Obviously this is a terrible idea, but I’m gonna answer it seriously for the sake of dunking on it.
The amount of work. I mean, just astronomical. That’s 1,650 miles of longitude this dude is talking about filling in; the largest earth-moving project ever was the Panama Canal, and it’s only about 50 miles long. Plus, by comparison, it’s essentially a one-dimensional line! This looks like it’s probably in the ballpark of 500-ish miles from the current shore to the new shore, and two-ish miles from the surface to the floor.
Where would we get the land from? It’s not like there’s a pile just sitting around. I guess we could dredge the Pacific and truck it across to pour into the Atlantic? Take down the Appalachians and the Rockies? Bring down an asteroid into the ocean? None of that would be enough. In fact, nothing I can think of that we have access to could even come close to providing enough dirt (remember, we need 1,650 x 500 x 2 cubic miles of it!), even if we could manage to do it without destroying ecosystems or killing billions of people.
The people who have spent a lot of money buying homes and businesses on the current Eastern seaboard of the United States would probably have something to say about this plan. (Something loud and something very angry.) Besides, it would completely upend the shipping industry, the fishing industry, the tourism industry, and more. This would legitimately destroy multiple national economies, and that’s before you even take into account the ecological disaster.
Sea level rise is already a major problem. So displacing a bunch of water in favor of dirt probably isn’t going to help that too terribly much.
…why? A lot of America is sitting unused or underused. If you were to clump all of the US’s land use into discrete blocks, it would look like this:
The area labeled “LAND?” on the ocean in the OP map is, give or take, the size of the current amount of land owned by the 100 largest landowning families, private family timberland, golf, and fallow land (meaning land used for nothing). This means that the area that the person in question is asking about is already essentially or literally being used for nothing at all. Before we start undertaking an ecologically-disastrous and fundamentally impossible project, we’d probably figure out ways to use that other land.
But there’s more. The land that is being used is almost entirely being underused. For instance, take the “Cow pasture/range” section of the map; cattle account, by far, for the highest land use of any land use in the country. But the 28.2 million cows in America only need about an acre of land each; meaning that the 124.7 million acres of land they roam is about five times bigger than what they actually need. Most of the other production uses for land in the US (along with rural housing) are similarly sprawling because they can be; land is comparatively cheap, so there’s no real reason to consolidate. If that changes, land prices will rise, and the people and companies holding on to underused land will discover that it makes financial sense to sell and reconfigure their businesses to make more efficient use of the land.
So calm down, Lex Luthor. The problem isn’t that resources are actually scarce. It’s that people at the top have a financial interest in underusing their holdings so that they can keep prices artificially high.
If you already know where a pressurized liquid magma pool is, maybe. Though if it’s not pressurized enough you might just get the release of some weird fumes and vapors. Or the lava might rise a little then settle back to a standard hight rather than errupting.
If you dont have a pool of lava to aim for about the earth mantle, then probably not :( By the time you get deep enough into the earth to hit magma, the hole would collapse due to pressure and pretty much any modern drill would be soft due to the heat.
Heres a discussion about this that happened else where on the interwebs.
But the 28.2 million cows in America only need about an acre of land each; meaning that the 124.7 million acres of land they roam is about five times bigger than what they actually need.
Wouldn’t we want cattle using at least a bit more land than they strictly need? Overgrazing was one of the contributing factors to the Dust Bowl.
Fallow land is used land. It’s land that’s not currently used but its non-usage only happens its efficiency when actually used. It’s like sleeping, but for land, so it’s not free to use
I’m aware of that land use need, but actually most farmers use crop rotation to fulfill that need. You plant a crop that depletes phosphorus one year, and then one that restores it the next year. Obviously that’s oversimplified, but actually letting land lie fallow isn’t as critical anymore in a more diverse agricultural world.
Besides, letting land lie fallow is agricultural use, as you’re restoring the land for later growing seasons. That, iirc, is why the word “idle” is included on the map alongside “fallow;” true fallowing would be included in the agriculture regions.
Fertilizer does provide some help, but cover crops and crop rotation is still necessary. Anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate don’t replenish everything that crops take out of the ground (really just nitrogen); and even if it did, it’s really expensive.
Well, I think the word “barren” is a little bit more ambiguous, but generally “fallow” implies that it could be used, but isn’t; while “barren” means that it couldn’t be used for any productive purpose (specifically any agricultural purpose). In other words, land could be temporarily fallow but used again later, but would likely require remediation or even engineering to make productive if it’s barren.
There are lots of reasons this wouldn’t work, but yours isn’t one of them. Plenty of coastal cities have already done this on a small scale, whole neighborhoods are built on fill- back bay in Boston, marina district in San Francisco just to name a couple. And as a bonus, a good strong earthquake turns it to soup, so every so often you can wipe the slate clean and start over.
Obviously this is a terrible idea, but I’m gonna answer it seriously for the sake of dunking on it.
The amount of work. I mean, just astronomical. That’s 1,650 miles of longitude this dude is talking about filling in; the largest earth-moving project ever was the Panama Canal, and it’s only about 50 miles long. Plus, by comparison, it’s essentially a one-dimensional line! This looks like it’s probably in the ballpark of 500-ish miles from the current shore to the new shore, and two-ish miles from the surface to the floor.
Where would we get the land from? It’s not like there’s a pile just sitting around. I guess we could dredge the Pacific and truck it across to pour into the Atlantic? Take down the Appalachians and the Rockies? Bring down an asteroid into the ocean? None of that would be enough. In fact, nothing I can think of that we have access to could even come close to providing enough dirt (remember, we need 1,650 x 500 x 2 cubic miles of it!), even if we could manage to do it without destroying ecosystems or killing billions of people.
The people who have spent a lot of money buying homes and businesses on the current Eastern seaboard of the United States would probably have something to say about this plan. (Something loud and something very angry.) Besides, it would completely upend the shipping industry, the fishing industry, the tourism industry, and more. This would legitimately destroy multiple national economies, and that’s before you even take into account the ecological disaster.
Sea level rise is already a major problem. So displacing a bunch of water in favor of dirt probably isn’t going to help that too terribly much.
…why? A lot of America is sitting unused or underused. If you were to clump all of the US’s land use into discrete blocks, it would look like this:
The area labeled “LAND?” on the ocean in the OP map is, give or take, the size of the current amount of land owned by the 100 largest landowning families, private family timberland, golf, and fallow land (meaning land used for nothing). This means that the area that the person in question is asking about is already essentially or literally being used for nothing at all. Before we start undertaking an ecologically-disastrous and fundamentally impossible project, we’d probably figure out ways to use that other land.
But there’s more. The land that is being used is almost entirely being underused. For instance, take the “Cow pasture/range” section of the map; cattle account, by far, for the highest land use of any land use in the country. But the 28.2 million cows in America only need about an acre of land each; meaning that the 124.7 million acres of land they roam is about five times bigger than what they actually need. Most of the other production uses for land in the US (along with rural housing) are similarly sprawling because they can be; land is comparatively cheap, so there’s no real reason to consolidate. If that changes, land prices will rise, and the people and companies holding on to underused land will discover that it makes financial sense to sell and reconfigure their businesses to make more efficient use of the land.
So calm down, Lex Luthor. The problem isn’t that resources are actually scarce. It’s that people at the top have a financial interest in underusing their holdings so that they can keep prices artificially high.
Please, all we gotta do is create some volcanoes at strategic locations in the ocean.
The bigger the better. No time at all we’ll have new landmass.
/s
I’m glad someone in this thread is being rational.
I always wondered if I could hypothetically make a volcano by drilling a deep enough hole.
If you already know where a pressurized liquid magma pool is, maybe. Though if it’s not pressurized enough you might just get the release of some weird fumes and vapors. Or the lava might rise a little then settle back to a standard hight rather than errupting.
If you dont have a pool of lava to aim for about the earth mantle, then probably not :( By the time you get deep enough into the earth to hit magma, the hole would collapse due to pressure and pretty much any modern drill would be soft due to the heat.
Heres a discussion about this that happened else where on the interwebs.
Thanks! I really have wondered that for years.
Very elaborate and snarky answer. Love it
Wouldn’t we want cattle using at least a bit more land than they strictly need? Overgrazing was one of the contributing factors to the Dust Bowl.
And it’s coming back!
https://wgntv.com/news/traffic/dust-storm-closes-illinois-interstate/
Don’t worry, dust storms in Illinois are perfectly normal.
My understanding is that they need an acre each specifically to prevent overgrazing, but I could be mistaken there.
Ooh cool map for visualizing land-use in the US, ty 4 sharing!
Fallow land is used land. It’s land that’s not currently used but its non-usage only happens its efficiency when actually used. It’s like sleeping, but for land, so it’s not free to use
I’m aware of that land use need, but actually most farmers use crop rotation to fulfill that need. You plant a crop that depletes phosphorus one year, and then one that restores it the next year. Obviously that’s oversimplified, but actually letting land lie fallow isn’t as critical anymore in a more diverse agricultural world.
Besides, letting land lie fallow is agricultural use, as you’re restoring the land for later growing seasons. That, iirc, is why the word “idle” is included on the map alongside “fallow;” true fallowing would be included in the agriculture regions.
eh… we can solve all that with ammonium nitrate… aka fertilizer
Fertilizer does provide some help, but cover crops and crop rotation is still necessary. Anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate don’t replenish everything that crops take out of the ground (really just nitrogen); and even if it did, it’s really expensive.
you have a good pt. maybe just more poop.
btw is fallow the same as barren?
Well, I think the word “barren” is a little bit more ambiguous, but generally “fallow” implies that it could be used, but isn’t; while “barren” means that it couldn’t be used for any productive purpose (specifically any agricultural purpose). In other words, land could be temporarily fallow but used again later, but would likely require remediation or even engineering to make productive if it’s barren.
I think you are forgetting good ol American gumption!
American gumption sneers at the laws of physics!
kinda crazy that on your map, airports use as much land as railways.
So… life isn’t Minecraft ? 😭
There’s definitely not a
/fillcommand.Too much effort for these stupid “ideas”. Of it were a child, explain it like you did, but I presume it isn’t. So let me explain it: No.
How profoundly arrogant to presume to tell me what to do or not to do with my own time. I’ll use my time how I like, thank you very much.
And it wasn’t wasted time. I learned things, I produced something, I had fun doing it. I may have even educated others.
Get off your high horse. What you did in posting a complaint about the effort I expended was way more useless than what I did.
And it was funny and instructive ! Thanks for it ! 😊
Glad you enjoyed it!
deleted by creator
There are lots of reasons this wouldn’t work, but yours isn’t one of them. Plenty of coastal cities have already done this on a small scale, whole neighborhoods are built on fill- back bay in Boston, marina district in San Francisco just to name a couple. And as a bonus, a good strong earthquake turns it to soup, so every so often you can wipe the slate clean and start over.