I used to live in this part of the country. There's an insane amount of disregard for the environment and climate. Yes, new buildings have to be reinforced against hurricanes. But they are still building new houses only a few meters above sea level, as if sea level rise wasn't already unavoidable.
And on the largest scale, there is a limit to the amount of fresh groundwater that wells along the South Florida coast can get. Once they exceed that amount, they'll be pumping brackish water seeping in from the ocean. Then they have to desalinate the brackish water.
But the last time I was there, they were still building new houses.
This reminds me of something much more local to me, which is similar but perhaps looking from the other direction in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fens
As a Pasco county alumni, I think we should drop the people who want to drain the everglades off in the everglades and leave them in there until they gain an appreciation for the scenery.
We ought to balance it out by doing something comparable to the people who simp for heavy handed regulations in areas that have already been build up and altered greatly by humans.
Speaking of the uncanny feeling of shallow water, there are parts of the Florida keys where you can paddle a kayak a good half a mile from shore and still be in 2-4 ft of water. It's a great place to learn a new watersport as if you fall in you can just stand up.
The alligators are generally scared of people. It's the crocs that you got to worry about. (not really though - even they are quite timid, unlike their African counterparts)
Well GP didn't say they were afraid. I have pretty much the same reaction of being "freaked out" by leeches too. And while my reaction to mosquitoes is hardly the same, I'm going to avoid both if I possibly can, which seems entirely reasonable to me
Anyway you don't feel leeches coming off? That's surprising.
Then allow me to ease your mind. Leeches are not a problem in the marine environment of the Florida Keys, unless you are a turtle. They person you replied to changed the topic slightly from the Everglades, where they could be a problem. In either case I'd worry about midges and mosquitos first.
Similarly with alligators, they are primarily freshwater and uncommon in the keys. American crocodiles can tolerate the marine environment better, but they are threatened as a species and have just two confirmed attacks in 75 years.
So wear a personal flotation device and you should be okay.
One thing I don’t understand is why so many appreciate the Everglades. To me a landscape infested with aggressive animals (gators) doesn’t sound attractive or safe. Between them and the invasive snakes I feel like you would need to be on guard all the time. Maybe drain it, replace it with different animals that are friendly, and then refill it. I’m only sort of joking.
During the lockdown I canoed thru the everglades and camped on the islands as it was one of the only places open. It's a lot more than gators. I saw a family of dolphins teaching their child to swim and jump. The fishing is incredible. The gators arent the worst pest (the biting insects are). You can spot manatee. Of course it's a paradise for birds. And that way that mangroves ultimately create dry land from nothing is quite amazing.
Alligators are the exact opposite of aggressive. If you walk up and pat one on the head it'll probably just hiss and start slinking away at the speed of syrup. You should be more afraid of the spiders and blood-sucking insects.
Even putting aside that it destroys incredible natural beauty for land that's not even productively useful, it astounds me that people still buy into major terraforming projects. Every single time it's had absolutely horrendous consequences often with millions of human deaths attached. Don't make large changes to chaotic systems!
>Even putting aside that it destroys incredible natural beauty for land that's not even productively useful, it astounds me that people still buy into major terraforming projects. Every single time it's had absolutely horrendous consequences often with millions of human deaths attached. Don't make large changes to chaotic systems!
Ah, yes, terrible consequences, such as, the irrigation and suitability for farmland of central California, the lack of frequent flooding of the Mississippi river and tributaries and the present dryness of the Netherlands.
I don't think draining the everglades is tractable and I think it's more valuable as is since you're not gonna out farm the midwest. But it's really easy to be on a high horse and not appreciate the successful projects that we benefit from the results of.
It sounds like hurricanes keep it topped off. So then what, you design some poison to only attack gators, then find out later it poisons people too? Because draining it and then discovering that underground wells turn to saltwater isn't enough?
The perspective that nature, including the Everglades, should be "attractive or safe" for human convenience is profoundly misguided and chauvinistic. Nature does not exist for humanity's comfort or aesthetic preferences—its value and purpose are independent of human desires or perceptions. The Everglades is a complex, irreplaceable ecosystem essential for biodiversity, climate regulation, water filtration, and flood control. It hosts countless species found nowhere else on Earth, including apex predators like alligators, which are critical to the ecological balance.
To suggest draining such a vital natural landscape and replacing its inhabitants with "friendly" animals ignores the intricate interdependencies that sustain these ecosystems. This not only threatens extinction of unique species but undermines the health of the entire region, affecting millions of people who rely on its ecosystem services. Demanding nature conform to a sanitized or human-safe version reflects a narrow, anthropocentric arrogance.
The wildness of the Everglades is part of its profound purpose and beauty. Any view that diminishes this is reductive, environmentally ignorant, and ethically troubling. Nature is not a backdrop to human desires but a living system demanding protection, understanding, and awe.
Once upon a time, draining wetlands was the only somewhat efficient way to reduce malaria. That made sense, given the drop in mortality. Lots of places in Italy, for example, are ex-swamps.
I've heard the theory that humor is actually a censor mechanism, to inhibit learning nonsense.
So, IIUC, if the censor identifies something nonsensical, it throws the amusement switch, to keep your brain from integrating the wrong thing.
While we might think that the presentations of fact in the article are informative, the humor-saturated prose could be a good way to cloud any thinking about the topic.
Does this mean it's OK to mention expanding the Florida Everglades? One could plan out a path of bulldozing, excavation, and flood fills, given an existing map of gerrymandering for national elections.
The only people I trust to fuck with wetlands without finding out are the Dutch, and even then I suspect the find out part is still due shortly after they vote some populist politician in asking why they're spending all those taxpayer dollars maintaining dykes and water infrastructure when there's not even any water here?
>Did this giant dike work? Did the 143 miles of dikes work? Let’s see what Wikipedia says:
>>The enlarged water control structures around Lake Okeechobee and in the Everglades did not prevent either frequent floods or dry spells in which cattle died for lack of water and fires burned in the peat of the Everglades.
>So yeah, that’s a no. A big ol’ drought (technical term) ensued!
This is a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. We actually do know that the Hoover Dike worked: it survived Hurricanes Andrew, Francis, Wilma, Milton, and several others I probably forgot to mention.
what an odd clickbait type article, it goes over the history of people who previously wanted to do this. But mention there is no current effort to do so, and asking the question is irrelevant.
Halfway in I realized the author is just narrating the Wikipedia article. If you'd rather just read it without the attempts to be funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draining_and_development_of_th...
Wish I noticed before submitting, I would have just shared that instead. Oh well. Thanks.
the comedy was what got me through it, probably wouldn't have read the Wikipedia article, fwiw.
I enjoyed the author's style, personally
In addition, it feels like the author asked an AI to do the narration for him. He made some edits here and there but the humor feels off.
I used to live in this part of the country. There's an insane amount of disregard for the environment and climate. Yes, new buildings have to be reinforced against hurricanes. But they are still building new houses only a few meters above sea level, as if sea level rise wasn't already unavoidable.
And on the largest scale, there is a limit to the amount of fresh groundwater that wells along the South Florida coast can get. Once they exceed that amount, they'll be pumping brackish water seeping in from the ocean. Then they have to desalinate the brackish water.
But the last time I was there, they were still building new houses.
This reminds me of something much more local to me, which is similar but perhaps looking from the other direction in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fens
As a Pasco county alumni, I think we should drop the people who want to drain the everglades off in the everglades and leave them in there until they gain an appreciation for the scenery.
Do we really want to introduce more invasive species into the Everglades?
The Everglades will continue until morale improves!
Isn't that "The Pasco Promise"?
Or until they become lunch?
Until the scenery gains an appreciation for them, you might say.
We ought to balance it out by doing something comparable to the people who simp for heavy handed regulations in areas that have already been build up and altered greatly by humans.
Speaking of the uncanny feeling of shallow water, there are parts of the Florida keys where you can paddle a kayak a good half a mile from shore and still be in 2-4 ft of water. It's a great place to learn a new watersport as if you fall in you can just stand up.
Leeches freak me out, I can't imagine swimming with (or falling on) the gators!
The alligators are generally scared of people. It's the crocs that you got to worry about. (not really though - even they are quite timid, unlike their African counterparts)
Why? That's like being afraid of mosquitoes. You can't even really feel a leech.
Mosquitoes are the deadliest creature on the planet, to be fair.
Well GP didn't say they were afraid. I have pretty much the same reaction of being "freaked out" by leeches too. And while my reaction to mosquitoes is hardly the same, I'm going to avoid both if I possibly can, which seems entirely reasonable to me
Anyway you don't feel leeches coming off? That's surprising.
> there are parts of the Florida keys
Then allow me to ease your mind. Leeches are not a problem in the marine environment of the Florida Keys, unless you are a turtle. They person you replied to changed the topic slightly from the Everglades, where they could be a problem. In either case I'd worry about midges and mosquitos first.
Similarly with alligators, they are primarily freshwater and uncommon in the keys. American crocodiles can tolerate the marine environment better, but they are threatened as a species and have just two confirmed attacks in 75 years.
So wear a personal flotation device and you should be okay.
The headline reminds me of the Mr. Show sketch about America blowing up the moon [1].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJ3LIA5LmA
California's Central Valley would like a cautionary word....
If it's so shallow, it seems like draining it would have little impact on flood risk
Sea level rise will finish the 'glades.
One thing I don’t understand is why so many appreciate the Everglades. To me a landscape infested with aggressive animals (gators) doesn’t sound attractive or safe. Between them and the invasive snakes I feel like you would need to be on guard all the time. Maybe drain it, replace it with different animals that are friendly, and then refill it. I’m only sort of joking.
During the lockdown I canoed thru the everglades and camped on the islands as it was one of the only places open. It's a lot more than gators. I saw a family of dolphins teaching their child to swim and jump. The fishing is incredible. The gators arent the worst pest (the biting insects are). You can spot manatee. Of course it's a paradise for birds. And that way that mangroves ultimately create dry land from nothing is quite amazing.
Alligators are the exact opposite of aggressive. If you walk up and pat one on the head it'll probably just hiss and start slinking away at the speed of syrup. You should be more afraid of the spiders and blood-sucking insects.
I'm way more afraid of the humans that want to drain and eradicate the native population of the Everglades!
Even putting aside that it destroys incredible natural beauty for land that's not even productively useful, it astounds me that people still buy into major terraforming projects. Every single time it's had absolutely horrendous consequences often with millions of human deaths attached. Don't make large changes to chaotic systems!
>Even putting aside that it destroys incredible natural beauty for land that's not even productively useful, it astounds me that people still buy into major terraforming projects. Every single time it's had absolutely horrendous consequences often with millions of human deaths attached. Don't make large changes to chaotic systems!
Ah, yes, terrible consequences, such as, the irrigation and suitability for farmland of central California, the lack of frequent flooding of the Mississippi river and tributaries and the present dryness of the Netherlands.
I don't think draining the everglades is tractable and I think it's more valuable as is since you're not gonna out farm the midwest. But it's really easy to be on a high horse and not appreciate the successful projects that we benefit from the results of.
I used to swim with alligators in the bayou when I was a kid in the 1980s. They're not so bad.
Amos Moses, is that you?
I nearly fell off my couch laughing in New Orleans reading that.
It sounds like hurricanes keep it topped off. So then what, you design some poison to only attack gators, then find out later it poisons people too? Because draining it and then discovering that underground wells turn to saltwater isn't enough?
I feel the same way about Miami.
The perspective that nature, including the Everglades, should be "attractive or safe" for human convenience is profoundly misguided and chauvinistic. Nature does not exist for humanity's comfort or aesthetic preferences—its value and purpose are independent of human desires or perceptions. The Everglades is a complex, irreplaceable ecosystem essential for biodiversity, climate regulation, water filtration, and flood control. It hosts countless species found nowhere else on Earth, including apex predators like alligators, which are critical to the ecological balance.
To suggest draining such a vital natural landscape and replacing its inhabitants with "friendly" animals ignores the intricate interdependencies that sustain these ecosystems. This not only threatens extinction of unique species but undermines the health of the entire region, affecting millions of people who rely on its ecosystem services. Demanding nature conform to a sanitized or human-safe version reflects a narrow, anthropocentric arrogance.
The wildness of the Everglades is part of its profound purpose and beauty. Any view that diminishes this is reductive, environmentally ignorant, and ethically troubling. Nature is not a backdrop to human desires but a living system demanding protection, understanding, and awe.
Once upon a time, draining wetlands was the only somewhat efficient way to reduce malaria. That made sense, given the drop in mortality. Lots of places in Italy, for example, are ex-swamps.
I've heard the theory that humor is actually a censor mechanism, to inhibit learning nonsense.
So, IIUC, if the censor identifies something nonsensical, it throws the amusement switch, to keep your brain from integrating the wrong thing.
While we might think that the presentations of fact in the article are informative, the humor-saturated prose could be a good way to cloud any thinking about the topic.
Does this mean it's OK to mention expanding the Florida Everglades? One could plan out a path of bulldozing, excavation, and flood fills, given an existing map of gerrymandering for national elections.
The only people I trust to fuck with wetlands without finding out are the Dutch, and even then I suspect the find out part is still due shortly after they vote some populist politician in asking why they're spending all those taxpayer dollars maintaining dykes and water infrastructure when there's not even any water here?
>Did this giant dike work? Did the 143 miles of dikes work? Let’s see what Wikipedia says:
>>The enlarged water control structures around Lake Okeechobee and in the Everglades did not prevent either frequent floods or dry spells in which cattle died for lack of water and fires burned in the peat of the Everglades.
>So yeah, that’s a no. A big ol’ drought (technical term) ensued!
This is a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. We actually do know that the Hoover Dike worked: it survived Hurricanes Andrew, Francis, Wilma, Milton, and several others I probably forgot to mention.
> Hopefully nothing that advances a dystopian fascist agenda, right? Right?
Hey! You can’t say that! That’s wrong speak!
Fresh water = bad
no
> 5x the size of JFK (the airport, not the person)
lol
betteridge's law of headlines still undefeated
Bit of a layup for it in this case.
what an odd clickbait type article, it goes over the history of people who previously wanted to do this. But mention there is no current effort to do so, and asking the question is irrelevant.