Unsurprisingly I agree with your first sentence. But, I do disagree on your second: I, and others, can see the costs, and I am not referring solely to the financial costs:
It absolutely means risk of war in the Balkans, Greece/Turkey, N Africa.
Elimination of most of the tourist income on the Med coasts
Endangerment of the biodiversity and ecological balance of the sea
Cause for droughts/flooding seen with other dams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_Dam
Massive population dislocation in the region of tens of millions
I can go on but the point is what would the benefit need to be to consider this project as net positive?
But I also think the costs are bigger.
The dutch I thought have done quite well with lots of land reclaimed from the sea. Why does it work for them, but not here?
Neither of us have any idea, and listing the first thing that comes to our head hardly gets us closer.
So, could we focus on the fact that this was designed by a man who never lived in the region he wanted to terraform? I have no business advising German people how to change their countryside and that goes the other way too.
I don't really care about a cost-benefit analysis, either. This is just an uncalled for intervention that, er, that nobody called for.
You mean, like what the people who live in the Mediterrannean actually think of this plan?
But, there is no realistic prospect to initiate this project unless those very people agree to it. So what is the point of discussing cost-benefit analyses, if that agreement is almost guaranteed to not be forthcoming?
I mean, it's not even a rights issue. If the people who live in the Mediterrannean don't want it terraformed, then it's not getting terraformed. Realistically speaking.
Furthermore, if you look at my comments, you will see that I don't actually care about the plan, and I don't have a position on whether the costs of the plan outweigh the benefits. The only point I am making is that the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis cannot be reliably guessed by appealing to one's intrinsic wisdom and listing some possible negative consequences in a grave voice.
I don't have any interest in discussing this further with you.
I think you're saying I butted in to the conversation you were having with the other poster. If so, that's very surprising, given the venue.
Anyway, yes, I understand that the discussion is "purely academic". But that doesn't change the fact that the plan is unrealistic. Why is that not of "purely academic" interest?