "if it will hit" because it WILL be hit again.
When? Now that I can't answer.
"As some say, it's God's way of saying gtfo."
I was being nice when I called this statement 'weak'. So basically, wherever some natural disaster hits, it means god doesn't want us to be there? That's a nice way of interpreting it, if also completely erroneous.
Since you didn't address the fact that what you're saying ultimately results in the abandoning of maybe a fifth of US territory, I'll just assume from now on that you have no qualms with that possibility. Because, of course, if New Orleans is too endangered by hurricanes, really, everywhere in that national region is.
Contradiction. You say that by the time we are done repairing, another hurricane will have come, and yet you acknowledge how exceedingly rare these occurrences are; that's a huge exaggeration and distortion, and only hurts your argument. The fact is that it's much more than likely that 2-4 generations will pass before New Orleans witnesses such an event again; and, even then, chances are that it will be much, much less major than it was with Katrina. If that situation
Anyway, you say we will continue to spend money on repairing it. Well, yeah, but wouldn't it be about a billion times worse financially to, effectively, evacuate the south east United States? Yeah, it would. And wouldn't the loss of homes and total social upheaval of that kind of policy be about a billion times worse in that policy, then if we were to just, as I said, stay there and reap what we sowed?
Yeah, it would. So, financially it is better, and socially it is better, to live with the cards mother nature has given us.
I was being nice when I called this statement 'weak'. So basically, wherever some natural disaster hits, it means god doesn't want us to be there? That's a nice way of interpreting it, if also completely erroneous.
Since you didn't address the fact that what you're saying ultimately results in the abandoning of maybe a fifth of US territory, I'll just assume from now on that you have no qualms with that possibility. Because, of course, if New Orleans is too endangered by hurricanes, really, everywhere in that national region is.
QUOTE
It doesn't matter if a hurricane like Katrina only comes once every 100 years; the fact is other hurricanes WILL come and WILL destroy the place. Whether or not if it's as large as a scale as Katrina, we will just keep spending money to rebuild cities that will be likely to be destroyed again."
It will take years to rebuild and by time that is done.. another hurricane is due. Just because hurricanes like Katrina don't come by so often means nothing; lots of tornadoes and hurricanes hit places every year. It's not "if it will hit" because it WILL be hit again.
It will take years to rebuild and by time that is done.. another hurricane is due. Just because hurricanes like Katrina don't come by so often means nothing; lots of tornadoes and hurricanes hit places every year. It's not "if it will hit" because it WILL be hit again.
Contradiction. You say that by the time we are done repairing, another hurricane will have come, and yet you acknowledge how exceedingly rare these occurrences are; that's a huge exaggeration and distortion, and only hurts your argument. The fact is that it's much more than likely that 2-4 generations will pass before New Orleans witnesses such an event again; and, even then, chances are that it will be much, much less major than it was with Katrina. If that situation
Anyway, you say we will continue to spend money on repairing it. Well, yeah, but wouldn't it be about a billion times worse financially to, effectively, evacuate the south east United States? Yeah, it would. And wouldn't the loss of homes and total social upheaval of that kind of policy be about a billion times worse in that policy, then if we were to just, as I said, stay there and reap what we sowed?
Yeah, it would. So, financially it is better, and socially it is better, to live with the cards mother nature has given us.
1. If you don't like the God statement, use the one below it. I used the God one for people who believe in God.
1a. That isn't my statement, hence why I said "as some say...". My statement is the one below it.
2. I didn't say we should abandon a fifth of the U.S., I said New Orleans; you're putting words in my mouth.
2a. Please do not make assumptions. Most of the time, they are completely wrong and you just put words in others' mouths which makes you look like a jackass.
3. Um..what? Please explain to me how I am contradicting myself.
Contradiction. You say that by the time we are done repairing, another hurricane will have come, and yet you acknowledge how exceedingly rare these occurrences are; that's a huge exaggeration and distortion, and only hurts your argument. The fact is that it's much more than likely that 2-4 generations will pass before New Orleans witnesses such an event again; and, even then, chances are that it will be much, much less major than it was with Katrina. If that situation
You make no sense here... I did say hurricanes like Katrina do not hit often and I did say another hurricane will hit. I did NOT say the next hurricane that will hit will be on the scale of Katrina. So how did I contradict myself? I never said the next hurricane will be as bad as Katrina.
Anyway, you say we will continue to spend money on repairing it. Well, yeah, but wouldn't it be about a billion times worse financially to, effectively, evacuate the south east United States? Yeah, it would. And wouldn't the loss of homes and total social upheaval of that kind of policy be about a billion times worse in that policy, then if we were to just, as I said, stay there and reap what we sowed?
4. Firstly, this discussion is about New Orleans, not any other cities. Secondly, just because a city is in the southeast does not mean it will be hit by a hurricane. New Orleans, though, will be hit again. it is just a matter of time.
5. In a sense, there won't be a loss of homes. New houses will need to be built, but they can be built in other locations where this will not happen again.
1a. That isn't my statement, hence why I said "as some say...". My statement is the one below it.
2. I didn't say we should abandon a fifth of the U.S., I said New Orleans; you're putting words in my mouth.
2a. Please do not make assumptions. Most of the time, they are completely wrong and you just put words in others' mouths which makes you look like a jackass.
3. Um..what? Please explain to me how I am contradicting myself.
QUOTE
Contradiction. You say that by the time we are done repairing, another hurricane will have come, and yet you acknowledge how exceedingly rare these occurrences are; that's a huge exaggeration and distortion, and only hurts your argument. The fact is that it's much more than likely that 2-4 generations will pass before New Orleans witnesses such an event again; and, even then, chances are that it will be much, much less major than it was with Katrina. If that situation
You make no sense here... I did say hurricanes like Katrina do not hit often and I did say another hurricane will hit. I did NOT say the next hurricane that will hit will be on the scale of Katrina. So how did I contradict myself? I never said the next hurricane will be as bad as Katrina.
QUOTE
Anyway, you say we will continue to spend money on repairing it. Well, yeah, but wouldn't it be about a billion times worse financially to, effectively, evacuate the south east United States? Yeah, it would. And wouldn't the loss of homes and total social upheaval of that kind of policy be about a billion times worse in that policy, then if we were to just, as I said, stay there and reap what we sowed?
4. Firstly, this discussion is about New Orleans, not any other cities. Secondly, just because a city is in the southeast does not mean it will be hit by a hurricane. New Orleans, though, will be hit again. it is just a matter of time.
5. In a sense, there won't be a loss of homes. New houses will need to be built, but they can be built in other locations where this will not happen again.
Honestly, the protection (flood walls et.) was pitiful. If they are going to rebuild New Orleans they need to do it right the first time.
Really all places along the gulf coast are at risk of an other Katrina, its only a matter of time.
\\\
Anywhere you live there are problems with the weather and stuff like that. And if not, name a place.
Really all places along the gulf coast are at risk of an other Katrina, its only a matter of time.
\\\
QUOTE
Added to that, New Orleans was not the only place hit; the entire coast was (hell, even Cuba). Florida and Mississippi, along with Louisiana, and even Texas, have received plenty of hurricanes, and that's only to name a few states. And, you know, these hurricanes don't just hit the coast; they travel inland. So really, every other place has just as good of a chance to get hit by another Katrina as New Orleans does, yet somehow the entire SE America musters up the guts to keep living there, and repairing whatever damages they reap from it. No idea how they do it. Maybe it's because it would be utterly retarded not to.
Anywhere you live there are problems with the weather and stuff like that. And if not, name a place.
With rising sea levels and increasing intensity of the storms due to a global climatic change, things will only get worse. I agree with Cloud. It would be pointless.
Either they come up with a MUCH better way to deal with Hurricanes or they leave it.
Either they come up with a MUCH better way to deal with Hurricanes or they leave it.
Cloud, I'm putting words in your mouth because you have so far been ignoring a point that I brought up. Assuming you agreed with said point was my way of forcing you to reply to it (as I previously explained), but you still haven't.
I'll assume that whenever we talk about New Orleans, we are talking about the Southeast United States, unless someone can give me a good reason not to, ie a rebuttal to the above quote. Same goes for Plant.
You make no sense here... I did say hurricanes like Katrina do not hit often and I did say another hurricane will hit. I did NOT say the next hurricane that will hit will be on the scale of Katrina. So how did I contradict myself? I never said the next hurricane will be as bad as Katrina.
If we're not assuming it's on the scale of Katrina (which would be as I said a contradiction), then, it would be fairly safe to assume that (at least in the larger picture) is irrelevant to New Orleans and to this debate, in terms of magnitude and damage.
QUOTE
Added to that, New Orleans was not the only place hit; the entire coast was (hell, even Cuba). Florida and Mississippi, along with Louisiana, and even Texas, have received plenty of hurricanes, and that's only to name a few states. And, you know, these hurricanes don't just hit the coast; they travel inland. So really, every other place has just as good of a chance to get hit by another Katrina as New Orleans does, yet somehow the entire SE America musters up the guts to keep living there, and repairing whatever damages they reap from it. No idea how they do it. Maybe it's because it would be utterly retarded not to.
I'll assume that whenever we talk about New Orleans, we are talking about the Southeast United States, unless someone can give me a good reason not to, ie a rebuttal to the above quote. Same goes for Plant.
QUOTE
You make no sense here... I did say hurricanes like Katrina do not hit often and I did say another hurricane will hit. I did NOT say the next hurricane that will hit will be on the scale of Katrina. So how did I contradict myself? I never said the next hurricane will be as bad as Katrina.
If we're not assuming it's on the scale of Katrina (which would be as I said a contradiction), then, it would be fairly safe to assume that (at least in the larger picture) is irrelevant to New Orleans and to this debate, in terms of magnitude and damage.
no, the indains told both the french and the americans
don't build there, its bad land, it floods too much
if the government is too stupid to listen to people who knew that land longer than us, then so be it
and katrinas 3 years old,
Get over it
QUOTE
don't build there, its bad land, it floods too much
if the government is too stupid to listen to people who knew that land longer than us, then so be it
and katrinas 3 years old,
Get over it
Let's just build a 50ft high wall around the coast. Problem solved.
Plant, I'm sure you're supposed to be good at science. Global Climate change will have no effect on extremes of weather. Weather is caused by differences in temperature between different areas. The bigger the difference, the more extreme the weather conditions. If the whole world gets hotter, weather stays the same. If cold areas get hotter faster, then extremes of weather such as this will infact decrease.
As for the majority of other arguments, I'd say that common sense would dictate that everyone should move away from San Francisco because - at some point - there's going to be an earthquake which shatters the whole city. It's at a far greater risk being on the San Andreas Fault than most cities. Similarly, the next big earthquake on the San Andreas fault is due to rip apart most of California, including Orange County and Palm Springs. Now, I'd wager my entire bank balance on the fact that those areas would be rebuilt instantaneously in the event of such a quake. This is not a matter of humanity and doing the right thing, but a matter of economics. The people who live in OC and palm Springs are the type who give large donations to political parties through corporate and private donations. New Orleans however, is not the height of affluent society and therefore is given second class status.
Lets say that the US were to abandon every area hit by a natural disaster. Shall we go through the list since the beginning of the twentieth century? The US would have abandoned the following locations:
That's not all the locations of major flooding in the last century, and it's only the locations of major flooding. Going into earthquakes takes longer as it's difficult to say whether damage should be measured by the size of the earthquake, by casualties or by the money spent rebuilding. Needless to say, abandoning an area because of one natural disaster would leave US citizens in an area the size of the UK.
As for the majority of other arguments, I'd say that common sense would dictate that everyone should move away from San Francisco because - at some point - there's going to be an earthquake which shatters the whole city. It's at a far greater risk being on the San Andreas Fault than most cities. Similarly, the next big earthquake on the San Andreas fault is due to rip apart most of California, including Orange County and Palm Springs. Now, I'd wager my entire bank balance on the fact that those areas would be rebuilt instantaneously in the event of such a quake. This is not a matter of humanity and doing the right thing, but a matter of economics. The people who live in OC and palm Springs are the type who give large donations to political parties through corporate and private donations. New Orleans however, is not the height of affluent society and therefore is given second class status.
Lets say that the US were to abandon every area hit by a natural disaster. Shall we go through the list since the beginning of the twentieth century? The US would have abandoned the following locations:
- All areas on the Mississippi from Missouri to Lousiana
- Most of Ohio
- Most of New England
- Most of Kansas
- Colorado
- Most of the Pacific Northwest
- Areas Of Alaska
- Most of California
- Some of Texas
- San Francisco
- San Diego
- Some of Idaho
- Some of West Virginia
- Some of Pennsylvania
- Areas of South and North Dakota
- Areas of Washington
That's not all the locations of major flooding in the last century, and it's only the locations of major flooding. Going into earthquakes takes longer as it's difficult to say whether damage should be measured by the size of the earthquake, by casualties or by the money spent rebuilding. Needless to say, abandoning an area because of one natural disaster would leave US citizens in an area the size of the UK.
I have to agree with Rob. I live in Texas and we do get hit by hurricanes since we are near the Gulf. But every time we get hit, we always rebuild although we know that another hurricane might hit. Also, Florida gets hit more than Louisiana does. Just because one hurricane hit and came to New Orleans doesn't mean we shouldn't try and rebuild it. There are plenty of cities in Florida that get hit really hard but there isn't discussion asking if they should abandon those cities or repair them. Like Rob said, hurricanes are just one out of many natural disasters. I mean there is talk about California separating from the U.S. because a major earthquake may hit it, but you don't see all of them evacuating. New Orleans is a "major" city, and I don't think there should be anything from stopping them to rebuild it.
Rob elaborated on what I mention earlier. Repeating over and over "It will be hit again" is a useless argument, unless, as I said, you intend to evacuate the entire south east US (and if we're being realistic, much more).
Repair the homes not the attractions. People need a place to live, but what are all attractions for. They waste money with all the tourist attractions when they are just going to be destroyed in the next couple of years. Instead of building tourist attractions start building homes in a different area maybe. Btw I didn't give this much that so I'm ready for all the corrections stuff...
Tourism brings money. Money allows people to eat.
If you don't have tourists in a tourist area, people are laid off work because there's no money coming into the area to pay them. Shops close, businesses move elsewhere.
Not rebuilding everything is as much a death sentence on New Orleans as not rebuilding anything.
If you don't have tourists in a tourist area, people are laid off work because there's no money coming into the area to pay them. Shops close, businesses move elsewhere.
Not rebuilding everything is as much a death sentence on New Orleans as not rebuilding anything.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.