Should we drain the Everglades?
Article reception and style
- Several readers found the piece clickbait-y: it recounts historical drainage schemes but notes no serious current effort, making the titular question feel irrelevant.
- Multiple comments say it closely tracks the Wikipedia article on Everglades drainage; some would rather have read Wikipedia directly.
- Others enjoyed the humor and narration, while a few felt the jokes and tone were “off” or AI-like.
- Betteridge’s law (“any headline that ends in a question mark…”) is invoked as obviously applying here.
Historical context vs present-day debate
- Discussion notes that large-scale drainage was a live issue in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including early US elections, but is not a mainstream proposal now.
- Past drainage attempts (e.g., dikes around Lake Okeechobee) are debated: the article portrays them as failures; commenters argue they did “work” in surviving major hurricanes, though not perfectly regulating floods/droughts.
Ecology and experience of the Everglades
- Many stress the Everglades’ uniqueness and value as a “river of grass” and complex mosaic of ecosystems, where tiny elevation changes radically shift habitat types.
- Firsthand accounts describe canoeing, camping, birds, dolphins, manatees, fish, and mangroves building land—presented as far richer than a caricature of just “gators and snakes.”
- Multiple comments call the Everglades an irreplaceable national treasure that should be preserved, with unsustainable development not a valid excuse to drain it.
Safety, predators, and public perception
- Some express fear of alligators, crocodiles, and leeches; others argue gators are generally timid around humans and that biting insects are a bigger nuisance.
- Colorful stories recount swimming and skiing alongside gators, and the broader point that true “wilderness” includes creatures that might eat you.
- Jokes suggest dropping would-be drainers into the swamp to gain “appreciation,” contrasted with concern about introducing “invasive species” (i.e., those people).
Draining wetlands: benefits, harms, and precedents
- One thread notes that historically, draining wetlands sometimes reduced malaria (e.g., parts of Italy, France’s Landes), providing real human benefits.
- Others counter that large-scale hydrological engineering often has severe, long-run consequences:
- Examples: Central Valley irrigation depleting aquifers and causing land subsidence; Mississippi River levees and control structures creating ecological and flood-risk problems; Mexico City and other drained wetlands.
- Argument: humanity repeatedly underestimates complexity of such systems; “Chesterton’s fence” is invoked as a reason not to radically alter ecosystems we don’t fully understand.
- Dissenters respond that these same projects also enabled massive increases in agricultural productivity and human wealth; they see critics as ignoring successes and human needs.
Climate change, sea level rise, and Florida development
- Multiple comments argue that sea-level rise may “finish” the Everglades and threaten South Florida generally.
- There is frustration at ongoing dense coastal development just a few meters above sea level despite foreseeable flooding, saltwater intrusion, and eventual desalination needs.
- The Dutch are cited as the only people “trusted” to fundamentally reshape wetlands; others note Florida’s porous geology and hurricane risk make Dutch-style solutions much harder and costlier.
Philosophical views on nature’s purpose
- One camp emphasizes that nature does not exist for human comfort or safety; the Everglades’ value is independent of human aesthetic preferences.
- Another maintains that, practically, humans will and should prioritize what benefits people and “animals that are good for humans.”
- A subthread challenges the idea that nature “exists for us,” especially from an atheistic perspective, but others argue that “existing for” is itself a human construct.