Artificial intervention in natural rivers could cause Ecological Environment damage and alter river characteristics, creating unforeseeable disasters.
There had indeed been real cases of this, but Ernst did not see it that way. It was a matter of weighing the trade-offs. If the benefits gained through artificial intervention outweighed the drawbacks, then the East African government had to do it.
Under natural conditions, influenced by the Coriolis force, rivers always curved. Yet their curvature would not continue increasing indefinitely. Once the bends reached a certain extent, the river flow slowed and Silt and Sand easily accumulated. So what changes would occur if free meanders were artificially cut straight?
Because straightened river channels had no buffer, floods could easily occur. Straightening bends reduced the drainage area, thereby reducing the utilization rate of river water. Places that had originally drunk surface water and used it for irrigation would have no choice but to use groundwater. The reduced drainage area also reduced the downward seepage of river water, lowering the soil's water retention and causing water shortages in many places, greatly affecting the survival of animals, plants, and humans.
Second, this could easily promote eutrophication in bodies of water. Channelization of riverbeds was often accompanied by falling water tables, causing widespread declines in wetland plants in the natural environment. Afterwards, natural environments associated with the river along its banks gradually disappeared as well; for instance, forests on alluvial soil evolved into hardwood forests. Once natural meanders were artificially straightened, they would still gradually turn back into meanders.
Ernst very much agreed with this twenty-first-century line of thought, but these problems were not without solutions. It was like the Daoist advocacy of "governing by inaction." Ordinary people found it quite reasonable, yet some only fixated on the two words "inaction." If one truly chose