Please tell me which AI writes like that by default so I can recommend it to everyone who copy-paste the obnoxious chatGPT slop answers in the comment sections.
What's not funny is the amount of podcast episodes that are two guys summarizing the wikipedia article, trying to be funny.
When civilization ends, we will look back at podcast episodes more numerous than the stars in the sky, and wonder if it that was really the most productive use of our entropy.
1. The author, who actually cribbed from wikipedia, gets the willies when he sees shallow water infested with tens of thousands of perfectly happy alligators. All he thinks is that amazing commerce will happen when he kills all the kind gators, flushes the state, and runs away before the next time it rains.
2. Everyone throughout history has wanted to Drain The Swamp. Every one of those amazing historical people has seemed perfectly reasonable and without a doubt was an incredibly towering bastion of science who wanted to drain the Everglades. Too bad they were all incompetent.
3. Please leave Florida Man and Gator Lake alone. They separate the Gulf of America on the West from the Sea of Florida on the East.
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.
The python hunters of Florida do all the heavy lifting for this joke.
If you're not aware, python hunting is a state funded industry with the stated goal of controlling the spread of the invasive species in the Everglades. It has done very little to slow the growth of the python population in Florida but has created a demand for new roads and service buildings. Most python hunters farm overflow areas near roads, canals and flood gates, avoiding nests.
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.
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.
My parents bought a house 11 feet above sea level. The right combination of high tides and storm surge could easily flood that any time. It hasn't happened yet, but the sea level could rise a foot or so in the next generation, making flooding more likely every year.
So let me ask you, is a house really a product meant to last forever and ever, or should it be something that you get maybe 30-40 good years out of it and then dispose it and rebuild?
I don’t get this idea where if a building can’t stay in a spot forever, it should not be built at all. Why not build and enjoy while you can?
When the land floods it floods, you move on. Until then don’t worry about it.
The reason why we had something like the Delta works was due to a 12 Bft storm hitting our shores in 1953. This infrastructure is built to withstand these kind of storms and protect the land from flooding. The protections in place (movable doors in storm surge barriers etc.) are used a few times the last decades when storms did hit our shores. I don't know if this is useable in the Florida context. It's easy to say whenever a big hurricane hits the Florida shore: "Yeah, just ask the Dutch to fix this.." And I am sure some smart guys from our tech universities can pull it off, but you need money and political will. And it literally takes decades to built it.
Also, you need a place to build the dike. Look at a map of Miami, for example, and tell me where you want to build a dike. In front of Miami Beach? And how far does it go? All the way up the coast? There's 120 miles of continuous city on the Atlantic Coast. Also, the land is all very porous sand on top of porous coral. Even if you build a dike out of clay and concrete, water will still seep in from below. This is already happening at high tide.
Already happening at high ride? That is not a new phenomenon even though it is played up as as such.
Places like St Augustine, Fl or Alexandria, VA; and, although not a city, even Jamestown, Va all have records of regular flooding since their establishment centuries ago and well before the Industrial Revolution during strong king tides when you get a confluence of effects like the moon and the sun’s tidal forces amplifying each other, rains have swelled waterways and saturated ground, and the fact that they are situated and basically at water level. I’ve experienced it personally in a few places, ands considering that those places built a long time ago clearly have structures built to accommodate strong king tides is an indicator to me that they knew it happens every once and a while even before the Industrial Revolution.
Usually low-lying areas protected by dikes also deploy large pumps to pump out water that does get in. My guess is that it would be cost prohibitive to keep on pumping the water back out of Miami in 2075, but that is just a guess. There are probably people who know for sure, and it would be nice to read what they have to say.
Everglades as a biological system is perhaps one of the most unique things in the world.
I don’t think there is one like this.
It was eye opening to visit, have never been this close to Aligators.
It should be preserved in totality, for as long as we can, it is an American treasure. Unsustainable building in Florida is not a good enough reason to drain the Everglades.
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.
Alligators maybe not, but in the one time that I have paddleboarded in the keys I saw a crocodile. Probably a crocodile rather than a gator, I didn’t get that close… but from reading articles they’ll occasionally eat a small dog around there, so they are definitely out there.
Saltwater crocs do exist in southern Florida, no doubt. And there's some chance a gator could swim from one island to another (or the mainland).
The easiest way to discern each is based on their snout. If the reptile you saw has a blunt nose about the same width as its jaw, then it's a gator. If, instead, the jaw looked more like a trapezoid, then it's a croc.
Both are opportunistic hunters capable of taking down mammals up to adult bovines or horses. The latter two examples are rare as the size of the croc/gator has to be rather large.
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)
Leeches are ubiquitous in North America, though I've seen more of them east of the Rocky Mountains. Most freshwater streams and lakes probably have some.
I understand the psychological aspect but they are otherwise totally harmless.
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.
Not being able to feel them is honestly scarier. It's one thing to suddenly feel a single bloodsucking parasite attach itself to you, but suddenly realizing that you're covered in them out of nowhere is the stuff of nightmares. If I could be outside in the summer blissfully minding my business and then glancing down save suddenly seeing like a dozen mosquitoes all gorging themselves on my arm, I'd be more afraid of them too.
I’ve been in clouds of mosquitos so thick they cover you in black when you sit down. They land in your food and try to eat it. I could understand being afraid of them having seen that buzzing miasma bearing down at all times, relentless for a drop of blood.
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.
That's right, I (GP) am not really afraid of them, I just find leeches and bloodsuckers quite unpleasant.
A funny story: a few years ago I went canoeing up a small river with my younger cousin. There's not a lot of current because the river is shallow and there are beaver dams around every corner. Most of the dams are unused and broken up, but the river's so shallow in the late summer that they block quite a bit of water anyway and necessitate portaging.
My cousin, being young, gets bored and stops padding, though he's still willing to help portage. We zig zag up the small river, crashing into either side every few paddlestrokes, because I hadn't realized that being the heavier one, I should be in the back of the canoe.
Eventually we get to a large felled tree blocking the river, and we attempt to portage around it, but the banks are quite steep and thick with brush, and I end up losing the canoe down the river. The current is slow, still, but the canoe is floating away, so I have to strip down and jump in after it. Unfortunately my feet touched the bottom and I was covered in bloodsuckers large and small, some of which hid themselves under my feet and between my toes for the rest of the excursion.
When I got back to the house, I lifted my leg, put my foot in the sink, and said "get the salt!"
Because we're large. In nature, crocodilians prey on small/mid-size mammals and birds. Humans are larger than their normal prey, and we're also tall, so we appear more massive to them. And most predators actively avoid animals that are too large to be their prey.
That's why it gets so much more dangerous if you're swimming. If a crocodile is above the water, then it can only see your head. And it's just the right size to be its prey.
And if the crocodile is underwater, then it may be even worse. Humans usually look clumsy when swimming, just like an animal in distress. In other words, an easy prey.
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.
I think there's a bit of "Chesterton's fence" with these issues. If you don't know enough about the ecosystem to appreciate its complexity (aggressive animals are a tiny part of what's going on there) then you definitely shouldn't be allowed to remove or change it. Human ecological interventions have a bad track record.
> Maybe drain it, replace it with different animals that are friendly, and then refill it. I’m only sort of joking.
It's not a zoo. Jungle Island might be more your speed. Staff have chastised me for rubbing the kangaroos' bellies, saying they really don't like that, but in my defense he rolled over for me to do it. YMMV.
What lead me to appreciating the Everglades was randomly deciding to go to Shark Valley / Bobcat Boardwalk Trail on some cold day in February. The annoying bugs were mostly gone to wherever they go when it's cold, the 'gators were lounging around trying to catch some warmth, and the anhingas and other water birds were quite active. I caught a guided walking tour somewhere and what really stuck with me was how every tiny rise in elevation up to a few feet completely changes the ecosystem. I'd lived in Florida practically my whole life until then and never really "seen" that but from then on I could never not see it. I left 15 years ago and whenever I drive home for a visit, crossing that threshold into southern Florida where I start seeing it again brings me comfort.
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 does not take much familiarity with the history of Mississippi flood control and the Army Corps of Engineers to realize how risky, fraught, and short-sighted the whole project has been. The delta's dying and the Old River Control Structure is one bad day away from diverting the entire river to the Atchafalaya.
_The Great River_ by Boyce Upholt from last year is a good place to start learning about the Mississippi.
> the irrigation and suitability for farmland of central California
The unsustainable irrigation that's draining aquifers during droughts and causing permanent damage[1] to groundwater retention? The irrigation that's causing changes in land topography[2]?
> the lack of frequent flooding of the Mississippi river
You mean the system which is a well known ecological disaster?[3][4][5]
And no frequent flooding? Since 2017, the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (which covers only a small portion of the watershed) has seen the USDA pay out $11.4 billion[6] to cover damages from flooding. I live in the watershed and for most of the summer I get flood alerts every time it rains. Damages are on the news constantly. In 2008, a tributary river flooded so badly it destroyed two mid-sized cities in Iowa[7]. Then you have the the 2011 flooding[8] of the Mississippi which was the most disastrous since before most modifications had been made to the river. Lack of frequent flooding? Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it's not happening.
Like what are we talking about here? Even reaching for what you assume to be innocuous examples, empirically observable negative consequences hang off of them like fruiting bodies. Who knows what the consequences will look like in 100-200 years when they've had time to iteratively feed back into themselves.
This is exactly the sort of ignorant of the past viewpoint I was complaining about.
The part of CA we're talking about was a desert shithole before (arguably still is). There's debate about just how much we can sustainably irrigate it, but at least we can irrigate it. The alternative is basically no agricultural activity. Maybe some grazing.
Ditto for the Mississippi. It floods "a little" now vs "somewhere on it is getting wiped out just about every year" before. If it's only happening once a decade now that's a huge improvement. You can mislead all you want by saying things like "worst since X" and whatnot but the fact of the matter is that the system clearly works ok if most of the Xs are from before the system was there.
The material wealth generated by the economic activity enabled by these two projects is almost impossible to quantify.
I think it speaks volumes that you didn't even attempt to address my 3rd example.
You talking about the Imperial Valley or the Central Valley? The former is naturally desert, the latter was naturally abundant in wetlands and flood-prone grasslands, before agriculture took over.
It sounds like you're talking about the Imperial Valley, which is a different ball of wax from the whole wetland-draining argument here.
I object to "desert shithole" --- the Sonoran Desert is an ecosystem worthy of value in its own right, we just don't benefit from it as humans unless we turn to resource extraction or agriculture.
> Every single time it's had absolutely horrendous consequences often with millions of human deaths attached
Although I think it's best for nature to leave things how they are, draining the Landes in France (a swampy area comparable to that of the Everglades) and replacing it with a pine forest only had positive impacts on the humans living there (if only because it was a major step towards eradicating malaria in France).
To be honest though, it was originally a forest, and had turned into a swamp after being deforested by humans in the early middle ages.
I generally agree though I have to say I’ve been impressed by China’s efforts to reduce desertification. It’s not perfect, but they seem to have an evolving strategy and the right priorities.
I do not think that a 12' gator is going to appreciate you patting it on the head. And for short distances, they can outrun a human. That said I am a 3rd generation S. Floridian who grew up 50 years ago swimming and water skiing in the canals along what was then two-lane Highway 84, out west of Plantation, nothing much else there. Never had a problem, but the big ones got shot, officially or not.
Fun story: I was slaloming bank to bank down that canal and wiped out. The canal is narrow enough the boat has to slow down and idle around the u-turn to then plane up to get back, so it takes a bit. There was a high arched water pipe over the canal and a kid parked on the apex. Kid sez, there's a gator next to you. I said, sure, right kid. Kid sez, there's a gator next to you... and I look and yep, maybe a 6', 7' gator about 10' away. Well... not much to do... I started waving the ski and a couple of minutes later they throw me the rope and I orientated and up and away I went. ha haha. Good times. I think I was 15.
Another one: Buddy of mine is on two skis and is kinda mellowing out just running down that same canal and I'm driving and see a gator ahead in the middle of the canal, and why not, I steer around the gator and then steer him right over it and it explodes in a huge splash ha aha haar I am just laughing at the memory and he looks back and then back at me with a big shit eating grin. I was probably 16.
Same canal: I got this hot gf I'm trying to teach to ski and she's fiddling with the skis, as you do starting out, and a nice 5' tarpon rolls about 6' away from her. Panic! We're like no no no they do not bite, it's just a tarpon, they're friendlies! Oh well, no water skiing for her. I was... 17.
But I'm not here to tell you these stories. I'm here to talk about the river of grass, the Everglades. Many millions have lived around the periphery but you can look at maps and see it's a long way across with "nothing" there. How would you see the vast scope of the interior, in an efficient way, right down at water level?
Family 2 doors over in Melaleuca Isles (still exists, I see) the father was the district superintendent (I think) for the Florida Fish & Game Commission, or whatever it's called these days. In those days the US was a normal country and everybody hung out, the kids, the parents. So I'm over there in the morning and he says want to go on patrol. I say sure. So we drive the airboat out to the launch point on 84 (Alligator Alley) and off we go. This thing had a Lycoming flat six and there's not much to the boat but the Al flat hull, the two tier seats, and the enormous engine and propeller. And for 5 hours, at speeds peaking at 100mph[1], we criss cross the entire sector of the Everglades north of Hghwy 84. I stopped counting deer in the sawgrass in the water at 100. The vistas were of an endless prairie of sawgrass. He drove across the hammocks where there was grass by just powering the boat onto the land and then over.
I came away from that experience with a full appreciation of the scope of the Everglades, the idea of it, and am sad that the idea of wilderness has softened like melting fat into an ideal of a cozy unthreatening warm bath. There is nothing that can be accurately described as wilderness unless organisms endemic there are present and may be out to eat you. Starting with mosquitos and ending with alligators.
[1] In those medieval times we did not know nor understand the term "eye protection" and so I had none, though my neighbor did. He didn't care. At 100mph your face is quite distorted. Some debris is getting through the screen on the front of the boat. What a MF adventure.
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 have never been there and don't plan to. Still I wish for it to exist, so the many complicated, wild, strange and wonderful creatures and plants that have been dependent on that ecosystem for ages can continue to exist.
People can't stop building here. I don't get it. It's going to be under water in under 50 years. Yet for some reason there's a 100+ story building going up across from Bayfront Park and Ken Griffin is spending a billion on a massive tower in Brickell.
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.
You're saying it as if you assume some external entity judging whether something exists for somebody or not.
As an atheist you would acknowledge that the entire concept of "existing for something/somebody" is entirely a construct of human mind, which human mentally applies to the observable universe around them. So for an atheistic human mind, everything exists for human, as there's nobody else to exist for.
Doesn't matter what those religions claim, nature existed long before humans and exists beyond humans and will exist long after us. On earth, there are living creatures with their own motivations that inhabit all the remote wildernesses and deep seas. And life may exist on other planets.
> nature existed long before humans and exists beyond humans and will exist long after us
If this is true (and I believe it is), then it does not really matter much what humanity does in the big picture. Might as well drain some swamps and seas to reclaim some land.
> On earth, there are living creatures with their own motivations that inhabit all the remote wildernesses and deep seas
You can both acknowledge that, and believe that human must do what's good for humans and animals that are good for humans.
The IJsselmeer and Markermeer (of what used to be the Zuiderzee) in the Netherlands isn't much deeper but together I think quite a bit bigger than Okeechobee
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
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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.
No, this was much more entertaining to read.
I enjoyed the author's style, personally
Felt like AI to me
Please tell me which AI writes like that by default so I can recommend it to everyone who copy-paste the obnoxious chatGPT slop answers in the comment sections.
Normally I don't, but liked the humour.
What's not funny is the amount of podcast episodes that are two guys summarizing the wikipedia article, trying to be funny.
When civilization ends, we will look back at podcast episodes more numerous than the stars in the sky, and wonder if it that was really the most productive use of our entropy.
Thank you.
Another example of draining wetland is Mexico City I think. Drained to farm and then developed on.
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.
> Opinion about the value of Florida to the Union was mixed
was?
this article is hilarious as-is
Yea, so here's the tl;dr history in the article:
1. The author, who actually cribbed from wikipedia, gets the willies when he sees shallow water infested with tens of thousands of perfectly happy alligators. All he thinks is that amazing commerce will happen when he kills all the kind gators, flushes the state, and runs away before the next time it rains.
2. Everyone throughout history has wanted to Drain The Swamp. Every one of those amazing historical people has seemed perfectly reasonable and without a doubt was an incredibly towering bastion of science who wanted to drain the Everglades. Too bad they were all incompetent.
3. Please leave Florida Man and Gator Lake alone. They separate the Gulf of America on the West from the Sea of Florida on the East.
*Gulf of Mexico
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?
Whatever the karma is on this, it should be double
The python hunters of Florida do all the heavy lifting for this joke.
If you're not aware, python hunting is a state funded industry with the stated goal of controlling the spread of the invasive species in the Everglades. It has done very little to slow the growth of the python population in Florida but has created a demand for new roads and service buildings. Most python hunters farm overflow areas near roads, canals and flood gates, avoiding nests.
The Everglades will continue until morale improves!
Not sure is that would work, as @fishinggarrett will yoink them for being an invasive species.
oh man, thanks for the pointer to that guy. my oldest son will absolutely love him.
Or until they become lunch?
Until the scenery gains an appreciation for them, you might say.
Isn't that "The Pasco Promise"?
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.
It’s true. I was more expressing a sentiment than suggesting a course of political or legislative action. I await my punishment.
Yeah! let's Make Everglades Zug Island Again!
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.
“a few meters above sea level” is still not sea level. That’s a good 12-15 feet to work with.
Iirc, there are scientific estimates that Greenland's ice sheet alone would raise sea levels by 24 ft if it melted.
12-15 ft may really not be enough for very long.
My parents bought a house 11 feet above sea level. The right combination of high tides and storm surge could easily flood that any time. It hasn't happened yet, but the sea level could rise a foot or so in the next generation, making flooding more likely every year.
So let me ask you, is a house really a product meant to last forever and ever, or should it be something that you get maybe 30-40 good years out of it and then dispose it and rebuild?
I don’t get this idea where if a building can’t stay in a spot forever, it should not be built at all. Why not build and enjoy while you can?
When the land floods it floods, you move on. Until then don’t worry about it.
It’s already probably not enough to weather a 25-100 year storm (looking forward to compute storm frequency).
How do you feel about Holland?
Holland’s dykes are mostly built on impermeable clay.
As I understand it, that’s not possible in Florida, or at least in places like Miami, where the soil is almost entirely sand.
Holland has been creating progressively better soil surveys since the 1800’s, partially to allow them to place dykes intelligently.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167...
Well.. what’s the level of belief in climate change among elected Dutch leaders?
https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/05/15/desantis-signs-bill-er...
I feel that Holland does not have hurricanes.
For context; only the hurricane we have a clear record of had 8.5 meter storm surges. I’m not sure, can the Dutch barriers hold that back?
1953 was 5.6m above mean sea levels.
but parts of the Netherlands are -3 below sea level, it kinda evens out.
I think the other point to mention is that there isn't one barrier, there are a fuck load of them. (https://nltimes.nl/2024/09/03/tech-failure-nearly-caused-mas... but they also need to be close to work....)
The reason why we had something like the Delta works was due to a 12 Bft storm hitting our shores in 1953. This infrastructure is built to withstand these kind of storms and protect the land from flooding. The protections in place (movable doors in storm surge barriers etc.) are used a few times the last decades when storms did hit our shores. I don't know if this is useable in the Florida context. It's easy to say whenever a big hurricane hits the Florida shore: "Yeah, just ask the Dutch to fix this.." And I am sure some smart guys from our tech universities can pull it off, but you need money and political will. And it literally takes decades to built it.
Also, you need a place to build the dike. Look at a map of Miami, for example, and tell me where you want to build a dike. In front of Miami Beach? And how far does it go? All the way up the coast? There's 120 miles of continuous city on the Atlantic Coast. Also, the land is all very porous sand on top of porous coral. Even if you build a dike out of clay and concrete, water will still seep in from below. This is already happening at high tide.
Already happening at high ride? That is not a new phenomenon even though it is played up as as such.
Places like St Augustine, Fl or Alexandria, VA; and, although not a city, even Jamestown, Va all have records of regular flooding since their establishment centuries ago and well before the Industrial Revolution during strong king tides when you get a confluence of effects like the moon and the sun’s tidal forces amplifying each other, rains have swelled waterways and saturated ground, and the fact that they are situated and basically at water level. I’ve experienced it personally in a few places, ands considering that those places built a long time ago clearly have structures built to accommodate strong king tides is an indicator to me that they knew it happens every once and a while even before the Industrial Revolution.
Usually low-lying areas protected by dikes also deploy large pumps to pump out water that does get in. My guess is that it would be cost prohibitive to keep on pumping the water back out of Miami in 2075, but that is just a guess. There are probably people who know for sure, and it would be nice to read what they have to say.
Everglades as a biological system is perhaps one of the most unique things in the world.
I don’t think there is one like this.
It was eye opening to visit, have never been this close to Aligators.
It should be preserved in totality, for as long as we can, it is an American treasure. Unsustainable building in Florida is not a good enough reason to drain the Everglades.
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!
>> Speaking of the uncanny feeling of shallow water, there are parts of the Florida keys ...
> Leeches freak me out, I can't imagine swimming with (or falling on) the gators!
FWIW, neither leeches nor alligators are indigenous to salt water, which is what surrounds the Florida keys.
Alligators maybe not, but in the one time that I have paddleboarded in the keys I saw a crocodile. Probably a crocodile rather than a gator, I didn’t get that close… but from reading articles they’ll occasionally eat a small dog around there, so they are definitely out there.
Saltwater crocs do exist in southern Florida, no doubt. And there's some chance a gator could swim from one island to another (or the mainland).
The easiest way to discern each is based on their snout. If the reptile you saw has a blunt nose about the same width as its jaw, then it's a gator. If, instead, the jaw looked more like a trapezoid, then it's a croc.
Both are opportunistic hunters capable of taking down mammals up to adult bovines or horses. The latter two examples are rare as the size of the croc/gator has to be rather large.
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)
Leeches are ubiquitous in North America, though I've seen more of them east of the Rocky Mountains. Most freshwater streams and lakes probably have some.
I understand the psychological aspect but they are otherwise totally harmless.
> 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.
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.
[flagged]
Not being able to feel them is honestly scarier. It's one thing to suddenly feel a single bloodsucking parasite attach itself to you, but suddenly realizing that you're covered in them out of nowhere is the stuff of nightmares. If I could be outside in the summer blissfully minding my business and then glancing down save suddenly seeing like a dozen mosquitoes all gorging themselves on my arm, I'd be more afraid of them too.
I’ve been in clouds of mosquitos so thick they cover you in black when you sit down. They land in your food and try to eat it. I could understand being afraid of them having seen that buzzing miasma bearing down at all times, relentless for a drop of blood.
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.
That's right, I (GP) am not really afraid of them, I just find leeches and bloodsuckers quite unpleasant.
A funny story: a few years ago I went canoeing up a small river with my younger cousin. There's not a lot of current because the river is shallow and there are beaver dams around every corner. Most of the dams are unused and broken up, but the river's so shallow in the late summer that they block quite a bit of water anyway and necessitate portaging.
My cousin, being young, gets bored and stops padding, though he's still willing to help portage. We zig zag up the small river, crashing into either side every few paddlestrokes, because I hadn't realized that being the heavier one, I should be in the back of the canoe.
Eventually we get to a large felled tree blocking the river, and we attempt to portage around it, but the banks are quite steep and thick with brush, and I end up losing the canoe down the river. The current is slow, still, but the canoe is floating away, so I have to strip down and jump in after it. Unfortunately my feet touched the bottom and I was covered in bloodsuckers large and small, some of which hid themselves under my feet and between my toes for the rest of the excursion.
When I got back to the house, I lifted my leg, put my foot in the sink, and said "get the salt!"
Because we're large. In nature, crocodilians prey on small/mid-size mammals and birds. Humans are larger than their normal prey, and we're also tall, so we appear more massive to them. And most predators actively avoid animals that are too large to be their prey.
That's why it gets so much more dangerous if you're swimming. If a crocodile is above the water, then it can only see your head. And it's just the right size to be its prey.
And if the crocodile is underwater, then it may be even worse. Humans usually look clumsy when swimming, just like an animal in distress. In other words, an easy prey.
The headline reminds me of the Mr. Show sketch about America blowing up the moon [1].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJ3LIA5LmA
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.
I think there's a bit of "Chesterton's fence" with these issues. If you don't know enough about the ecosystem to appreciate its complexity (aggressive animals are a tiny part of what's going on there) then you definitely shouldn't be allowed to remove or change it. Human ecological interventions have a bad track record.
> Maybe drain it, replace it with different animals that are friendly, and then refill it. I’m only sort of joking.
It's not a zoo. Jungle Island might be more your speed. Staff have chastised me for rubbing the kangaroos' bellies, saying they really don't like that, but in my defense he rolled over for me to do it. YMMV.
What lead me to appreciating the Everglades was randomly deciding to go to Shark Valley / Bobcat Boardwalk Trail on some cold day in February. The annoying bugs were mostly gone to wherever they go when it's cold, the 'gators were lounging around trying to catch some warmth, and the anhingas and other water birds were quite active. I caught a guided walking tour somewhere and what really stuck with me was how every tiny rise in elevation up to a few feet completely changes the ecosystem. I'd lived in Florida practically my whole life until then and never really "seen" that but from then on I could never not see it. I left 15 years ago and whenever I drive home for a visit, crossing that threshold into southern Florida where I start seeing it again brings me comfort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everglades#Ecosystems
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.
If you walk up to me and pat me on the head I will probably hiss and start slinking away at the speed of syrup too
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.
It does not take much familiarity with the history of Mississippi flood control and the Army Corps of Engineers to realize how risky, fraught, and short-sighted the whole project has been. The delta's dying and the Old River Control Structure is one bad day away from diverting the entire river to the Atchafalaya.
_The Great River_ by Boyce Upholt from last year is a good place to start learning about the Mississippi.
Or John McPhee's "Atchafalaya".
> the irrigation and suitability for farmland of central California
The unsustainable irrigation that's draining aquifers during droughts and causing permanent damage[1] to groundwater retention? The irrigation that's causing changes in land topography[2]?
> the lack of frequent flooding of the Mississippi river
You mean the system which is a well known ecological disaster?[3][4][5]
And no frequent flooding? Since 2017, the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (which covers only a small portion of the watershed) has seen the USDA pay out $11.4 billion[6] to cover damages from flooding. I live in the watershed and for most of the summer I get flood alerts every time it rains. Damages are on the news constantly. In 2008, a tributary river flooded so badly it destroyed two mid-sized cities in Iowa[7]. Then you have the the 2011 flooding[8] of the Mississippi which was the most disastrous since before most modifications had been made to the river. Lack of frequent flooding? Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it's not happening.
Like what are we talking about here? Even reaching for what you assume to be innocuous examples, empirically observable negative consequences hang off of them like fruiting bodies. Who knows what the consequences will look like in 100-200 years when they've had time to iteratively feed back into themselves.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30197456/
[2] - https://www.usgs.gov/centers/land-subsidence-in-california
[3] - https://repository.lsu.edu/geo_pubs/2126/
[4] - https://repository.lsu.edu/geo_pubs/1614/
[5] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230306143336.h...
[6] - https://www.ewg.org/research/usda-policies-fall-short-helpin...
[7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_flood_of_2008
[8] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Mississippi_River_floods
This is exactly the sort of ignorant of the past viewpoint I was complaining about.
The part of CA we're talking about was a desert shithole before (arguably still is). There's debate about just how much we can sustainably irrigate it, but at least we can irrigate it. The alternative is basically no agricultural activity. Maybe some grazing.
Ditto for the Mississippi. It floods "a little" now vs "somewhere on it is getting wiped out just about every year" before. If it's only happening once a decade now that's a huge improvement. You can mislead all you want by saying things like "worst since X" and whatnot but the fact of the matter is that the system clearly works ok if most of the Xs are from before the system was there.
The material wealth generated by the economic activity enabled by these two projects is almost impossible to quantify.
I think it speaks volumes that you didn't even attempt to address my 3rd example.
You talking about the Imperial Valley or the Central Valley? The former is naturally desert, the latter was naturally abundant in wetlands and flood-prone grasslands, before agriculture took over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Trough
It sounds like you're talking about the Imperial Valley, which is a different ball of wax from the whole wetland-draining argument here.
I object to "desert shithole" --- the Sonoran Desert is an ecosystem worthy of value in its own right, we just don't benefit from it as humans unless we turn to resource extraction or agriculture.
You're right I misspoke. I'm talking about the Imperial valley.
> Every single time it's had absolutely horrendous consequences often with millions of human deaths attached
Although I think it's best for nature to leave things how they are, draining the Landes in France (a swampy area comparable to that of the Everglades) and replacing it with a pine forest only had positive impacts on the humans living there (if only because it was a major step towards eradicating malaria in France).
To be honest though, it was originally a forest, and had turned into a swamp after being deforested by humans in the early middle ages.
I generally agree though I have to say I’ve been impressed by China’s efforts to reduce desertification. It’s not perfect, but they seem to have an evolving strategy and the right priorities.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2025/03/25/why-chi...
I do not think that a 12' gator is going to appreciate you patting it on the head. And for short distances, they can outrun a human. That said I am a 3rd generation S. Floridian who grew up 50 years ago swimming and water skiing in the canals along what was then two-lane Highway 84, out west of Plantation, nothing much else there. Never had a problem, but the big ones got shot, officially or not.
Fun story: I was slaloming bank to bank down that canal and wiped out. The canal is narrow enough the boat has to slow down and idle around the u-turn to then plane up to get back, so it takes a bit. There was a high arched water pipe over the canal and a kid parked on the apex. Kid sez, there's a gator next to you. I said, sure, right kid. Kid sez, there's a gator next to you... and I look and yep, maybe a 6', 7' gator about 10' away. Well... not much to do... I started waving the ski and a couple of minutes later they throw me the rope and I orientated and up and away I went. ha haha. Good times. I think I was 15.
Another one: Buddy of mine is on two skis and is kinda mellowing out just running down that same canal and I'm driving and see a gator ahead in the middle of the canal, and why not, I steer around the gator and then steer him right over it and it explodes in a huge splash ha aha haar I am just laughing at the memory and he looks back and then back at me with a big shit eating grin. I was probably 16.
Same canal: I got this hot gf I'm trying to teach to ski and she's fiddling with the skis, as you do starting out, and a nice 5' tarpon rolls about 6' away from her. Panic! We're like no no no they do not bite, it's just a tarpon, they're friendlies! Oh well, no water skiing for her. I was... 17.
But I'm not here to tell you these stories. I'm here to talk about the river of grass, the Everglades. Many millions have lived around the periphery but you can look at maps and see it's a long way across with "nothing" there. How would you see the vast scope of the interior, in an efficient way, right down at water level?
Family 2 doors over in Melaleuca Isles (still exists, I see) the father was the district superintendent (I think) for the Florida Fish & Game Commission, or whatever it's called these days. In those days the US was a normal country and everybody hung out, the kids, the parents. So I'm over there in the morning and he says want to go on patrol. I say sure. So we drive the airboat out to the launch point on 84 (Alligator Alley) and off we go. This thing had a Lycoming flat six and there's not much to the boat but the Al flat hull, the two tier seats, and the enormous engine and propeller. And for 5 hours, at speeds peaking at 100mph[1], we criss cross the entire sector of the Everglades north of Hghwy 84. I stopped counting deer in the sawgrass in the water at 100. The vistas were of an endless prairie of sawgrass. He drove across the hammocks where there was grass by just powering the boat onto the land and then over.
I came away from that experience with a full appreciation of the scope of the Everglades, the idea of it, and am sad that the idea of wilderness has softened like melting fat into an ideal of a cozy unthreatening warm bath. There is nothing that can be accurately described as wilderness unless organisms endemic there are present and may be out to eat you. Starting with mosquitos and ending with alligators.
[1] In those medieval times we did not know nor understand the term "eye protection" and so I had none, though my neighbor did. He didn't care. At 100mph your face is quite distorted. Some debris is getting through the screen on the front of the boat. What a MF adventure.
Thanks for sharing your stories, I enjoyed them.
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?
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?
It’s fine. Future generations can just put the freshwater back in the wells, like we currently do to keep Silicon Valley from sinking into the bay.
I have never been there and don't plan to. Still I wish for it to exist, so the many complicated, wild, strange and wonderful creatures and plants that have been dependent on that ecosystem for ages can continue to exist.
I feel the same way about Miami.
I live in SoFLA in the Miami metro area.
People can't stop building here. I don't get it. It's going to be under water in under 50 years. Yet for some reason there's a 100+ story building going up across from Bayfront Park and Ken Griffin is spending a billion on a massive tower in Brickell.
Everything from Miami to Ft. Myers was the Everglades.
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.
> Nature does not exist for humanity's comfort or aesthetic preferences
To be fair, in most religions (including christianity and atheism) it kinda does
Atheism isn't a religion and as an atheist I find that an offensive statement.
Nature existed before we did and will exist after us, it can't be true that it exists for us.
> it can't be true that it exists for us
You're saying it as if you assume some external entity judging whether something exists for somebody or not.
As an atheist you would acknowledge that the entire concept of "existing for something/somebody" is entirely a construct of human mind, which human mentally applies to the observable universe around them. So for an atheistic human mind, everything exists for human, as there's nobody else to exist for.
Doesn't matter what those religions claim, nature existed long before humans and exists beyond humans and will exist long after us. On earth, there are living creatures with their own motivations that inhabit all the remote wildernesses and deep seas. And life may exist on other planets.
> nature existed long before humans and exists beyond humans and will exist long after us
If this is true (and I believe it is), then it does not really matter much what humanity does in the big picture. Might as well drain some swamps and seas to reclaim some land.
> On earth, there are living creatures with their own motivations that inhabit all the remote wildernesses and deep seas
You can both acknowledge that, and believe that human must do what's good for humans and animals that are good for humans.
I have to say - thank you for that!
You'd make a terrible wildlife biologist.
The IJsselmeer and Markermeer (of what used to be the Zuiderzee) in the Netherlands isn't much deeper but together I think quite a bit bigger than Okeechobee
California's Central Valley would like a cautionary word....
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
It’s such a shame that a state with such valuable natural resources is filled with people that just straight up don’t appreciate it.
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.
Sea level rise will finish the 'glades.
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.
I was disappointed too. It was a topic of the 1908 election and the 1880's, not something people discuss now.
What is: Dr. Evil's plan to set off a global catastrophy?
no
If it's so shallow, it seems like draining it would have little impact on flood risk
>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!
> 5x the size of JFK (the airport, not the person)
lol
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?
Fresh water = bad
betteridge's law of headlines still undefeated
Bit of a layup for it in this case.
no