On Sunday, July 18, 1999 7:27 PM Dan Hook <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Now, with regards to this, there are some problems. One is moral. The
>> impact of such a change would be far reaching and would affect the lives
>> humans and nonhuman animals, probably adversely in the case of the
>> Add to this the affect on the region's weather patterns and the like.
>Would that destroy the Rift Lakes?
Eventually, I think it would. In the short run, it might not.
>I'm not much of a conservationist
>myself, but something about flooding out the location of the most rapid
>vertebrate evolution ever strikes me as unaesthetic. Plus, the fish from
>that area look really nice in tanks.
I'm not out for destruction either. But, it might also create islands where land animals and plants would be isolated, thereby speeding up their evolution.
>And what would be the benefits of this anyway? It doesn't sound any more
>like ultratechnology or macro engineering than towing icebergs to water
>California does, and the side effects are less clear.
One benefit might be turning a semiarid and, in some places, arid region into a more temperate one. This might allow even more food to produce in that area. Another might be allowing waterborne travel and trade to become practical in the region.
Now i'm discussing this idea here to see where it can go. I'm not sure I'd actually be committed to doing this, since so it has too many unknown consequences, many of which might be detrimental to human and nonhuman life.