5 ms·

Wow. What a project that would be! Really interesting read, and while the numbers are a little hand wavy even if they were out on the cost by an order of magni

Wow. What a project that would be! Really interesting read, and while the numbers are a little hand wavy even if they were out on the cost by an order of magnitude it would still be very cheap. The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly.

c0nfused 2y ago
I think the issue is that when you look at it from the modern perspective of profit the economics don't work out. If look at it as a way to spend huge piles of money to subsidize a lifestyle it suddenly is less charming
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  You're spending $16B to create $1T of real estate value. That would pay for itself in two years at 1% R/E tax and <10% interest. I didn't read the entire article, but the reason it won't happen at this scale is because you could never acquire the property rights to be able to do it, not because it's a bad investment.
Mistletoe 2y ago
Good? Do you understand the ecosystems and national parks that would be destroyed by this? Once those are gone they are gone. We don’t even need this nonsense, the population is contracting. We will have nothing but empty space in inhabited spaces already. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59899 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59899
- jamiek88 2y ago
  Article talks about how 90% of the land would remain as is as well as 100% of the national parks, simply restoring watersheds that are intermittent or dried up to wetlands. I didn't use the word good anywhere or even offer a value judgement, I simply called it interesting. Also your tone sucks and makes me not want to discuss in good faith with you.
  - moribvndvs 2y ago
    “what the hell does my tone got to do with it?[0]” 0 - https://youtu.be/Rv71ZCd_yno?feature=shared https://youtu.be/Rv71ZCd_yno?feature=shared
  - TinkersW 2y ago
    Article assumes people want to live in cramped cities.. clearly this is not the case when we look at where Americans choose to live, so premise is flawed. In reality 300 more Americans would spread out and wreck the environment more than it already is.
pj_mukh 2y ago
Looking past the various NIMBY challenges to this project, I'd love to find a marine-safe desalination method too. Apparently a lot of marine life gets absolutely wrecked when you pump in water from the California coast, but I see it mostly as a unique engineering challenge. This should be possible!
cle 2y ago
> The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly. Looking around at this thread, it's easy to see why. People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Of course, the type of economic progress we've had over the last few decades has been a mixed bag, due to structural deficiencies. But I don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The general cynicism and negativity makes me really sad. Esp for a community of builders and problem solvers.
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  I take the entirely opposite conclusion. Seeing so many value ecological conservatism over economic progress is to me optimistic and heartening. Over the past 100 years we've seen a shift to seeing the world as a shared world vs. one that is our manifest destiny to claim. I see others beginning to see a sense of shared responsibility for the stewardship of this world for the other living creatures as well as a recognition that our fates are more intertwined with theirs than we *used to think.
  - cle 2y ago
    I agree that it’s a positive development. Working together/recognizing our shared fate isn’t mutually exclusive with progress (it’s generally a prerequisite!).
- kibwen 2y ago
  > People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Phrasing such a proposal as "economic progress" is entirely irrational. This is a solution looking for a problem. We have zero, zero, zero economic need for this.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Or phrasing it as "ecological conservatism". It's not "conservative" to start accounting for the previously unrecognized or outright disregarded negative consequences of these projects. Turns out healthy ecosystems are important for humans too.

c0nfused 2y ago

I think the issue is that when you look at it from the modern perspective of profit the economics don't work out. If look at it as a way to spend huge piles of money to subsidize a lifestyle it suddenly is less charming

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
You're spending $16B to create $1T of real estate value. That would pay for itself in two years at 1% R/E tax and <10% interest. I didn't read the entire article, but the reason it won't happen at this scale is because you could never acquire the property rights to be able to do it, not because it's a bad investment.

Mistletoe 2y ago

Good? Do you understand the ecosystems and national parks that would be destroyed by this? Once those are gone they are gone. We don’t even need this nonsense, the population is contracting. We will have nothing but empty space in inhabited spaces already. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59899 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59899

jamiek88 2y ago
Article talks about how 90% of the land would remain as is as well as 100% of the national parks, simply restoring watersheds that are intermittent or dried up to wetlands. I didn't use the word good anywhere or even offer a value judgement, I simply called it interesting. Also your tone sucks and makes me not want to discuss in good faith with you.
- moribvndvs 2y ago
  “what the hell does my tone got to do with it?[0]” 0 - https://youtu.be/Rv71ZCd_yno?feature=shared https://youtu.be/Rv71ZCd_yno?feature=shared
- TinkersW 2y ago
  Article assumes people want to live in cramped cities.. clearly this is not the case when we look at where Americans choose to live, so premise is flawed. In reality 300 more Americans would spread out and wreck the environment more than it already is.

pj_mukh 2y ago

Looking past the various NIMBY challenges to this project, I'd love to find a marine-safe desalination method too. Apparently a lot of marine life gets absolutely wrecked when you pump in water from the California coast, but I see it mostly as a unique engineering challenge. This should be possible!

cle 2y ago

> The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly. Looking around at this thread, it's easy to see why. People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Of course, the type of economic progress we've had over the last few decades has been a mixed bag, due to structural deficiencies. But I don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The general cynicism and negativity makes me really sad. Esp for a community of builders and problem solvers.

HelloMcFly 2y ago
I take the entirely opposite conclusion. Seeing so many value ecological conservatism over economic progress is to me optimistic and heartening. Over the past 100 years we've seen a shift to seeing the world as a shared world vs. one that is our manifest destiny to claim. I see others beginning to see a sense of shared responsibility for the stewardship of this world for the other living creatures as well as a recognition that our fates are more intertwined with theirs than we *used to think.
- cle 2y ago
  I agree that it’s a positive development. Working together/recognizing our shared fate isn’t mutually exclusive with progress (it’s generally a prerequisite!).
kibwen 2y ago
> People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Phrasing such a proposal as "economic progress" is entirely irrational. This is a solution looking for a problem. We have zero, zero, zero economic need for this.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Or phrasing it as "ecological conservatism". It's not "conservative" to start accounting for the previously unrecognized or outright disregarded negative consequences of these projects. Turns out healthy ecosystems are important for humans too.