4 ms·

>Which should benefit from this the most. But that's making an assumption about their desire, maybe they don't love the idea of being displaced and having to h

>Which should benefit from this the most. But that's making an assumption about their desire, maybe they don't love the idea of being displaced and having to have another activity (tourism or whatever) in order to live. Regarding the organisms living there, my point is we don't know what effect getting rid of such an ecosystem could have in the global scale. Maybe whatever bacteria / insect / small mammal that manages to survive there is useful for a species of bird that stops there on their way to another reproduction site. We can look at it and think by filling it with water it will be "better", whatever better means, but there are serious unknown unknowns that we can't take into account.

DrScientist 3y ago
Exactly - history is littered with unintended consequences.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  The ship for "maybe we should not do something lest we disrupt the ecosystem with unintended consequences" has sailed.
  - Planktonne 3y ago
    The solution to negative unintended consequences is not to trigger more and hope that the next lot are positive.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      Maybe a solution to unintended negative consequences from destructive activities that never cared about environmental impact until too late is more so a constructive project with intended positive consequences and specific environmental goals and less so the default alternative of "keep doing those destructive projects as before and stall anything else"
throwaway290 3y ago
> there are serious unknown unknowns that we can't take into account. We can model stuff. Also we don't find out if we don't try. I just don't get how we are fine with causing constant large-scale intentional harm to environment for industrial purposes even as there were so many unintended consequences, but when considering a major project specifically aimed to benefit our environment and long-term humanity it's instantly the apathetic "oh but what if?". Plus consider the amount of free clean water energy and positive uses of that as a result of this project.
- throwaway173738 3y ago
  People constantly overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms on projects like this. Where I live we made it a point to dam up a lot of rivers to get hydroelectric power, but the dams prevented fish in the area from returning home to spawn, weakening our fisheries. And in the end the dams don’t produce that much power.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    All projects like that are done for money or energy first though. We know they all come with possible environmental damage and all they do is try to mitigate it. These projects keep being done and we don't bat an eye. This is different in that it has environmental improvements as goals. Lower sea levels a bit, enrich local ecosystem, etc. So it's a bit sad that when it comes to projects like there is always paralysis but not when we just want more stuff.
    - burnished 3y ago
      Part of it is just the audience. Your average HN comment section would likely fiercely debate the creation of crosswalks, curb cuts and other common sense improvements (though that may be true of the population at large). If the things you felt like dont receive enough attention were available for this level of public scrutiny well, I think you can rest assured it would receive it.
- akiselev 3y ago

DrScientist 3y ago

Exactly - history is littered with unintended consequences.

throwaway290 3y ago
The ship for "maybe we should not do something lest we disrupt the ecosystem with unintended consequences" has sailed.
- Planktonne 3y ago
  The solution to negative unintended consequences is not to trigger more and hope that the next lot are positive.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Maybe a solution to unintended negative consequences from destructive activities that never cared about environmental impact until too late is more so a constructive project with intended positive consequences and specific environmental goals and less so the default alternative of "keep doing those destructive projects as before and stall anything else"

throwaway290 3y ago

> there are serious unknown unknowns that we can't take into account. We can model stuff. Also we don't find out if we don't try. I just don't get how we are fine with causing constant large-scale intentional harm to environment for industrial purposes even as there were so many unintended consequences, but when considering a major project specifically aimed to benefit our environment and long-term humanity it's instantly the apathetic "oh but what if?". Plus consider the amount of free clean water energy and positive uses of that as a result of this project.

throwaway173738 3y ago
People constantly overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms on projects like this. Where I live we made it a point to dam up a lot of rivers to get hydroelectric power, but the dams prevented fish in the area from returning home to spawn, weakening our fisheries. And in the end the dams don’t produce that much power.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  All projects like that are done for money or energy first though. We know they all come with possible environmental damage and all they do is try to mitigate it. These projects keep being done and we don't bat an eye. This is different in that it has environmental improvements as goals. Lower sea levels a bit, enrich local ecosystem, etc. So it's a bit sad that when it comes to projects like there is always paralysis but not when we just want more stuff.
  - burnished 3y ago
    Part of it is just the audience. Your average HN comment section would likely fiercely debate the creation of crosswalks, curb cuts and other common sense improvements (though that may be true of the population at large). If the things you felt like dont receive enough attention were available for this level of public scrutiny well, I think you can rest assured it would receive it.
akiselev 3y ago