It would be completely disingenuous for me to say that making an exception for Venice is a "slippery slope", but I can't help thinking about the river behind my house. I live in Japan by the ocean and they are widening the river by a factor of 3 -- literally digging up the banks, rebuilding them, dredging the bottom of the river, flattening it out, fortifying the banks with concrete and stone, etc. I hope they know what they are doing, but given how the river otter is now extinct in Japan (loss of habitat) and the river eel (unagi) has been decimated (loss of habitat)... I've got to wonder if they really care one way or another.

The thing is, the town where I live will be decimated by any reasonable size tsunami that might happen. Rain fall amounts are rising and we're getting record floods pretty much every year (despite being in a rain shadow). The real answer is to move the city up on top of the nearby plateau which is about 100 m above sea level, but I guess widening the river buys them (ummm.... us....) some time.

Generally speaking, I have to wonder whether it makes sense to try to save land that is only 3 m or so above sea level. And while I can completely understand your point about making a special case for Venice, I don't think we (as humans) are making special cases. I wonder whether we have any rational plans at all for mitigating the risks in these areas. Destroying the ecosystem and also getting flooded out seems like a pretty poor "compromise".

Of course, in a pot meets kettle kind of admission, I don't currently have concrete plans to move out of my "very likely to be under water sometime in my lifetime abode". It's on my TODO list...

When will we learn that if we kill every living thing in the X, we're probably going to regret it later... Maybe the lagoon acidifies and dissolves piers, maybe algae blooms produce toxic gas, who knows.

> When will we learn that if we kill every living thing in the X, we're probably going to regret it later

Never, because it's not true. You haven't convinced me that there's anything wrong with my proposal.

From my perspective your proposal is at least valid. But it's really quite subjective. Personally I've never really cared for the value we put on landmarks and historic sites. Let it become a sunken city and sell submarine tours.

Of course that's my subjective opinion as well.

Maybe it's fine, but why do we assume it's default-fine? All over the world we see things run out of control when we steamroll an ecosystem.

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I recall there was some news a year or two ago about Norway contemplating the installation of pumps to oxygenate fjords which had stagnated & began to become anoxic due to human activity, and were experiencing toxic blooms.

QED why we are where we are.

> There's only one Venice.

Venice became tourist theme park.

> There's only one Venice.

Yep and it exists in the past. Over half of the population has already left.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-death-of...