My heart aches for the people of the Gulf Coast whose lives have been radically altered by Hurricane Katrina. However, as I read news stories about the event, one statement in many different articles keeps catching my eye. People who stayed to live out the hurricane say that the hurricane passed, things seemed like they would be all right, but then the levees broke and the worst devastation came.

The worst devastation came not from nature, not from the storm, but from man's interference with the natural order of things, from our desire to make homes and cities in places that they have no business being. We have the scientific knowledge to do things like cloning, but the moral implications are tremendous. We have the knowledge of how to make areas best suited for low-density living accommodate large urban and suburban communities, but we need to consider the not only the environmental but also the moral implications. Is it right to invest millions or billions of dollars of construction, infrastructure and consumer goods in an area that is routinely devastated by nature? If the areas didn't have a false sense of security from the leevees, would there be the large cities and urban environments that suffer greater devastation from the environment (devastation in the loss of life as well as loss of property and infrastructure that will need to be rebuilt)?

Part of me feels cruel for voicing these thoughts. I do not blame these people for their suffering. I do believe that the army corp of engineers felt it was doing good with the levee system and the work they did over the last century restucturing the Mississippi River (that is a subject that fascinates and horrifies me). However what are the long term ramifications? Is it right for us to attempt to control our environment to a minute degree, then be surprised and horrified when nature throws off these shackles?