Re-Think Rebuilding New Orleans

I asked Jeeves why New Orleans found itself below sea level. The city is built on alluvial silt that sinks at a rate many times higher than average. No one says this rate of sinking is going to lessen. Perhaps even greater expenditures on levees and pumps can reduce the risk of future catastrophe, but who should bear the costs of protecting and rescuing New Orleans and its residents?

I have had some good times in New Orleans. It is certainly a popular tourist destination; but its value as a fun city and port city can be measured in terms of the dollars that flow into it. Areas more than usually subject to periodic natural disasters should sustain and rebuild themselves out of their own community's income - with the help of loans from people willing to make them if necessary - but should not be restored again and again with tax dollars.

Seeing people who refused to evacuate, who caused good people to risk their own lives rescuing them, and who are looting stores for jewelry in the chaos, is interfering with my sympathy; but I am talking about the folly of sustaining a city extraordinarily exposed to the elements.

Let me remind the world of a famous saying of Jesus of Nazareth, found at Matthew 7:24 (NIV):

"24Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

New Orleans is a house built on sand. If we are going to have nationally-funded relief efforts, then we should have nationally-mandated rules against building on land extraordinarily subject to periodic devastation.

UPDATE: Read a really fine article in the Washington Post about the history and politics of "The Slow Drowning of New Orleans." Also see the Townhall.com column by Professor Marvin Olasky about the history of federal disaster relief, "A Disastrous History."

UPDATE: Sanity may be settling in: Hard Decisions for New Orleans

UPDATE: Rethinking New Orleans

UPDATE: Shell-shocked insurers retreat from coasts

UPDATE: FEMA's rebuilding rules announced

UPDATE: "Parts of New Orleans are sinking far more rapidly than scientists first thought, more than an inch a year, new research suggests."

UPDATE: New Orleans is again a cesspool of murder.

UPDATE: New Orleans Repeats Mistakes as It Rebuilds.

Human Aggression and the Belief in Heaven

Belief in an afterlife is not just a comfort in times of bereavement. It has also played a critical role in the evolution of human group aggression. Warriors who believe they will be reunited with loved ones even if they are killed in battle are more likely to risk death by courageous action. Societies (tribes, gene pools) whose aggressiveness is enhanced this way have been even more likely to decimate less aggressive societies, take their resources, and impregnate their women.

A predisposition to believe in a heaven and a god or gods, because of the cohesiveness and capacity for joint mentation and action it has brought to tribes and societies throughout history, is probably coded into the human genome. See Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature and this excerpt from a great online interview with Professor Wilson.

Following perceived divine injunctions with no shame and reduced fear of death can also result in acts of terrorism, many quite effective, whether by Islamic jihadists or anti-abortionists like Eric Rudolph.

Yet government leaders and media organizations, for fear of loss of votes or business, never challenge beliefs in religion or afterlife. To paraphrase Alexis DeTocqueville, most people don't have the time or mental equipment to figure out a rational, scientifically validated cosmology for themselves and hence adopt religious belief systems as a matter of comforting convenience.

Built-in human tendencies of this nature also probably explain the recurring phenomenon of a people's initial support for a war sold to it by its leaders as desirable, only in some cases to cool very slowly and reluctantly in light of subsequent events and revelations. Spectators of team sports are another example of the emotional intensity so easily aroused by (in this case, ritualized) tribal warfare.

For many of us who remember the conundrum of Vietnam, the situation in Iraq is history unpleasantly repeating itself. The experience of Vietnam did not weaken the United States in any important way, but it did divide a generation and a people into enthusiasts versus realists. Who started this mess, anyway? It's time to pull the plug on this misadventure.

Let's See How This Evolves

I expect to tell a few about this space and welcome them to pass the link on to the deserving for perusal and contribution.

Comments will be welcome so long as they are not abusive enough to get me in trouble or drive off people I want to see participate. Sign with your real name if you don't mind being on record with that comment, or post with a nickname or as anonymous if you see fit to be off the record with a comment. Your insider friends may guess who you are with a nickname; but you can maintain deniability that way. Comments left with a name I know are subject to verification. Abusive comments are subject to deletion.

I will act on requests from responsible friends and friends of friends to turn this into a team blog so other people can start their own topics rather than just comment on mine.

I hope I can leave this blog open for public comments. If not, I'll turn them off so just I and any team bloggers can post and comment.

It's late, and I'm too tired to write anything else; so I'll just sign this.

UPDATE: Anonymity on the Internet can be a problem now in the United States under a new federal criminal law amendment, thanks to Congress' posturing on stalking in the rush to recess for Christmas. Read this report and followup FAQ. One commentator says this amendment was only intended to extend the existing law on telephone harassment to the new VOIP technology; but, if so, the legislation was poorly crafted to achieve only this result and should be amended. Another commentator says a D.C. Circuit decision interpreting the old statute will protect First Amendment free speech under the amended statute. A new Briefing Paper from the Cato Institute reminds us of the value of anonymity and pseudonymity in the founding of our republic.