So it would seem that after last time in New Orleans when nobody did anything about the impending doom of a predominantly black city, the state government has decided that it does not want to be caught with their pants down again. This has led to an amazing panic spread all over New Orleans as everyone is desperately leaving the city and Mayor Ray Nagin proudly said on TV that they could fly out 700 an hour by plane…. that’s good for a city with a couple of hundred thousand inhabitants.
I wonder if, after last time, anyone thought that it might be a good idea to either rebuild New Orleans on top of stilts or, even better, just not rebuild it at all. The US is a big country and there is plenty of room to relocate the inhabitants to a less disaster prone area. I am getting a bit bored of the constant news cycle of “people choose to live near massive risk of flood/volcano/earthquake and then all have to be rescued by civil contingency workers from freak flood/volcano/earthquake”. It all seems a little dumb as we keep building on fault lines or in low lying areas. Holland, for example, is pretty much entirely underwater; London is doomed to become an extension of the english channel and most of the wester seabord of the United States is just one tremor away from going all atlantis on us.
I live on a hill. I live near a river that is prone to flooding. I could live down the hill and be nearer the river but then when the river floods I would feel pretty stupid as people canoe past my bedroom window. It’s not that hard to grasp… if there is an inherrent danger in building a city near a fault/volcano/huricane hotspot or the area is below sea level and only kept dry by vast expensive civil engineering works then just don’t bother and go somewhere else with your city. If people are stupid enough to still live there and trust their fate to a god or the weather system then screw them, let’s not pay out tax money helping these fucktards out when the waters rise or the hill next to them explodes.
Leave a Reply